- About us
- Approved courses
- Concerns & complaints
- SignVideo VRS
9th Aug 2019
|Professional Discipline||Sign Language Interpreter|
|Date Complaint Received||09.08.2019|
|Date Complaint Closed||20.11.2019|
|Origin of Complaint||Service user|
|Registered or Trainee||Registrant|
|Nature of Complaint||Complainant raised concerns around the Registrants' conduct and performance during a hospital appointment.
It was alleged that the Complainant had informed the Booking Agency used for the booking that they did not wish to have this Registrant during assignments, but that the Registrant accepted this booking despite this. Complainant alleges they could not follow the Registrant, that the Registrant left the Complainant without communication support for a period of time, that the Registrant was asking personal questions and the Registrant could not follow the Complainants signs. Complainant also stated that the Registrants' hair covers their face, and that the Registrant relies on English, not BSL.
|Summary||Investigation conducted into potential breach of Section 1.1, 3.1 and 6.1 of NRCPD's Code of Conduct.|
|Outcome||Case Examiners decided based on the evidence provided, that there was a realistic prospect of finding an impairment of fitness to practice, but that it was not in the public interest to refer the case to a Complaints Committee.
The Case Examiners gave the following advice to the Registrant:
1. The Registrant should have stayed with the Complainant at all times. Any interpreter booked for a client should stay with that client, unless asked otherwise by the client. An interpreter's responsibility is to the client they have been booked for. The Case Examiner's advice to the Registrant in future, is that if they are unsure as to what they should do and whether they should leave the client at any time, the Registrant should ask the client. It is up to the client to make the decision.
2. With regards to the Agency, the Agency should respect the Complainant's decision to not want future bookings with this Registrant, and ensure this Registrant is not booked for the Complainant. However, the Case Examiners noted that the Registrant was booked because the original interpreter for the assignment was not available, and this is not the Registrant's fault.
3. There is not enough evidence to pursue the complaint with regards to the Registrant's hair being in front of their face, or their signing skills.