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 | ||
oh yes ……so the anonymous mystery shopper called “Emma Biel” playing ignorant… trying to put words over to us in an e mail ( there was no phone conversation ) such as … another agency offered to do the booking for £500.00 I must be in the wrong job she said …..yeah right…not very professional and certainly not too clever, whats wrong with the list as it is ? lets see who is brave enough to do a mystery shop around amongst freelancers varying prices for what they are really worth…. why do interpreters feel they need to do a mystery shop on agencies is beyond my thinking. This list looks fairly okay to me, I can live with it. at least some of us can ensure Deaf people are being matched up with the best terps and getting a quality service at the same time 🙂 perhaps terps have too much ” time on their hands” to do mystery shops geddit ?
Personally, I think ‘mystery shoppers’ are a great idea for all industries and I found this very interesting. Not so much the price, as you appear to have focussed upon, but the varying degree of professionalism and ability to understand the client requirements. I have paid more, in other industries to this, just because others were either slow at communicating or failed to understand the requirements properly.
Sally – you said “why do interpreters feel they need to do a mystery shop on agencies is beyond my thinking”.
Perhaps because most interpreters charge a maximum of £250 per day and agencies are charging much, much more than this?!
I think all interpreters would be happy to disclose their fees – in fact you can see one website where they do just that. http://london-bsl-interpreters.info/interpreters/
(I am not on here just so you know but I rarely also go over £240 per day).
Agencies are constantly shady about how much they are giving to the interpreter and how much they are taking for themselves- they don’t even disclose this to the Deaf client and it’s their own budget to be spent- not the agencies!
Leaving aside the way in which the mystery shopping exercise was conducted (and it is a real pity if the tactics described were in fact used) I find it incredibly depressing that the message from a number of companies is ‘level 3 is sufficient’. It is indicative of the increasing erosion of standards in the profession, particularly in the ‘Access to Work’ field. It is sad that ‘interpreting agencies’ are happy to collude with this process and I struggle to understand their justification in allowing people with no interpreter training to work in this field. Shame on all of them.
I agree that mystery shopping is a good way to identify standards of quality. I’m for it. Can this “Emma Biel” (as named in Sally’s response) contact me via NCA to give me further feedback on how we did? We’d like to know if there’s anything we can work on, improve upon. The information given above is limited of course, hence this request!
Hi Paul Going on from there .. I would be happy to forward you e mails from / to “Emma Biel” so that you can see how vague and amateur the original request was – I knew it was a mystery shopper immediately since the e mail had clues, though I thought it might be linked to our Inclusive Apprenticeships campaign – see http://www.deafapprentice.com and so we played their game too ! Its high time for agencies to support each other, even if terps dont like us 🙂
Hi Sally,
The important points of this exercise are to show that agencies are using level 3’s for important assignments such as interviews and disregarding the registration system to increase their profit.
The exercise also shows how many agencies are charging a horrific amount for providing an interpreter at an interview and it is the interpreters that get labelled as expensive.
I am sorry if you feel interpreters do not like agencies. It is not quite as simple as that. There may always be a need for agencies unless other solutions are found.
What interpreters witness and do not like is agencies who spread misinformation, disregard registration and the standards that Deaf people and interpreters have fought for years and the charges that occur for what is often a brief service.
The agencies that came out best were often the interpreter, and some Deaf, led agencies. Any agency providing a good service to the Deaf community by using registered interpreters, who keep their costs down and who inform their referrers of registration categories has nothing to worry about from a mystery shopper’s survey.
It’s about time this industry was transparent and accountable to the Deaf community.
Jennifer Smith
Owner of blog
Congratulations on completing a useful piece of work, Jen. The expression “level 3 interpreter” needs to be expunged completely. There is no such thing. I wonder if agency staff would like to apply for a job in France with the interpretation provided by someone who had done high school French for three years. I don’t think so.
I know it’s shocking that those agencies are still using these terms: ‘level 3 interpreter’, ‘not fluent signer’ would be more accurate.
Alas, I can not take the credit! I’ve passed on your congrats to the researcher. I merely provided the medium.
Given some of the previous comments and in the interests of transparency, I thought I’d just clarify why this piece of research took place.
Firstly, I am sorry to the people who felt deceived. It’s the nature of mystery shopping and it didn’t sit comfortably, but it was necessary. It may seem a bit hypocritical to talk about transparency when I am myself choosing to remain anonymous but I wanted the work to be fair and for people to be able to talk about it without the bias attached to knowing who the author was. I chose the south east to focus on simply because I assumed there would be a wide spread of agencies.
Below is the initial email that was sent:
Hi,
I was wondering if you could help me. I am emailing on behalf of my employer who runs a small art company in south London. We are looking to take on an apprentice and one of the people who applied is deaf so we will need a signer to translate the interview.
I’m a little embarrassed to say that I’ve never met anyone deaf before so I’m not really sure what I’m looking for, my only experience has been the people you see on the telly!
The meeting will take place in Greenwich next Tuesday. Times are flexible but morning is preferred. The meeting will take no more than an hour and we’ll just be going over their cv and why they want to work for us.
