NRCPD to update complaints procedure as investigation finds quarter of disputes weren’t escalated

The NRCPD has revealed to The Limping Chicken that they plan to make a “substantial revision” to their complaints procedure, after this website found more than a quarter of disputes handled in the last decade weren’t investigated by their complaints committee for “public interest” reasons.

The Limping Chicken’s analysis of the regulatory body’s complaints from 2012 to 2022 revealed out of 62 decisions, 18 (29%) ended with concerns not being escalated to the concerns to its complaints committee.

Meanwhile 21 complaints (33%) concluded with case examiners deciding there was “no realistic prospect of finding [an] impairment of fitness to practice”.

In one complaint which concluded in October, it was alleged an interpreter “logged in [to a lecture] 15 minutes late, declaring they had not prepared and were drunk”.

“The [communication professional] could not decipher what was being signed and left without explanation a few minutes after the lecture started […] They later sent a message to the complainant apologising, stating they had left to avoid further embarrassment,” it reads.

Despite ruling there was a “realistic prospect” of an impairment, it was decided it “was not in the public interest” to refer the complaint to the committee.

“The case examiners concluded that it was sadly regrettable human error that had resulted in the registrant failing to add the booking to their diary.

“They noted that the character references provided by the registrant supported that this was not the normal standard of conduct for this registrant, and that all of the character references attest to the registrant’s previous professionalism, skill and that they are seen as a role model for other colleagues,” they said.

The same public interest decision was applied to complaints from as far back as 2017, while one resolved in October 2020 alleged the registered professional was “aggressive, unprofessional and made comments that the complainant perceived as a threat”.

“[It is alleged the] registrant refused to communicate with the complainant; interrupted the Complainant during active interpretation; became hostile when corrected and refused to make eye contact or speak to the complainant.

“In addition, allegations were made that the Registrant had shown a pattern of behaviour which the complainant felt was victimisation and bullying,” the ruling reads.

With few cases referred to the complaints committee, only three cases are listed on the NRCPD website as being resolved by the group of officials.

The findings come amid criticisms over the NRCPD’s management of complaints, with Twitter users pointing out the latest investigation published on their website dates back to April 2021.

Thanks to all for your comments about our Complaints Process over the weekend. We will be responding to the points raised via a letter which we will publish on our website in English and BSL next week.

— NRCPD (@NRCPD) April 25, 2022

Concerns were acknowledged by the organisation last week, in which they wrote in a Twitter thread that they would respond to points raised “via a letter which we will publish on our website”.

The statement continued: “We also saw a tweet about published complaints outcomes since April 2021 and wanted to assure you that our complaints investigations have continued.

“A total of 12 cases have concluded that are yet to be published, one of which went to the complaints committee.

“We apologise that this has not been kept up-to-date, however an increase in complaints and issues with staff availability meant investigation was a higher priority than publication.”

In response to a request for comment about The Limping Chicken’s findings, the NRCPD said: “In our current complaints procedure, each complaint is initially considered on the facts of the case by independent case examiners.

“There are broadly three outcomes possible at this stage: impairment is not likely; impaired is likely and dealt with by a sanction from case examiners; or impairment is likely and the case is referred to the complaints committee to determine.”

They went on to add that their complaints process is “not intended to be punitive”, as sanctions handed out must be “the least restrictive necessary to reduce that [future risk to the public]”.

“Only if case examiners believe that a more severe sanction is appropriate (such as a practice restriction or removal), or is very complex, is a case referred to a full complaints committee,” they said.

Referencing our statistics, the NRCPD said it was “not surprising” that they show “a roughly even balance of cases” between the three outcomes mentioned previously.

They continued: “We note that 38% were referred to a complaints committee which is more than either of the other two options, and overall 67% resulted in a sanction for the professional.

“Because the outcome is determined entirely by the facts in each case it is not possible to draw further conclusions from these figures. It is inappropriate to set quotas.

“Cases from 2012-2014 were decided under a different procedure to the one we now have in place. We have over 50% more professionals on our registers now than we did in 2012.”

The comments formed part of a wider press release to The Limping Chicken in which the NRCPD said it would acknowledge their complaints procedure is “in need of updating” in an open letter next week.

The organisation said the “substantial revision” would address “known gaps” to the 2015 procedure identified by comments on Twitter, by “widening the pool” of case examiners, clarifying their guidance on sanctions and improving Deaf people’s access to their complaints procedure.

NRCPD also described the review as a “vital step” in “preparing for a campaign to establish statutory regulation for language service professionals”.

Photo: NRCPD.

By Liam O’Dell. Liam is an award-winning Deaf freelance journalist and campaigner from Bedfordshire. He can be found talking about disability, theatre, politics and more on Twitter and on his website.

---

Update – 29/04/2022 – 19:30: Following further correspondence from NRCPD in which clarifications were issued to this website, The Limping Chicken has made corrections to the above article. We have also included comments from NRCPD which were missed in our initial report, and are happy to add them in this update.