- About us
- Approved courses
- Concerns & complaints
- SignVideo VRS
19th May 2020
|Professional Discipline||Sign Language Interpreter|
|Date Complaint Received||19.05.2020|
|Date Complaint Closed||19.01.2021|
|Origin of Complaint||Registered Sign Language Interpreter|
|Registered or Trainee||Registered|
|Nature of Complaint||Complainant raised concerns around Registrants conduct during a co-working assignment on 13.05.2020. It was alleged that the Registrant arrived late without any introductions, was unpleasant, forceful, dismissive, aggressive and intimidating - behaviour that was picked up by the Service User present (Service User did provide a Witness Statement). It was alleged the Registrants positioning and use of full BSL during the assignment was intrusive and that the Service User was left confused by the Registrant after indicating a preference for the use of SSE. It was alleged the Registrant caused delays due to checking of a laptop and interrupted another professional present. The Complainant felt the Registrant had been disrespectful and unjustly hostile during the assignment, when it was alleged the Registrant aggressively told the Complainant to "stop". It was also alleged the Registrant kept checking her watch during the assignment.|
|Summary||Investigation conducted into potential breach of Sections 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 6.1 and 7.3 of NRCPD's Code of Conduct.
Numerous witness statements and supporting documents were submitted by and obtained from both the Complainant and the Registrant as part of the investigation.
Case Examiners decided based on the evidence provided, that there was a realistic prospect of finding an impairment of fitness to practice in relation to Sections 1.1 and 6.1 of the Code of Conduct. Their reasoning behind this decision was based on the evidence including the Service Users' statement, and also the evidence that the de-brief and disagreements occurred in public, in particular in the presence of the Service User.
The Case Examiners decided based on the evidence provided that there was not a realistic prospect of finding an impairment of fitness to practice in relation to Sections 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 7.3. Their reasoning for this decision related to the diligence and preparation undertaken by the Registrant prior to the assignment, the Registrants experience and skill set, the Registrants engagement in the Complaints Process as well as their demonstration of reflective practice after the assignment.
Case Examiners decided that it was not in the public interest to refer the case to a Complaints Committee and as an alternative decided that the best course of action was to offer the Registrant advice and suggested a discussion within supervision. The recommendation was for the supervision to focus on ensuring that all service users (Deaf and hearing) are shown equal respect and that they are made aware of the reasons for professional decisions being made. It was recommended that any de-brief post assignment should take place in private and not in public, and especially when there has been some disagreement between colleagues.
The Case Examiners decision was accepted by the Registrant, and the case was therefore closed by NRCPD.