University Language Services, Inc.

Based on the comments supplied by *** ***, we have updated the translation of her documentsWe incorporated most of the changes requested in her email of December *, 2014, with two exceptions*** *** has accepted the draft as presented, and will receive the certified hard copy shortly

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that the matter has been resolved. I received the translation with most changes. I'm still not happy about the whole process and the business's unprofessional work. I had to fight for my right to receive a quality service and product; I'm glad it is over after 5! months of struggle. At the end, I agreed to the new terms to bring it to an end but it was involuntary and a big risk, because I was not willing to pay more than I already had. I would not recommend ULS to anyone.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Certification RequirementsIn order to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation, ULS must, inter alia, produce a statement from the translator of record attesting to the accuracy of the translation. This requirement is at the heart of the dispute: [redacted] requested –...

and received – certified translations of her academic documents.Changes to Translated TextAt several points, [redacted] requested that changes be made to the translated documents she received. We took these requests under advisement, and relayed them to the translator of record to review. At that time, the translator of record incorporated those changes that he deemed appropriate.It is important to note that the requested changes were primarily stylistic in nature. Requested changes that significantly deviated from the source text could not be accommodated, since the translator of record could not in good faith attest to the accuracy of such changes. Without such attestation, the translation could not be certified (as explained above).For this reason, we were unable to implement each and every one of [redacted]’s requested changes. Because she requested a certified translation, we delivered a certified translation, following accepted practice and established quality control and quality assurance measures.Further, in some cases [redacted] requested that we add information that wasn’t present in the source documents. In these cases, we refused to incorporate the requested change because we cannot introduce novel material, regardless of client requests.As [redacted] stated in her complaint, she “would agree to new terms under the condition that all of the changes annotated in [her] last email” be implemented. As was explained to [redacted] at the time, such practice would violate the requirements of certification.FormattingAs is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document. Attempts to ContactULS has made several attempts to contact [redacted]n order to resolve this issue directly. As of 11/**/14, the designated representative from [redacted] has not cooperated with our attempts to schedule a conference call to discuss this matter.ConclusionIn brief, [redacted] has requested changes that are inconsistent with the certified translation that she ordered. We have accommodated every reasonable request for changes within the requirements of certification. Additionally, we have provided services beyond our contractual obligations in order to remedy the complaints raised by [redacted].

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

From ULS’ statement it seems that both parties want to achieve the same outcome, namely an accurate translation that wouldn’t “significantly deviate[d] from the source text” but could be attested as a certified translation. For me it includes, besides content and context, formatting and punctuation as well. Unfortunately that is not what ULS delivered. ULS worked constantly against that goal by either ignoring mistakes or deliberately creating new ones. Every draft but especially the translation I received in the mail contained serious mistakes in form and content (such as typos, wrong dates, wrong names, major formatting changes etc.). These mistakes were created by ULS. It shows that ULS does not take the time to review the documents before sending them out to the client; otherwise, such mistakes would have been corrected beforehand. The other complaint on the Revdex.com homepage supports my thesis that this is obviously ULS’ business practice. So yes, I requested ULS several times to correct mistakes that were created by them. ULS refused or followed-up sloppy so mistakes did accumulate through the process. For instance: The original document says “July **, 2006,” the translation reads “July **, 2008;” names and titles were changed, words were drawn together so it would read “she waslikewise” instead of “she was likewise,” spaces between content and signatures were removed so the document appeared as one cohere text; in other places to many spaces were insert within sentences so words would be cut off from the rest of the text; characters were added such as a slash behind words etc. I could go on and on about these mistakes. In fact, they filled pages. ULS claims: “As is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document.” This was not the case; if it was attempted by ULS, the company does not know how to format a document. Besides these stylistic changes the documents were contextual altered. The original documents are written in professional language while the translation was in parts very casual translated, which changed tone and meaning to some extent. For instance “personnel responsibility” was turned into “personal responsibility,” “sweepstakes” became “game shows,” “event pages” (a fixed and common term for special websites) were translated with “action pages,” “technic” became “techniques;” ULS translated that my behavior towards clients and colleagues was “quite correct” when in fact it was “always correct;” ULS translated I was in charge of “the oversight of clients and press deadlines” when in fact “I attended client meetings and press conferences;” ULS stated that “I cared for clients,” which is a very casual way of saying that I provided “customer service” etc. These alterations might seem insignificant to ULS but in accumulation they indeed alter the tone and meaning of the original documents. Appearance, content and tone do not reflect the quality of the original work. I do not care which synonyms of a word are used for the translation as long as they are correct translations of the German words and as long as they keep the original nature and tone. In this case the documents are business/professional in nature not casual. If ULS is truly unable to deliver an accurate translation in content and form, I then at least expect a mistake-free translation in an adequate form. ULS stated in an email from August **, 2014: “In the spirit of accommodation you may, if you so desire, submit a final request for any and all changes you wish us to review. This must be received by us on or before September **, 2014.” I sent my review with corrections back to ULS on September *, 2014 but ULS responded with new conditions on September **, 2014: “Before we proceed we will need you to explicitly agree in writing to the terms [I] outlined in [my] email of August [redacted], 2014,” namely that “all subsequent requests for review will be billable at the contracted rate of $65 per hour and will have to be prepaid as a retainer by check or money order for at least five (5) hours before we address any further questions.” As mentioned in my complaint I was willing to agree to the new terms if all of the changes annotated in my last email of September *, 2014 are corrected to reflect an accurate translation. The annotated chances included the corrections regarding the sentence formatting, sentence composition, punctuation, grammar, incorrect phrasing, as well as incorrect names and dates throughout the document. Second, the final translation created by the company would not contain any new or additional mistakes or typos, as happened before. This leaves ULS with the decision on how to translate the content and the opportunity to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation but at the same time gives ULS the responsibility to create a mistake-free translation including a review of the documents before sending them out. As of today, November **, 2014, I have not received a second translation. I think it is my right to receive a mistake-free translation in an adequate form and appearance that reflects the quality of the original documents. I paid a lot of money in advance (at least to me $1,500.00 is a lot of money) so I assumed and still expectto receive a qualitative service in response. ULS did not state at any point that the work it provides would be sloppy. Neither the Internet website nor the contract mentioned that kind of business practice.
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: I sent academic documents (diplomas and business reference letters) to ULS to be translated from German into English. I had to pay the full amount in advance which was $1,523.80 for the translation, certification, and notarization and the service was supposed to be completed within 10-15 business days. I received a draft of the translation after 7 days via email that was full of mistakes. It was done sloppy and obviously not reviewed before sent out. I sent an email back stating that the draft contained mistakes and I listed all the mistakes (incorrect translations of names and dates, typos, inconsistency with formatting and punctuation throughout the document, untranslated words, incorrect translated words) in a separate document attached to the email. ULS responded back saying I would receive a new draft. I then received the same draft with no changes made so I emailed back again. The next draft I received was still full of mistakes; some changes were made but also new mistakes created. I emailed back pointing out the mistakes. At this point I got suspicious of the seriousness of the work so I compared the wording of the draft with the original documents just to find out that some of the sentences were incorrectly translated to an extent that changed the original meaning. I sent an email stating my concerns. The phone call that followed ended with the company’s refusal of incorporating corrections. I then sent another email with a complaint about the quality of work and another sheet with corrections highlighting the mistakes. I received an email from the supervisor stating that the company will do necessary changes to assure an accurate certified translation but also saying no further changes will be done afterwards. I didn’t receive another draft or email after that. The translation arrived in the mail 10 days later and I received a copy via email.

