It just means that they cannot produce the recording as evidence.
If they can evidence the agreement in other ways - eg their notes - then they can rely on that.
It might well be that they cannot prove the minutia of the contract but it is not right to say that it is entirely unenforceable.
In any event though, there must be scope for cancellation at some point so you can bring the repeats to an end.
Not many suppliers do record conversations. People like insurance companies do but that is specific to their industry.
the fact is that I signed agreements each time they placed the advert . I must have been asleep at the time because I was unaware that I had agreed on the initial phone call to anything more than a one-off advert (my fault really) I have reported it to Action Fraud
If they can show that there was a phone call and their records detail an agreement then that probably would be enough.
It is only the civil standard of proof.
You can undermine it by pointing to the fact that normal practice is to sign a contract.
it is at an end - I just wondered if there was any chance of redress as there was no record of the initial conversation ( someone told me that there had to be a record)
prbably too expensive to take to court??
It might not be cost effective for them to sue.
There doesn't have to be a record though.
A record is just a piece of evidence.
They would be better with a record but they can rely on other evidence.
for the most part companies don't sue though.
so in a nutshell there is no legal requirement for a supplier to have a record of the initial phone call that resulted in supplying goods or services ?
That is not unlawful.
thanks for a
the full answer
I shall not pursue it but just put it down to experience
I shall sign off now