The RBSLI is a self-regulatory body for British Sign Language Interpreters and Translators and is committed to providing a professional service to all stakeholders, including service users and registrants. Our structured complaints procedure helps enhance our services and uphold high standards and ethics among registrants, and complaints are investigated in accordance with this procedure by an Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) engaged by RBSLI.

Definitions

To make the interpretation of this procedure clear we set out the following definitions for certain terms that are used in the text of the procedure:

‘We,’ ‘us,’ and ‘our’ refer to RBSLI;

‘Registrant’ means a British Sign Language Interpreter/Translator that holds a current registration with RBSLI in accordance with RBSLI’s registration policy;

‘Service user’ means any person, whether d/Deaf or hearing or otherwise, or a business or organisation that makes use of the professional services provided by a registrant, and this includes any person or business or organisation that has booked, whether for payment or not, a registrant to provide their professional services for the benefit of service user(s) other than themself;

‘Employer/contractor/agency’ means any person or business or organisation that employs, contracts, or recruits a registrant to provide their professional service;

‘Complainant’ means any person or business or organisation that raises a concern about a registrant;

‘Complainee’ means the registrant that is the subject of a concern raised by a complainant; and

‘Third party’ means any person or business or organisation that has no relationship with the complainee.

Our standards

Our standards are set out in The RBSLI Code of Practice here [hyperlink] and are intended to ensure the safe, professional, and effective delivery of services. Registrants are deemed fit to practice when they meet these standards, and they must ensure that their skills, knowledge, and conduct do not fall below these standards.

If a concern is raised about a registrant’s skills, knowledge, conduct, and/or their right to be on our register, then the fitness to practice process will be engaged in accordance with this procedure.

This procedure allows RBSLI to investigate swiftly and efficiently whether a registrant presents a risk to service users, the public, and/or the public’s trust and confidence in RBSLI and the profession. If we decide that the registrant does pose a risk, then we can take steps to remove that risk and prevent issues from arising again with that registrant.

As a self-regulatory body, our role is not to punish registrants for past events, but rather to ensure that registrants meet the standards that we expect of them in order that they practice safely, professionally, and effectively.

Our principles in the fitness to practice process 

Our overarching objectives are the protection of service users and the public and to uphold the integrity of RBSLI and the profession. These objectives are central to everything we do, and to achieve these we need to:

  1. promote and maintain a professional culture that values equality, diversity and inclusion, and prioritises openness and learning in the interest of the health, safety, and wellbeing of registrants and service users; and
  1. promote and maintain our standards and the public’s trust and confidence in us, our registrants, and the profession.

To ensure that RBSLI is consistent and transparent in the way we work and make decisions about registrants’ fitness to practice, we uphold the following 10 principles:

  1. a person-centred approach;
  1. fitness to practice is about managing the risk that registrants may pose to service users and/or members of the public. It is not about punishing registrants for past events;
  1. we can best protect service users and members of the public by making final fitness to practice decisions swiftly and publishing the reasons openly;
  1. if a concern is raised about a registrant, then their employer/contractor/agency should act in the first instance, unless the risk to service users and/or the public is so serious that we need to take immediate action;
  1. we take account of the particular context in which the registrant was practicing when deciding whether they pose a risk to service users and/or members of the public that requires us to engage this process;
  1. we may not necessarily need to take regulatory action in relation to an alleged lack of competence, even where there has been serious harm to a service user and/or member of the public if there is no longer a risk, if the registrant has been open about what went wrong, and if they can demonstrate that they have learned from it;
  1. deliberately covering up when things go wrong seriously undermines service users and damages public trust in us and the profession. In such cases, restrictive regulatory action is likely to be required;
  1. in cases involving an alleged lack of competence, taking action solely to maintain public confidence and/or uphold standards is only likely to be needed if the regulatory concern cannot be addressed;
  1. in cases not involving an alleged lack of competence, taking action to maintain public confidence and/or uphold standards is only likely to be needed if the concerns raise fundamental questions about the trustworthiness and/or professionalism of the registrant; and
  1. some regulatory concerns, particularly if they raise fundamental concerns about the registrant’s trustworthiness and/or professionalism, may be unable to be addressed and therefore require restrictive regulatory action up to dismissal from the RBSLI register.

Who can raise a concern?

Any service user and employer/contractor/agency can raise a concern about a registrant, and any registrant can also raise a concern about another registrant, if they believe that the registrant has fallen below the standards expected of them as set out in The RBSLI Code of Practice here [hyperlink].

The concern should be raised with the registrant and/or their employer/contractor/agency in the first instance; we find that, in most cases, the concern is satisfactorily resolved in this way without requiring the involvement of RBSLI.

If the concern cannot first be resolved in this way, or if the complainant feels it is necessary to raise their concern directly with RBSLI in the first instance, then they should read and follow this procedure to do so.

RBSLI will not consider any concern raised by a third party, except where the third party is authorised to act on behalf of a service user; examples include solicitors, social workers, and, where the service user is a minor, their parent/guardian. In such cases, if the relationship between the third party and service user is not clear when the concern is first raised, we may request clarification and/or documentary proof before the concern can be taken further.

How to raise a concern

You are free to choose whether you want to raise a concern in writing or in BSL.

If you wish to submit a concern in writing, you may complete our complaint form, which you can find here [hyperlink]; when you complete it, please email it to us at: complaints@rbsli.org.

If you wish to raise a concern in BSL, you can do so using VideoAsk [hyperlink].

