Access to Work

I'm very much on the fringes of the Access to Work debacle because, being a debacle, I try not to get involved. Nevertheless, I'm putting this out there:

It is ridiculous to form a business contract with one person (the deaf client), however formally one chooses to make that, and then to have to chase ATW - with whom we have no contractual agreement - for payment. I'd be fascinated to know if this model occurs in any other profession.

I don't mind who contracts me to work, so long as that person, or the organisation formally represented by that person, remains responsible for adhering to the terms and conditions - my minimum standard for which being at some point, without further prompting, that that person gives me the money they had agreed.

The injustice of ATW for interpreters, it seems to me, is that we really only have legal recourse to the deaf person who agreed the work, and few if any of us want to resort to threats of court when that agreement is not met. I believe we can't take DWP through small claims because it is a governmental department, and even if we could, we have a case that is scant at best because we have no legally binding contract with them.

I'm sure there is a reason for this - please enlighten me - but why can't the deaf person's employer be the interpreter provider who then contracts it out to interpreters? Our contracts are then with the person responsible for payment. ATW require a few quotes before agreeing providers with the deaf person, which MIGHT be problematic in this context, but I for one would be more than happy to quote exorbitant fees that would cover the pain and heartache of the usual ATW system and that would therefore be astronomically beyond ATW's ability to accept.