Anonymous Shopping: Apology Number Two

Submitted by ‘Emma Biel’, the Mystery Shopper who posted the original post entitled: ‘Anonymous Shopping: How Much Interpreting Agencies Really Charge’.

It seems I have another apology to make. I received a letter at 4:12pm on the 15th of August 2012. The letter was from the legal firm representing appa and they have requested that the inaccuracies in the original blog be corrected so as not to further cause injury to reputation. The remedy for libel is to modify the blog to correct all inaccuracies.

With respect to the fee quoted, which was £50 per hour for an RSLI and £45 per hour for a CSW (2 hour minimum charge) –they would like it known that this was for an ad hoc booking and that appa have a “more flexible cost structure…”. Regular clients are charged at a lower rate.

On the blog, I failed to mention that appa offer a 10% discount to new clients. Therefore the cost for that assignment would have in fact been £45 for an RSLI and £40.50 for a CSW. Not £50 and £45 as was originally stated. I am sorry for the omission.

I also did not state that in respect of travel, appa do not charge VAT. Again, I am sorry. Having looked again at the email chain I can see nothing that relates to travel and VAT so can only excuse my ignorance based on the fact that it wasn’t mentioned.

In the original blog I claimed that appa offered me a level 4 CSW. This was based on the information provided below:

“Has the deaf person asked you for a prefer level of BSL signer?

For a qualified interpreter they have level 6 in BSL

For a communicator they have level 3 or level 4.

There are various levels and it’s always good to ask the deaf client there preferred level of communication support they require. If your unable to get that information I would recommend CSW BSL level 4 but if its for a interview then I would recommend the above level”

I understood “the above level” to mean CSW level 4, but the inference I have taken from the solicitors’ letter is that they actually meant level 6. So to clarify, in the absence of information regarding a deaf person’s preference they would recommend a CSW who has level 4 BSL. But for an interview they would recommend someone who has level 6 BSL.

I mentioned on the initial blog that appa “Offered to help me apply to ATW to cover costs – then their fee becomes all inclusive” They would like it clarified that this is a free service in which they also process all of the paperwork.

I also need to apologise for some further ambiguity. I stated that appa “Offered me an interpreter for the afternoon even though I had requested the morning”, this was based on the information below:

“I do have an interpreter available for next Tuesday 14th august for 4pm

Please let me know if this is suitable for you.”

They later emailed to say “if you would like us to process this request for the morning we can.”

Because they had previously offered an interpreter for the afternoon I was confused and so did not respond. I apologise. I should have taken the time to clarify the information.

And finally, they would like it known that they are in fact ‘appa’ and not ‘Appa’ as I had previously stated.

These amendments have now been made to the original post.

Anonymous Shopping: How Much Interpreting Agencies Really Charge

Submitted Anonymously

I decided a few weeks ago that what the profession needed was a bit of mystery shopping, so I contacted all the agencies on the list via email and requested a ‘signer’ for a small business conducting a recruitment interview for an apprentice, one of which was deaf. We were flexible on times, but needed the ‘signer’ for an hour in the morning. After getting a response I sent an email back with a confused query about qualifications and registration. You can see the responses for yourselves. All discussions took place via email and I have kept the responses should anyone wish to challenge the information provided. My personal opinion is that as a general rule, interpreter led agencies come out on top.

