Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:14:09 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Hence their insistence that they are the best solution.[/quote]

Of course, should the interpreter give the wrong interpretation who blames whom then??

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:30:32 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Hence you should demonstrate pro-activeness: using a signer might well help to facilitate certain points. [/quote]

As I have explained before, I have been very pro-active and so has the staff and the vet mainly involved. The clients' [there are three sisters, all apparently disabled mentally and deaf] fortunately have a intelligent brother working for a merchant bank in Hongkong who has emailed me to say he is happy to help, and interpret [ie explain!!] what the vet will write. He will obviously seek clarification if things aren't clear to him.

The vet is going to write a synopsis to date and a progress report after each consultation or treatment and the brother will relay this to the sisters.

I feel satisfied that this is the best approach and I am prepared to defend my decision and action.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:26:40 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]I wonder what "dire legal consequences" they are inferring?[/quote]

The point (and its a point that JHL's posts seemed to ignore), is the varying degrees to which we can all feel intimidated (or not) by other people's actions.

[/quote]

First rebuttal, Arlo, is that I do understand subtext. Duly noted and warned, but would happily accept a b*ll*cking in private, also.

[/quote]

JHL, there was no subtext, really! I meant what I said on the tin. I wasn't meaning to sound like I was giving you a warning, bollocking or anything like it. I just meant that a lot of the discussion seemed to revolve around how serious / valid the threat, when I think it is important to realise that how serious Anthony considers it to be is of equal (if not greater) importance, if you see what I mean.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Mark Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:49:34 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]It sounds like you have been getting your advice from the wrong people. Ask a painter and decorator if you should paint your own living room and he will give you a long list of what might happen if it goes wrong. They are trying to promote their services and to be fair it is not unknown in our profession (Pre ga bloods for young dogs?) [/quote]

I am not sure that the analogy is a good one. If Anthony gets things wrong (or even if he doesn't) then he might be forced to defend himself against a powerful legal attack using the DDA as a weapon. Even if he is right in law, that can be an extremely costly and stressful experience. Not in the same league, I would suggest, as having someone over-charge you for some flock wallpaper and a splash of magnolia emulsion.

[/quote]

The analogy was that his source has a vested interest in the advice that was given. Hence their insistance that they are the best solution.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:46:15 GMT

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Mark Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:11:05 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"] And the irony is that IMHO the interpreters give me the very very distinct impression that they aren't really interested in conveying information to these disabled persons but rather to ensure that their interpreting service is jammed in there somewhere.[/quote]

It sounds like you have been getting your advice from the wrong people. Ask a painter and decorator if you should paint your own living room and he will give you a long list of what might happen if it goes wrong. They are trying to promote their services and to be fair it is not unknown in our profession (Pre ga bloods for young dogs?)

Try the VDS for advice or the BVA.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:00:09 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]costs can be awarded against the claimant with malicious claims, but never are.[/quote]

Regrettably, that is true. The ET is unique in allowing what would be called perjury in any other place to be used in support of a malicious claim and then still failing to award costs/ease the financial burden of the other side.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]The EA can be invoked in private claims, but is generally enforced by bodies rather than individuals[/quote]

Increasingly the legislation relating to disability discrimination and equality is being used in the Employment Tribunal to "up the ante". A claim for unfair dismissal is limited to £20 or £30K but add in a spurious claim of disability discrimination and you can be chasing £120k or more. All risk free from the claimants point of view and, as implied above, they aren't even restricted by having to tell the truth.

Any legislation/system that fails to help those it is named for and at the same time risks criminalising reasonable people behaving reasonably is flawed.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:36:01 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

some of the discussion about these bits of legislation - being right and sensible isn't a defence that you can run with and in any case (and a feature of DDA and Employment Law) the expense and hassle comes from having to prove your innocence.

[/quote]

With respect, the EA is a very different animal to employment law: with the latter, it's certainly the case that any disgruntled ex- (or even current) employee can have a crack with relative impunity and inevitable cost to the employer: costs can be awarded against the claimant with malicious claims, but never are.

