SHOULD I STAY OPEN?

**Koebelwagen** · 03-02-2017, 12:08

Originally Posted by A-R

Now would be a good time to suggest to the NRCS inspectors to bill the person who requested the inspection.

This,exactly.

Once they have to start paying the complaints will cease.

**Willie Barnard** · 03-02-2017, 12:27

A question: Who pays for these inspections? They don't really come cheap AFAIK.

Range owner pays, however, we are invoiced half-yearly - about R1100 every six months. We are inspected every six months as well. The cost stays the same irrespective of how many inspections are done.

It used to be much more expensive, around R5500 annually, and then the fees were lowered as a direct result of negotiations between Andre Pretorius (ITA) and NRCS.

**Paul** · 03-02-2017, 12:37

Originally Posted by Shigawagga

Fortunately if NRCS initiates the inspection due to a complaint, they do it for free.

Nope! WE ALL pay for this nuisance complaint.

Maybe involve the Public Protector?

**wave.jaco** · 03-02-2017, 13:48

Originally Posted by Shigawagga

This is the problem. I have on record (voice recordings of phone calls and a meetings with them) where I have repeatedly asked them what it is they want exactly, upon which they beat around the bush and respond "we don't know, but the noise & existence of the range is offensive"..

Just watch out for potential trouble if you recorded them without them knowing that you did. I may be wrong, but I recall some time ago that someone got in big trouble for exactly that...

**Paul** · 03-02-2017, 14:20

Originally Posted by wave.jaco

Just watch out for potential trouble if you recorded them without them knowing that you did. I may be wrong, but I recall some time ago that someone got in big trouble for exactly that...

Nope. Not in SA. If you are party to the conversation you may record to your heart's delight.

**wave.jaco** · 03-02-2017, 14:26

Originally Posted by Paul

Nope. Not in SA. If you are party to the conversation you may record to your heart's delight.

Thanks for the clarification! Is there perhaps a source you can refer me to to prove this to someone else that is still convinced otherwise?

**Skaaphaas** · 03-02-2017, 14:36

Originally Posted by wave.jaco

Thanks for the clarification! Is there perhaps a source you can refer me to to prove this to someone else that is still convinced otherwise?

RICA. Section 4.

**Paul** · 03-02-2017, 14:39

Originally Posted by Skaaphaas

RICA. Section 4.

Monitoring exceptions

RICA provides that all forms of monitoring and interception of communications are unlawful unless the monitoring and interception takes place under one of the recognized exceptions in RICA. There are several exceptions to the general rule on the prohibition on intercepting communications, three of which apply to monitoring in the workplace:

Party to a communication: Section 4 of the RICA allows a party to a communication to monitor and intercept the communication if he/she is a party to the communication (for example, where the participants in a meeting consent to the meeting being recorded). This exception also applies where the interceptor is acting with the consent of one of the parties to the communication.

**pigeonpie** · 03-02-2017, 14:40

Interception of communication by party to communication

4.(1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer, may intercept any communication if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence.

(2) Any law enforcement officer may intercept any communication if he or she is—

(a) a party to the communication; and
(b) satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of a communication of another party to the communication is necessary on a ground referred to in section 16(5)(a),

unless such communication is intercepted by such law enforcement officer for purposes of committing an offence.

Source: http://www.internet.org.za/ricpci.ht...ocommunication

**wave.jaco** · 03-02-2017, 15:01

Thanks Skaaphaas, Paul & pigeonpie.

I have read the link that pigeonpie posted and just want to clarify something for myself - Does "other acquisition" (from the definition of "intercept" on that page) include "recording" as means of "intercepting" communication of which you are a party? In other words, "recording" a conversation (of which you are a party) falls under the term "intercept", thus making it totally legal for you to record the conversation?

Also, does section 5 thus refer to communication of which you are NOT a party of (for which you do require permission from one of the communicating parties)?