AGENCY	QUOTE	NOTES
Aditus	£120 + travel + £30 admin fee	Claimed to only use fully qualified and registered interpreters
		Couldn’t provide anyone in house for the time requested, offered to find an alternative from their databases
		Included full terms and conditions
		Explained the registration process clearly.
Action on Hearing Loss	£168 + travel	Claimed all interpreters used were qualified and registered
	(3 hr minimum)
appa	RSLI – £50 per hour, CSW £45 per hour	Offered to help me apply to ATW to cover costs – then their fee becomes all inclusive, they offer a free service to deal with AtW paperwork
	First booking receives a 10% discount so charges would be Interpreter £45 per hour, CSW £40.50. No VAT added on travel.	Explained the difference between interpreter and CSW as interpreter has level 6 BSL and CSW level 3 or 4, Recommended for an interview someone with level 6 BSL should be used
	(2 hr minimum)	Offered me an interpreter for the afternoon initially though I had requested the morning then later stated they had someone available
Applied Language Solutions	Unknown	Emailed. No response.
Bee Communications	£250 + VAT + travel	Offered advice on interviewing a deaf person
		Try to offer fully qualified (level 5) called MRSLI
		Said I probably didn’t need that level and could book a cheaper trainee
		Later offered someone fully qualified and to lower the fee to £240 inclusive
Big Word	£50 (3 hour minimum)	Claimed that registered and qualified signers were only needed for ‘official representation’ such as courts, but not for job interviews
	Total cost = £150 + VAT + travel time + expenses	Offered to locate an interpreter local to me so as to save on travel costs
BSL Beam	N/A	Stated straight away that they were not an agency, but explained their position in the market
		Offered some reputable specialist agencies local to the area
		Offered a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the NRCPD registration process
		Explained the risks of using someone unqualified
		Provided an explanation of Access to Work
BSL Link4Comm	£136.50 + travel	Claim to only use experienced NRCPD registered interpreters
	(3 hr minimum)	Mentioned equality legislation and the impact of using unqualified people
		Mentioned code of conduct
City Lit (Sign Here)	Unknown	Transparent – said they didn’t have anyone available until Sept
		Redirected me to the NRCPD website – told me how to book direct to save money
		Gave me an indication of industry standard fees to expect and pointed me towards information on working with an interpreter
		Fully explained what registration and qualification meant – only organisation to correct my use of the term ‘signer’ and explain the difference
		Outlined the legal ramifications of using a ‘signer’
Clarion	£159 + travel + VAT	Said “don’t necessarily need a fully qualified interpreter but you would want minimum level 3.”
	(3 hr minimum)	I asked if level 3 was enough, the response was that it depends
Codex Global	Unknown	Refused to quote without full information and details
Cohearentvision	N/A	No one available – pointed me towards the London Interpreters website
Communication ID	£125 + VAT	Explained the difference between RSLI and unqualified.
		Claim to only use RSLI
		Mentioned ASLI and NRCPD
Deaf Agency	One off fee of £42 (first time customer)	Said “We like to keep our costs down and try to be a flexible as possible”
	Usually £126 + travel + VAT	Claim all staff are registered
Deaf Direct	Unknown	Recommended booking an agency locally and offered some contact details
		Mentioned NRCPD and recommended booking someone fully qualified, checking registration status and then explained why this was important
		Told us we could save money by booking an interpreter directly from the NRCPD website
		Explained ATW and provided a link to the website
Deaf Positives	£145 + VAT + travel	Claimed that a registered interpreter was required but not essential
		Clarified what RSLI meant
		Said “The other type of sign language interpreter is Registered Trainee Interpreter and they are trainees from approx level 1 to level 3.”
Deaf Umbrella	£143.14 inclusive of travel and VAT	Told me that MRSLI’s were more expensive
	(2 hr minimum)	Said ” Unless your candidate has specifically requested a fully qualified Interpreter, a lower level of sign support would be completely appropriate. “
		MRSLI did not need to be booked unless client specifically requested one, but they take weeks to book in advance
		They had a member of staff available to interpret
		Suggested ATW as a way of covering the cost of interpreting and a member of staff could help
Diversus	£162 + VAT + travel	Pushy – kept requesting my full details and a confirmation
		Sourced an interpreter before I’d even confirmed I wanted one
Essex Interpreting	£120 + travel + VAT	Claim to use only registered interpreters. Mostly qualified, some JTI
Femaura	Unknown	Said “Level 6 is full qualified”
		Only really wanted to talk over the phone
Interpreting Matters	£170 + VAT	Claim to only use registered interpreters
		Full explanation of NRCPD registration process
	Price dependent on interpreter fee	Explained ATW
		Explained the ramifications of using unqualified people
Islington Council	N/A	Explained that they only cover council bookings in Islington
		Recommended booking a registered interpreter
		Mentioned ASLI
		Offered a guide for industry standard freelance fees
Just Communication	£210 + VAT	Claim to “only use qualified registered interpreters”
K-International	£250 + VAT
Language Empire	£175 + travel + VAT	Said “Interpreters with a Level 4 is the minimum qualification we use…”
	(3 hr minimum charge)	Fees are for ‘Special Disability Interpreting’ – Charges are the same for CSW’s and Interpreters, ‘Finger Spelling’, ‘Deaf Blind Manual’ & ‘Deaf Blind Hands On’ & ‘Lipreaders’
Language is Everything	Wouldn’t state their charges	Claim to use qualified & registered interpreters
	Stated interpreter industry standard charges as:	Clear about the legal ramifications of using someone unqualified – Mentioned DDA
	£90-£130 + travel	Referred me to ASLI
Language Line	N/A	Outsource all bookings to Clarion
Lexicon Sign Stream	Unknown	Explained the qualification and registration process in detail
		Explained minimum charges and industry standard fees
		Offered to source a local interpreter
Merrill Corporation	£260 + VAT + travel	Claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
		Mentioned NRCPD and safeguarding and standards