The EA can be invoked in private claims, but is generally enforced by bodies rather than individuals. This means that there's generally a lot of to-ing and fro-ing before legal proceedings are instigated. Which will still cost money, admittedly. But that's life: when the car / washing machine / roof / international treaty with a valued political partner despotic tyrant break, it costs me money. Having someone with a perceived gripe trying it on is just another burden to shoulder these days.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:27:27 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"] And honestly? I would look into the cost of signing, [/quote]

I must emphasise that it's not the cost per se, although they want a 90 minute appointment, rather that I'm sure that detailed and specific information relayed by a signer or interpreter orally to someone with an inability to absorb information detracts from the process.

Whereas a written report , without the errors of "interpretation"given to someone who is able to convey it to the client will, eventually be more satisfactory. May need clarification and answered questions but it'll get there in the end.

How often have we received oral information, via a third party, which is changed in meaning or even just wrong!

[/quote]

Yes. I was the originator of that argument.

The problem with tackling lazy councils about their lazy behaviour is that their easiest rebuttal is to label you as an anti-equality bigot; what is it about Rach that makes you think she'd do otherwise?

Hence you should demonstrate pro-activeness: using a signer might well help to facilitate certain points. But there's nothing in the legislation which, in this specific situation, automatically means that you have to have one. Using one because you think it's the best thing you can do for the clients would be great, but your stance right now is clearly one of annoyance at your predicament, and that's not helpful to the promotion of equality.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:26:39 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]What annoys me most here is the tarring of the DDA/EA because of the misapplication by council officials; that's pretty much my entire argument.[/quote]

I am with you completely on that. A similar thing has happened with employment legislation that achieves almost nothing in terms of protecting vulnerable workers.

There is a degree of naivety in some of the discussion about these bits of legislation - being right and sensible isn't a defence that you can run with and in any case (and a feature of DDA and Employment Law) the expense and hassle comes from having to prove your innocence.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:16:19 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"] And honestly? I would look into the cost of signing, [/quote]

How often have we received oral information, via a third party, which is changed in meaning or even just wrong!

The irony is that we've still got to fix the dog which we'll do with treatment not information transfer.....

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:10:01 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]The DDA isn't a timewasting, nonsense piece of legislation; it's on the side of the angels.[/quote]

[/quote]

Which is entirely my point. It's not the fault of the Instrument, but its misuse. Since enforcement is the responsibility of authorities or the EHRC, this really shouldn't be happening. But it does, as seems to be the case here.

What annoys me most here is the tarring of the DDA/EA because of the misapplication by council officials; that's pretty much my entire argument.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:04:33 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]He has, on the contrary, invested significant time and effort to ensure that his client is able to receive treatment for their patient.[/quote]

Yes, the practice has, including me. And the irony is that IMHO the interpreters give me the very very distinct impression that they aren't really interested in conveying information to these disabled persons but rather to ensure that their interpreting service is jammed in there somewhere.

They don't realise that even the most literate and intelligent often has to read and digest what appears on the surface to be a simple statement and if you run that statement through any "interpreter" the meaning is usually changed , if only slightly.

Just try and explain neutrophilia to anyone in simple language, not including "appetite". Weeehee, try polyphagia!!

I posted the saga here mainly to acquaint members with the way of the world in 2012. I'm absolutely certain that the interpreters or signers have absolutely no regard for the animal and it's treatment which is sad, as surely their object should be to convey information to achieve something, not just to be there.

Mind you, as I implied before, the drive, determination and resources of publicly funded bodies have no regard for the fairness or logic of the circumstances but much regard for their personal agenda.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:56:55 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]I wonder what "dire legal consequences" they are inferring?[/quote]

The point (and its a point that JHL's posts seemed to ignore), is the varying degrees to which we can all feel intimidated (or not) by other people's actions.

[/quote]

First rebuttal, Arlo, is that I do understand subtext. Duly noted and warned, but would happily accept a b*ll*cking in private, also.