If you submit a concern, then you give consent to RBSLI to process your personal data in accordance with this procedure in line with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (‘GDPR’).

Once a concern is submitted to us, we will provide you with an acknowledgement in the same mode of communication that was used when the concern was submitted (in writing or BSL).

Screening of concerns

When we receive a concern about a registrant, the RBSLI Board will first screen the concern. This is the first stage in the fitness to practice process and allows us to assess whether the concern should engage the process and to decide the most appropriate next steps.

Why do we screen cases?

We screen cases to make sure that RBSLI is the right organisation and that the concerns are serious enough to engage this fitness to practice procedure.

It is important to note that, more often than not, raising the concern with the registrant and/or their employer/contractor/agency in the first instance is most appropriate because they can deal with and resolve most concerns without the need for us to become involved.

Our approach to screening

As a regulator, our role is not to punish people for past events, but rather to ensure that registrants meet the standards they need to practise safely, professionally, and effectively.

When we begin looking at a concern, we will assume at the outset that the registrant is usually a safe and competent professional, unless there is evidence that they recklessly and/or wilfully caused harm.

We will always take account of the particular context in which the registrant was practicing in determining whether the registrant poses a risk that requires us to take regulatory action.

The three stages of screening

There are three stages in our screening process:

  1. we check if the concern is about a current RBSLI registrant;
  1. we check whether the complainant attempted to first resolve their concern with the registrant and/or their employer/contractor/agency and, if not, whether there is a good reason for us to look at the concern in the first instance; and
  1. we check whether there is evidence of seriousness that may require us to take regulatory action.

We will use these three stages flexibly to help us reach the right decision quickly and fairly in a way that best suits the particular circumstances of each concern.

In most cases, we will go through the three stages in the order set out above, but we may change that order if we consider that it is most appropriate in the particular circumstances, and/or we may skip a step entirely if we believe that we do not need to consider it to make the right decision in the particular circumstances.

How do we determine the seriousness of the concern?

Determining the seriousness of the concern is crucial and allows us to decide if the fitness to practice process should be engaged. To do this, we look at the risks that could arise if the registrant did not address the concern and/or did not put things right.

These risks may include risks to service users, members of the public and/or the public’s trust and confidence in RBSLI, its registrants, and the profession. By focusing on such risks, we can determine what action may be required to address the concern and put things right.

We will only take action if we believe through this process that the registrant does currently pose a risk to service users and/or the public or that the concern is so serious that there is a likelihood of harm and/or damage to the public’s trust and confidence in RBSLI, its registrants, and the profession.

If we decide that the concern is not serious enough to engage the fitness to practice process or that it is not relevant to the role of RBSLI, then we will not spend time and resources on investigating whether there is evidence to substantiate the concern. Examples may include where the person complained about is not a registrant of RBSLI, and where a registrant is complained about for having received a fixed penalty for a parking offence.

What happens if we decide that the concern should be taken further?

Through the screening process set out above, if we decide that the concern is serious and should be taken further, then we will pass the concern on to the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). The ICP is a separate and independent body that will investigate the concern and, as appropriate, make findings and recommendations as to the actions that we should take.

The reason we, the RBSLI Board, will not investigate a concern ourselves is because we are largely comprised of registrants and people who will likely have established relationships with the complainee. Therefore, we believe it is inappropriate for a complainee to have their case determined by fellow registrants and/or colleagues because this gives rise to the risk of bias (or the perception of bias on the part of the complainant).

The ICP, on the other hand, is separate from RBSLI and thus entirely independent and able to make the most appropriate decisions without bias. By passing on the concern to the ICP, we maintain the integrity of this fitness to practice process, our standards, RBSLI, and the profession.

What will the Independent Complaints Panel do?

If we pass on a concern to the ICP, they will inform the complainee, and then begin an investigation using the information and any evidence provided by the complainant. The ICP will determine whether the concern does involve a breach of The RBSLI Code of Practice and, if so, recommend the most appropriate actions for us to take.

During this process, the ICP may find that the available information and/or evidence is insufficient for them to make a decision; in such cases, they may contact you and/or the registrant to obtain clarification and/or further information. This may delay the investigation and resolution of your concern, so we ask that you provide as much information and, if applicable, evidence as possible when you submit your concern in the first instance.

Upon completion of their investigation, the ICP will provide the RBSLI Board (excluding the nominated Appeals Officer, which is discussed below), the complainant, and the complainee with a summary report of the ICP’s decision, including any findings and recommendations.

When the RBSLI Board receives the ICP’s report, they will implement the recommendations made.

The appeals process

If the complainee is dissatisfied with the outcome of the ICP’s investigation and/or any of their recommendations, then they have a right of appeal. Should the complainee wish to submit an appeal, we will nominate an independent Appeals Officer uninvolved in the original investigation and outcome to process the appeal.

Appeals must be submitted to the Appeals Officer within 28 days of the original decision. The Appeals Officer will then review the ICP’s summary report and their findings and recommendations. The Appeals Officer will then make a final decision and communicate it to the RBSLI Board, the complainant, and the complainee.

What happens if we decide not to take the concern further?

If, on the other hand, we decide through the screening process that the concern is not serious enough to engage the fitness to practice process or that it is not relevant to the role of RBSLI, and thus that we cannot help you with your concern, then we will write to you or send you a BSL video explaining our reasons for that decision.

We appreciate that such a decision may not be the outcome you had desired, and you may have further questions about our decision. Please contact us if you need to discuss it further and we will be happy to clarify your concerns.