		Provided an attachment outlining the roles of BSL interpreters, STTR & Lipspeakers (NRCPD registered) – all comprehensive and accurate
MLIS	Unknown	Claim to only use qualified translators and never trainees
		Very non committal until had all of my details
Neal Communication (NCA)	£150 + travel + VAT	Asked about qualification levels but preferred to speak over the phone so no clear response
	(3 hr minimum)
Newham Language Shop	£120 + VAT	Claim to only use qualified interpreters and do not ever use unqualified interpreters
		Offered to email some advice on how to work with a “signer”
Onestop Agency	£50 per hr, 3 hr min + travel	Claim to only use fully qualified interpreters or trainee interpreters
	Total £150 + travel	Recommend not using level 3 NVQ signers and only use those on the register
		Say their charges are based on interpreter 3 hour minimum charges
		Offered a brief explanation of using a BSL interpreter
Pearl Linguistics	£70 per hour	Claim “we have access to more BSL interpreters than any other language agency”
	(3 hr minimum)	Fully explained the difference between a level 3 signer and what it means to be fully qualified and registered
	Total £210 + travel + VAT	Said “As to your situation, I believe you should be fine with a “level 3”.
Positive Signs	Initially free – money accessed through government scheme	Claimed to only ever use qualified or experienced personnel
	Just said “variable”, has since disclosed fees as £37 RSLI per hour, CSW £32 per hour inclusive of travel + admin fee	Free’ interpreters available through apprenticeship scheme, funded using public funds
Prestige	£289 + VAT	Said all their interpreters were BRCPD registered (could have been a typo) and explained that all people registered had to submit evidence of qualifications
		Mentioned the code of conduct that interpreters were expected to follow
		Mentioned the three hour industry standard minimum fee and their charges reflected that
Quick Lingo	£250 + VAT	When quote was challenged, the response was “we charge for the service which includes travel time, travel expenses, plus minimum interpreting time charge.”
		Said “Level 3 is sufficient for this assignment and we can provide at least that.”
RAD	£130 (2 hour minimum), £47ph thereafter, + travel, no VAT charged	Stated full charges, on charge sheet clearly explained that only NRCPD registered interpreters were used.
Remark!	£120 + £10 travel + VAT	Very pushy, tried to sell me a BSL course
		Offered a RSLI
		Said “Costings for a qualified interpreter can be very expensive as there are not many qualified interpreters out there “
		Sold themselves as deaf led and community focused. Profits fund activities in the deaf community.
		Said they could only find an interpreter (in house) for the afternoon and no interpreters were available for the morning; did not offer to source a freelancer
		I had requested a morning booking. Said short notice meant no other interpreters were available unless I wanted to change the date
Rosetta Translation	£75 per hour	No response when I enquired about qualifications
	(3 hr minimum)
	Half Day £300. + travel + VAT
Sign Language Direct	£250 + VAT (3 hr minimum)	Said “Since this regards an interview, the 3rd level shall be fine.” – in response to my query about qualifications
	Half Day £300 / Full Day £450 (1 interpreter)	Said that fully qualified interpreters were only ‘obligitory’ for police and social services
	Half Day £600 / Full Day £900 (2 interpreters)
Sign Solutions	£145 + travel + VAT	Checked interpreter availability and quoted based on the interpreter fee – told me where the interpreter was travelling from
		Offered to negotiate travel expenses
Signing Works	£135 + VAT + expenses	Explained industry standard booking half day or full day
		Bristol based – offered a comparative fee.
		Claim to only use qualified interpreters for job interviews
		Advised about ATW
		Explained the complexity of BSL levels and why it was specialist and required some who was qualified
Signs In Vision	£35 per hr + travel + £15 admin fee	Mentioned NRCPD & ASLI & recommended checking for badges
	(3 hr minimum)	Explained the NRCPD registration included CRB, insurance and qualification
	Total £120 + travel	Included a Deaf Awareness document
		Included T&C with explanation of NRCPD & ASLI at the top
Silent Sounds	£144 + travel	Recommended a Trainee Interpreter for the interview
		Highlighted the time involved with training
SL-I-D	£120 including travel	Mentioned ATW and reclaiming costs
	(Half day minimum)	NRCPD registered
		Explained the ramifications of using someone unqualified
SLBF	Unknown	Emailed twice. No response.
Surrey Council	£150 + travel + VAT	Claims to only use registered interpreters
(First Point)	(3 hr minimum)
Terp Tree	£170 + travel + VAT	Explained industry 3 hour minimums
	(3 hr minimum)	Claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
		Follow up email sent with client recommendations
	(Will waive fee if unhappy with service)	Mentioned ATW
The Sign Language Bank	Unknown	Emailed twice. No response.
Today Translations		Said it can be fine for some signers to “freely pass on the meaning of spoken langauge” but as a general rule they won’t risk it.
		Added that “Job interviews are stressful for everyone. If you add hearing problems on top of that…you can imagine how wrong it can go!”
		Said “Most of sign interpreters grew up in a household were one or both of the parents were deaf”
		Explained that becoming a sign langauge interpreter requires study and practise
Total Communication	£200 including VAT and travel	Told me the interpreter quote was for fully qualified. After I asked about level, I was told that they were “Level 6 , Trainee Interpreter. So it is above Level 3″
Ubiquis	£300 + VAT + travel	Claimed to only use fully qualified and experienced interpreters
		Offered information about qualifications and registration
		Stated that unqualified interpreters would charge less
		Offered a local alternative to their company
UK Language Solutions	£60 per hour + £30 per hour travel	Said “A level 3 qualified interpreter may be acceptable for some interpreting assignments”
	(2 hr minimum)	But claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
Veritas Language Solutions	£164.60 + £32 VAT	Aimed to source an interpreter close to the booking to save on travel
		Said the interpreter had a two hour minimum charge, but would not state whether they were qualified even though I specifically asked
Wolfestone	£75 + VAT	Requested information about qualifications but received no response
	Additional hours £50 per hour