I think, though, that I'm on the opposite side - it's the intimidation by the council here that is really bothering me. I'm utterly convinced of Anthony's willingness to help his client and his fears about repercussions, and it makes me angry that people can twist anti-discrimination legislation in this way. (I'm also annoyed at the way in which Anthony sparked off a bunch of generalising rants, hence the bluntness of posts).

But I'd point out that Anthony has, in presenting 'fresh' evidence that he's being required to provide an interpreter, just re-posted the original email from his 'friend' Rach at the council. Someone on the phone has now apparently warned him about his exposure to proceedings, which is just bullying, pure and simple, and not in any way verifiable by him, either.

What would I be doing in Anthony's situation?

- I'd have been onto these guys from the start: http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/. They speak sense, and whilst they don't always manage to give a definitive answer (see that word 'reasonable' again), they absolutely HATE sloppy interpretation. My experience is really with their predecessors, but they're from the same place.

- Ask that nameless translator to put their exact advice, as per the telephone call, in writing. With their name on. If they're unwilling to do so, ask them to put THAT in writing. With their name on. If people threaten you, always make them repeat it in writing.

- Record all telephone conversations (yes, really). It's your legal right to do so, even without informing the other participant(s). People say things that they wouldn't write down, simply because they think it won't come back to bite them.

- Put in a dual FOI / subject access request for all communications between council workers regarding the matter, and for all data relating to myself, regarding this or any other matter. Total cost would be up to a tenner for the subject access request. They really do give you ALL the communications, including personal emails between employees.

- Request, from someone in charge, the council's plan in the whole affair: they don't by law have to do an Equality Impact Assessment in these cases, but it is still best practice, and should make an objective assessment of the pros and cons of written communication against use of a signer; this, inevitably, would also include assessment of the signer's ability to translate complicated medical terminology, not to mention an opinion on what would constitute reasonable adjustment in this situation. If it didn't include a proper discussion of my own attempts to facilitate communication thus far, I'd then be getting quite annoyed.

- Request from the same person a considered opinion on liabilities which might arise from misinterpretation by the signer, and how that would vary from my own liabilities. I'd obviously be putting the answer to this against the veiled threats of legal action thus far.

- Ask for examples of similar situations where other small businesses have gone through the same process

- And honestly? I would look into the cost of signing, but only because I recognise that facilitating access might cost money, and it's what a reasonable human being would do. But not because some lazy council official felt that I should do it.

The EA is enforced by local councils, and there are fines for non-compliance. It doesn't require individuals to go to court for themselves, and this is right and proper. But when council employees fire off inaccurate and intimidatory opinions because they think they have their employer's full backing, it's always worth opening the affair to daylight: I really don't think that Rach's bosses are going to be very happy about her approach here, nor the exposure to costly legal proceedings. The Equality Duty on local authorities also requires their officers to have a very, very good understanding of the legislation - and it's this that seems to be lacking here.

Remember, I like this piece of legislation and I absolutely support right of access to services (remember when everybody was up in arms about wheelchair access and the cost of ramps? The world didn't stop turning when we made provisions). If I thought a signer was automatically a better idea than what Anthony's doing, I wouldn't be bothering to post; but misuse of the act makes normally sane people turn into Daily Mail readers, and is corrosive to public support.

No, I'm not a lawyer. FWIW, I'm a law student, but only for my own edification. Some of that interest in the law came, unsurprisingly, from exposure to problems with the DDA.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:38:07 GMT

But Anthony isn't being threatened by a specific lawsuit; he's getting a lawyer waved at him menacingly to entice him to hire an interpreter who's not at all happy to lose a bit of cash. It's not a direct threat, it's a 'bad tings happen t'folks who don't do bizniss wid uss' line out of a bad movie.

Anthony would be in violation of EO laws if he made NO attempt to cooperate with his client. He has, on the contrary, invested significant time and effort to ensure that his client is able to receive treatment for their patient.