Do you have anyone available? If yes, how much will the total fee be for an hours meeting?
Thanks, Emma
Once I’d received a response, I sent back something to the effect of ‘one agency quoted nearly £500! I’m in the wrong job if signers get that for an hours work. I don’t know what I’m looking for. Some people have mentioned usingqualified/registered people but others have said that a level 3 signer is acceptable; which is right?’
You can see the answers for yourself. Some people sent emails full of information. Some people didn’t get back to me. One got lost in the spam folder (very sorry about that RAD!) And some told me that qualified and registered interpreters were unnecessary. It’s worrying to know that they are the first point of contact for many naive consumers. I wrote the notes in a way that I hope was fair, factual and concise. I don’t have any dislike of agencies as a medium for booking interpreters. I am not employed by an agency. I don’t have any affiliations to any particular agencies. I just wanted some information. We know there are unethical agencies out there; surely it’s time that we now had facts rather than speculation?
We also all know that there are exemplars out there who care about the profession and want deaf people to get a service that provides accessibility. Those agencies are ethical in their dealings with the customers and consumers. Sadly, there are a lot of agencies who exploit the necessity of BSL interpreters by both undercutting and forcing down interpreters’ fees in order to compete, sending out unqualified interpreters as a cheaper alternative, or by charging abnormally high fees and saying that it’s because BSL interpreters are expensive. As a result, people assume that interpreters are ripping off deaf people and the public purse. The consequences are that deaf people are forever looking through a glass ceiling.
If nothing else,I am pleased to see that this has created open debate. We’ve spent too long talking around the issue and closing ranks to protect bad practices.
Oh … didn’t see this til later – Definitely need to check which kind of comm support is needed by the interviewee as the original email states the company have never met a deaf person before. If it was me, as a lipspeaker user, I’d be mortified to be confronted with a “signer” !! I have heard too many stories of “oral” deaf people being given Interpreters at interviews and not following properly. If you are an interpreter you CANNOT lipspeak, you are not qualified on the NRCPD to do so, in fact it is a breach of your code of professional practise to claim you can.
What strikes me as interesting, having now read the mystery shopper’s initial enquiry, is the assumption, seemingly on EVERYONE’S part, that a BSL “signer” would be the appropriate form of communication support for a deaf person whom “Emma” does not appear to have met. There seems to be an unquestioning acceptance on all sides (with the possible exception of Merrill) that deaf = BSL.
The vast majority of people with a hearing loss or deafness do not use BSL. Did none of the respondents clarify whether a BSL interpreter was required or a lipspeaker/STTR would be more appropriate? If so, should that not be referred to in the lists? If not, surely that is a problem that needs addressed, as the end result could be not just the client paying totally inflated rates, but inflated rates for the wrong type of support!
Haven’t seen the original document (email) but from the start you’e said the apprentice is deaf. You then requested a “signer”. First clarification for me would have been ” have you checked which communication support the interviewee needs”?
Only 2 mentioned Lipspeakers – one erroneously called them lipreaders (a common error). could be better IMO – but again I don’t know what was asked in detail. Wondering how many know that if the interviewee uses spoken English and some signs, then Lipspeakers with min L2 are best??
Finally all those who mentioned A2W … Congratulations! The fee should really be paid by A2W because it is a small business. (but then again I have no view of the responses after the initial query).
Not a bad idea. Thanks for posting. Suzie
Actually, only one organisation did. I didn’t put it in the original table because I had planned to use it as the basis of a follow up blog. But seeing as you have raised the point – Surrey Council ‘First Point Interpreting Service’ recommended that I check to ensure that the client used BSL.
I agree the agencies should be monitored and ‘mystery shopping’ is one way to do it, but unfortunately the information that has been posted about Deaf Positives is incorrect, as we do NOT use unregistered interpreters and in no certain terms deem Level 1 – 3 as trainee interpreters. Also, some of the information about agencies fees are not clear, as they do not all specify what the minimum charge is, so it looks very ambiguous. Emma, could you please contact us and let me know who gave you this information? Did you source the information via phone only, or via the internet, or websites? Did you use a standard questionnaire and script for all Agencies you contacted? And as Neal Interpreting mentioned I would also be very interested in how we rated in other areas. Alex Hooper
Hi Alex,
In answer to a few of your points:
As I mentioned above, there was not a script as such. The methodology was to send the initial email which was standard for every agency on the list. After a response, I sent back a confused query about fees and qualifications and levels, I then got a response from the agency. I have tried to pick out the facts by using direct quotes or summarised version of the response.
I agree that some of the information about fees is ambiguous and different agencies have different charging structures. I could only put down the information I was given as the ‘client’ – I accept that once booked VAT, travel etc would potentially alter the price.
With regards to statement re: trainee interpreters. 7/8/2012 at 12:24 I received the following email from your office:
“The level of signers we have are various and for the Interview an RSLI is required but not essential as most Deaf clients have a preference of their own type of sign language interpreter.