BBC: See Hear Interpreting Special

In the face of growing threat to the Sign Language Interpreting profession in the UK and the lack of access Deaf people are experiencing in the light of budget cuts, the BBC’s Deaf community programme, See Hear, has produced a special about Sign Language interpreting. Since 2010 the interpreting profession in the UK has been threatened with changing market forces, BSL agencies being squeezed out of that market and the subsequent loss of expertise. The changes have now filtered through to the rest of the UK with more devastating effects.

The programme features, in no particular order, an interview with me as owner of this blog; Kate Furby, an interpreter based in London; ASLI representatives: National Chair, Sarah Haynes and Working Group Chair, Bibi Lacey-Davidson; Paul Parsons from the NRCPD explaining interpreter registration and the complaints process; interpreting students from Wolverhampton University who are concerned about rising debts and whether they will be able to find work once they graduate; Terry Riley who is Chair of the British Deaf Association and feedback directly from the Deaf community talking about what they require from interpreters and their views on standards of interpreters.

Much of the focus is on a decrease in the standards of interpreters, the effect of one stop shop contracts with spoken language agencies and how community interpreting and Deaf access is in jeopardy by agencies’ use of unregistered, untrained signers.

The programme was first aired on Wednesday 23rd May on BBC2 at 1pm. It is available on the BBC’s iplayer until the 27th June 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01j8chn/See_Hear_Series_32_Episode_8/

If you have any comments about the programme that you would like to share here please leave a comment on this blogpost. The effects of outsourcing have been affecting Deaf people’s access for over two years and interpreters are starting to leave the profession as some can not earn an income. The subsequent affects could make access even less likely. This is certainly an issue we all need to talk about more.

Inequality before the Law? It’s Reality

A Sign Language Interpreter has submitted, anonymously, this story for you all to read. Comment is made afterwards:

‘An interpreter was warned to attend court c/o ALS and its preferred supplier of Sign Language Interpreters.  The interpreter had little experience of court work generally and no knowledge of the defendant, no knowledge of the indictment and no knowledge of the type or stage in proceedings.  The booking had been made a mere two days earlier by the agency’s assessment that it was ‘straight forward, quick and well within the interpreters’ capability’.

The interpreter had been informed that a relay interpreter would attend also to facilitate communications.  They did not know the relay interpreter, had never worked with them before and actually had no idea why in fact a relay interpreter was required for the case…

The relay interpreter arrived not only late but also dressed most inappropriately for a court case.  They too had no idea of the indictment, defendant, stage of proceedings etc.  The relay interpreter immediately declared that they had never worked in a court before.  The defence lawyer had immediate and very serious concerns about the communication provision for their client.  Representations were made immediately to the court.  Meanwhile, as it is a small community, it was quickly discovered that the relay interpreter had a fairly substantial court career with a number of both recent and historic criminal convictions – with even further cases pending!