As per page 41-42 onward of Anthony's link: (http://www.devon.gov.uk/full_guidancernid.pdf) factors that can be taken into consideration:

[quote]

•whether the provision of the BSL/English interpreter would be effective in overcoming the difficulty faced by the Deaf person,

• the extent to which it is practical to provide a BSL/English interpreter,

• the financial and other costs of providing a BSL/English interpreter,

• the disruption the provision of the BSL/English interpreter may cause,

• the extent of the service provider’s financial and other resources,

• the amount already spent on making other adjustments, and

• the availability of financial and other assistance.

[/quote]

Small businesses don't have the resources large ones do and that is taken into account; as per page 42. So if you legitimately say that you can't (ie the translator will cost more than the income from the appointment) then that has to be taken into account and finding a mutually acceptable compromise (the close family member who can communicate) would be considered acceptable. Fundamentally it's not about keeping the translator agency happy, it's about keeping the client happy. (The agency isn't going to sue you, remember!)

(apologies for the multiple fonts, quoting from different documents messes with formatting.)

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:34:06 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]The DDA isn't a timewasting, nonsense piece of legislation; it's on the side of the angels.[/quote]

In spirit, I would agree with you completely. However, in practice I take the opposite view.

The DDA achieves and has achieved remarkably little in preventing or fixing discrimination against less able people. What it has done is presented itself as a blunt but easily used tool to cause annoyance and trouble for good people who would ordinarily do all they could to avoid discriminating against less able people. In reality the DDA can be used by the articulate, the well-informed and those with a political agenda (?as in this case) to threaten and bully ordinary folk going diligently about their business. The rub is that the ordinary diligent business person has two choices - take the sh@t as presented to you or argue the toss. In the latter case you will find yourself funding your own expensive case and up against someone who has either deep pockets (eg Islington Council) or alternatively against someone whose case is funded publicly and has no risk of a cost award against them (as happens in the Employment Tribunal - the most frequent forum where the DDA is invoked). Whilst phrases like "reasonable adjustment" and words like "reasonable" and "reasonableness" litter the DDA, the interpretation at law of such words is not that which a reasonable person might think reasonable.

Tread very carefully - it can get very costly very quickly if you are forced to defend yourself in these cases. Being right, sensible and/or reasonable counts for nothing.

The real tragedy is that genuine discrimination against the less able continues and will do so as long as political kite-flying, bureaucratic box-ticking and earnest do-gooding is given more weight than sensible, compassionate pragmatism.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Bob Russell — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:25:59 GMT

Returning to the original thread. Does the interpreting service actually provide interpreters? If they do then it is likely that they have a commercial interest which is affecting their 'opinion'.

The comments about consequences regarding medication etc will be very valid when it comes to a trip to the doctors but there is going to be a much, much lower level of compensation to be awarded if a pet (of limited financial value) is affected by a misunderstanding than would be the case for a person (almost unlimited liability). As I understand it a claimant cannot sue for 'emotional distress' but only for the financial loss.

I wonder if they are making a simple comparison between the likely insurance claim for a person and a pet. This seems to be a mountain out of a molehill situation IMO!

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:10:44 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]I wonder what "dire legal consequences" they are inferring?[/quote]

Slightly beside the point, surely. The point (and its a point that JHL's posts seemed to ignore), is the varying degrees to which we can all feel intimidated (or not) by other people's actions.

James, you're saying that the legal consequences are probably minimal, but:

You aren't a lawyer (and nor is JHL)
It isn't you at the receiving end (i.e. it is perhaps more likely that the Anthony would feel threatened by it, because he's the one that might get sued).
in any event, you may be less worried by threats off legal action than Anthony is. It's a bit like people's very individual reaction to insult. It bothers some, it doesn't bother others. Doesn't make anyone right, just different.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:00:21 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

these two seem to have another agenda.

[/quote]

Ah yes, the good old 'if you can't persuade them, threaten' :)

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

James Laidlaw — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:46:21 GMT

I wonder what "dire legal consequences" they are inferring?

At the end of the day, if communication failed and worst came to worst and the case went to courts or VDS or whatever, the UK doesn't allow ludicrous amounts of payout for emotional damages like the USA seems to. The most you could lose is the value of the animal, which if not a breeding animal is never a huge amount. I'm not intending to sound callous, just realistic. Mostly this could be settled out of court by VDS or similar I would imagine.