NOTE: RSLI stands for registered sign language interpreter.
The other type of sign language interpreter is Registered Trainee Interpreter and they are trainees from approx level 1 to level 3.
Please also read our terms and conditions which are explained on our website http://www.deafpositives.org”
Your T&C’s state that you only use registered interpreters but as with all of the agencies, I only used the information provided in the emails.
I wonder if the oh-so-clever mystery shopper know the different rates an agency has to charge according to different clients and contracts?
Public sector contracts pay 20% of what adhoc/private clients pay. It’s called the “Recession”.
95% of all bookings received by an agency would be from public sector.
An agency’s rates for public sector contracts would be highly commercially sensitive and no “mysterious shopper” can find that out on the phone unless he/she managed to provide identity and that he/she belongs to one of these contracted organisations.
The rates that are given out by the agencies on the phone are private sector / adhoc rates. When clients pay this high, interpreters are then paid accordingly.
A very idiotic and incredibly misleading work, aiming one thing and one thing only – trying to mix things up between agencies and BSL interpreters. AGAIN.
When are we going to stop this non-sense and work together peacefully?
Both agencies and BSL interpreters are in the same boat. Recession hit us both and public sector do not pay for interpreting anymore. FACT.
Most agencies run public sector BSL bookings at cost or with loss.
And yet, you attack them out of frustration.
One has to know the real enemy before they burn all the bridges with wrong people.
Luke, (a more fair and less ignorant BSL Interpreter)
There are several issues here: As a NRCPD registered interpreter I work through agencies who have the same concept of standards as I do. What I understood from the mystery shop was that some spoken language agencies were charging extortionate fees for using BSL interpreters and some agencies were making profit by using people who were not NRCPD registered interpreters. There is a recession, but we are talking about people’s lives here. Make no mistake, using an unregistered interpreter could result in someone dying or having their liberty taken away. In this instance, the deaf person probably wouldn’t have got the job.
This isn’t about BSL interpreters trying to shake things up because they don’t like agencies or because they’re greedy. It’s because professional standards, which up until now have been high, are being eroded by cowboys who little bits of a very complex language and are trying to make a living off of it. Most BSL interpreters have friends and family within the community we work for, so we care about our jobs.
Someone else said it and it’s true; if you are a good and fair agency, you have nothing to fear from a mystery shop.
The mystery shopper blog has opened up a lot of comment – it was a brave thing to do and to write about. As a deaf person, I want to add my views to the debate.
It was good to see this comparison of the marketplace – transparency at last! It might not have been ideal for most people but it helps us to understand how the market is working and to be able to see who is providing the best value for money. Many Deaf people are tired of seeing ‘cowboy interpreters’; they should not be allowed to take advantage of us. No one should be working in this field until they are properly qualified but often deaf people don’t get the full information on levels of qualification, how it works and what to look for. Each Deaf persons needs are different depending on their communication preferences.
Many Deaf people acknowledged their need to know more about using Sign Language Interpreters. They also commented on the need for local agencies to increase their awareness of Deaf people’s communication needs and rights. But who is willing to provide this help? Agencies could do a lot to improve their reputations by doing so.
So how do we avoid the cowboys? It is agreed amongst the majority CSW’s shouldn’t be working in roles where fully qualifieds should be booked, that said I have had situations where interpreters aren’t interested in office interpreting and prefer it if CSW’s do these jobs, yet the general view is to avoid CSW’s so what’s best to do? I have experience of interpreters who won’t work with colleagues I know because they don’t want office-interpreting work. So how does that figure? I think this lack of clarity of where it all stands for CSW’s to work and interpreters to work makes it more complicated as CSW’s are often placed in situations where they shouldn’t be interpreting as people lose track. Sounds odd I know but the boundaries are so easily blurred by many people. Maybe Interpreters could comment and clear this up?
The information provided for Veritas with regard to interpreter qualifications is actually not accurate – the information offered on interpreter credentials is below. Though this information is quite general, as ‘Emma Biel’ claimed to have only basic knowledge about the subject we tailored our approach accordingly as we didn’t want to overwhelm her with in-depth technical information.
“Hello Emma,
All of our interpreters are registered with either the ASLI ( Association of Sign Language Interpreters) or the NRCPD (National Registers of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People). These are the two main registers for Professional British Sign Language Interpreters. All of the interpreters we used have their credentials thoroughly checked and verified and they have extensive experience , so you are in good hands!
Hope that clarifies it a bit further, please don’t hesitate to ask me if you have any other questions 🙂
Kind regards,
Laura Forryan”
I hardly think that classes as refusing to provide information – please could you explain what made you think we refused to state this? My colleague clearly said that we were happy to answer any further questions.
Many thanks,
Lauren Webb
Unfortunately the information you provided and have posted in your comment is wholly inaccurate showing a complete lack of understanding about Sign Language Interpreting.
Thank you for your feedback. I’m sorry to hear this – please do get in touch with me to let me know how we could improve our knowledge in this respect. lauren@helloveritas.com
Appa pay their CSW’s £17.50 an hour.