The relay interpreter admitted, to the hearing interpreter, that there were many reasons why they must not and should not work in court or other legal settings.  The relay interpreter stated it had ‘been a mistake’ to accept the job from the agency, but that no CRB clearance had been requested and no proof of experience had been required.  The relay interpreter, instead of reporting to the usher, decided to leave the building with no explanation to the court whatsoever.

The hearing interpreter entered the courtroom and explained to the judge that they had no choice but to withdraw from the assignment.  The withdrawal was put on the following grounds that: 1. they had been falsely warned to the assignment; 2. they were unable to function effectively alone; 3. they would not be able to perform the task satisfactorily unto the language need and complexity of the case and 4. that it would put justice in too greater jeopardy.  The interpreter further disclosed to the court the full details of the concerns pertaining to the equally inappropriate and dangerous relay interpreter.

The judge thanked the interpreter for their honesty and integrity.   They made a note of the necessary details to be referred to the court presiders regarding the enormous danger that the defendant had faced unto ALS and its’ preferred supplier.’

Some extrapolation from the above:

- Readers of this blog, be it sign language interpreters or users of services, may not fully understand the reality of outsourcing and the resulting situation we are faced with. This is an additional, and altogether more serious, example to the ones on the previous post.

- Many booking co-ordinators, especially ones at less than reputable agencies, can not necessarily be relied upon to have specialist knowledge.

- Interpreters should accept assignments for which they are prepared, skilled, ready… As the interpreter, the buck stops with you.

- Court or Police work is not glamourous and does not afford an interpreter extra status or kudos. Your work could be held up to account, may be examined by an expert witness, investigated by defence teams and you could find yourself in a situation where you are being called as a witness.

- It is highly likely that a three hour training course will not be sufficient to ensure you are fully competent to work in a court. Even if it contains in the title the word ‘Masterclass’. Try some shadowing first. And a mentor. Or better still don’t work for the company that everyone loves, with good reason, to hate.

If you are witness to anything, wish to write a guest blog post or wish to send something in for further comment please email to interpreteranon@gmail.com.

A big thank you to our anonymous poster.

Remaining Anonymous…for Now

There has been a spate of enquiries, mutterings and one dig on an e-group as to why this blog should be anonymous.

Time to clarify the matter for those whom it sits uncomfortably with. Even though one would think it was obvious to anyone who read the first comment on the last post: Media Reports Chaos: Interpreters, Make Your Stand.

Predictably, a threat of defamation was made by ALS, which was promptly followed by support and comments from interpreters. Thank you. They called for ALS to provide evidence of their self-proclaimed exhaustive list of trained and assessed interpreters. There have been reports of the sheer amount of no-shows where requests by the courts for interpreters have remained unfilled. Other reports have filtered through of speakers of other languages turning up then trying but failing to interpret the more obvious legal jargon any court interpreter must understand.

Secondly, there is an e-group many interpreters subscribe too where a poster commented on the anonymous nature of this blog, inadvertently highlighting the other main reason for posting incognito. That particular e-group is renown for its negativity, back-biting and occasional venom. The real issues often get lost in a tide of personalities and politics with rants about perceived injustices and ‘what has happened’.

Identities will no doubt be revealed in the future, perhaps keeping the option for others to post anonymously. In the meantime it is a useful way to be able to post with the occasional in-fighting which is depressing to say the least, pointless at best. As a profession we all essentially want the same things:

• To legally protect the profession of interpreting.
• To maintain the standards we have strived for and to keep raising the bar.
• To ensure we strive for professional development, individually and collectively.
• To protect access for the Deaf/* communities we serve (*insert your language/nationality or linguistic group here if you are a spoken language colleague).
• To protect our livelihood and to enable us to go on working in the profession we love.

Sometimes it is important to find out why people care about ‘what has happened’, whatever that is for the individual. It may help foster that much needed sense of unity or be something that helps the rest of the profession.

Sometimes, it is nothing more than hollow reasoning to justify bad behaviour towards others or opinions that are completely out of date. If ‘what has happened’ is something that could be fixed or in some way improved for others, please approach someone and talk about it, albeit in a constructive way. If ‘it’ happened more than a year or two ago, was on a larger scale or is not something anyone can remedy now, for your own sanity, the sake of others and the unity of the profession as a whole: move on, the rest of us did.