On top of that - if you have good clinical notes and a paper/electronic trail of communications with the owner and members of the owners family who have presented and speak English then what vast amount of legal attack could you possibly be subjected to?

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:54:49 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]just another email from 'Rach'[/quote]

Well here it is in full; judge for yourself:

Dear Abbeyvet,
> >
> > Kathy has contacted us in the Sign Language Interpreting Service because
> > she does not understand your email.
> >
> > Many Deaf sign language users have very limited literacy skills, even if
> > their second language is English, which is not the case for Kathy.
> >
> > If you have to communicate in written English please try to use Plain
> > English and keep your sentences very brief and clear. Please use the most
> > basic terms, as many Deaf people do not understand words such as appetite.
> >
> > Due to the communication barrier it is unlikely that you will be able to
> > discuss the results of the blood test with Kathy via email. If the pet
> > requires further treatment you may need to book another appointment with
> > an Interpreter. The Interpreting Service recommends providing an
> > Interpreter for any discussions that could have serious consequences if
> > there were a communication breakdown (i.e. discussing medication or
> > payment), due to the risk of litigation and not being covered by your
> > insurance policy.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Rachel
> >
> >
> > Rachel Smith
> > Co-ordinator
> >
> >
> > Sign Language Interpreting Service
> > London Borough of Islington / Whittington Health

I called her to tell her that I felt, with the aid of the client's brother who writes perfect english and has given his approval and support, we wouldn't need an interpreter at all and was then passed to the other interpreter and warned of dire legal consequences which would be inevitable if we didn't hire an interpreter.

Whilst I am sure I am right and we are doing the best for the patient these two seem to have another agenda.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:11:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Does not the 'report abuse' link in the 'more options' box do this?[/quote]

Yes it does. But sending me a PM puts the big yellow alert up on my screen, so gets seen faster.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Arlo, I don't think Lorna is coming back to this particular playground....... . I do so love admonishment.[/quote]

I suspect you might be right, though I don't understand the big smile. I consider her one of the 'best' contributors, and her departure would be a failure on my part.

[/quote]

You're not serious? I was just referring to this thread, not the whole forum - hence the smiley. I'm a fair fan of Lorna's also - we've been a mutual support group on a number of occasions. I think she was dead wrong on this one, and I take issue that she and I were at 'war' - I think I managed to dodge the issue and avoid blows - but there's no earthly reason for her to go. Disagreeing with me is practically a guarantee of being on the right side.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:44:49 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Does not the 'report abuse' link in the 'more options' box do this?[/quote]

Yes it does. But sending me a PM puts the big yellow alert up on my screen, so gets seen faster.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Arlo, I don't think Lorna is coming back to this particular playground....... . I do so love admonishment.[/quote]

I suspect you might be right, though I don't understand the big smile. I consider her one of the 'best' contributors, and her departure would be a failure on my part.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

james herriot lied — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:32:09 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Update: I have been told, in no uncertain terms that I risk being sued if the owner does not understand my instructions, even a written label on some tablets under the Equality Law or whatever.

[/quote]

Anthony

At the risk of becoming pedantous, what exactly HAVE you been told? Have they properly defined your responsibilities with respect to reasonable adjustment, and have they properly indemnified themselves (and you) if they charge you for an interpreter's services. As someone has already said, you're at risk of being sued for anything: if I don't like the colour of your house, I COULD try to sue you. Whether the case had any merit would be another matter entirely.

Have they discussed the terms of the EA and defined your specific liabilities within them, or was it just another email from 'Rach' which trotted out a vague, unsubstantiated and - above all - unverifiable threat about possibilities? If the latter, you need to talk to her boss. Have you also considered talking to the Sun?

Arlo, I don't think Lorna is coming back to this particular playground....... . I do so love admonishment.

Re: Deaf and foreign client: vets' obligations

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:42:34 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Better to send me a private message with a link to the offensive post and let me adjudicate. [/quote] Does not the 'report abuse' link in the 'more options' box do this?