The quality of the work was very poor; the translation contained serious mistakes (already discussed ones and completely new ones, and there was an inconsistency with the formatting and punctuation). I responded via email notifying ULS that the translation not only included the previous discussed mistakes but also complete new ones and that I wouldn’t accept it in that state. The translation was unacceptable. As a response I received a phone call from the supervisor saying she consulted with a second team of translators but that they are unable to find the incorrect translated words in any dictionary. The words of discussion are common used words (such as client meetings and press conferences) not field specific terms. I even sent a link to a dictionary explaining the meaning of one of the referred words.

At this point, I consulted the Region Legal Service Office [redacted] to resolve the issue. ULS responded with an email stating that the contract with them specifies 10 (ten) days to respond with any concerns so they are willing to extend the courtesy to me for one LAST revision/review. It further stated: “In the spirit of accommodation you may, if you so desire, submit a final request for any and all changes you wish us to review.” I responded within the time frame given in the email by sending another document highlighting the old mistakes as well as the new ones, each correction annotated with a comment. The respond I received was that I had to agree to the new terms first (that I would pay for any further changes) otherwise no changes would be made. I tried to find a compromise with the company so I responded that I would agree to new terms under the condition that all of the changes annotated in my last email are corrected to reflect an accurate translation. The annotated chances included the corrections regarding the sentence formatting, sentence composition, punctuation, grammar, incorrect phrasing, as well as incorrect names and dates throughout the document. Second, the final translation created by the company would not contain any new or additional mistakes or typos. If all of the aforementioned conditions are met, then I agreed to pay for all subsequent requests made by me. The company refused.

Any attempt since then to contact the company has failed. Phone calls from legal to the company weren’t returned. The whole process started in July. I haven’t received another translation, an apology or a refund of some percentage yet.

I have all the emails and documents as well as the first translation accompanied by a letter with the company's seal and the statement that the translation is: “an accurate representation of the document received by this office.” Unfortunately, it's anything but.Desired Settlement: A translation that is accurate, consistent with the formatting and punctuation, doesn't include any typos or incorrect dates and names, and reflects the quality of the original documents or a refund. No more delays and fighting.

Business

Response:

Certification RequirementsIn order to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation, ULS must, inter alia, produce a statement from the translator of record attesting to the accuracy of the translation. This requirement is at the heart of the dispute: [redacted] requested – and received – certified translations of her academic documents.Changes to Translated TextAt several points, [redacted] requested that changes be made to the translated documents she received. We took these requests under advisement, and relayed them to the translator of record to review. At that time, the translator of record incorporated those changes that he deemed appropriate.It is important to note that the requested changes were primarily stylistic in nature. Requested changes that significantly deviated from the source text could not be accommodated, since the translator of record could not in good faith attest to the accuracy of such changes. Without such attestation, the translation could not be certified (as explained above).For this reason, we were unable to implement each and every one of [redacted]’s requested changes. Because she requested a certified translation, we delivered a certified translation, following accepted practice and established quality control and quality assurance measures.Further, in some cases [redacted] requested that we add information that wasn’t present in the source documents. In these cases, we refused to incorporate the requested change because we cannot introduce novel material, regardless of client requests.As [redacted] stated in her complaint, she “would agree to new terms under the condition that all of the changes annotated in [her] last email” be implemented. As was explained to [redacted] at the time, such practice would violate the requirements of certification.FormattingAs is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document. Attempts to ContactULS has made several attempts to contact [redacted]n order to resolve this issue directly. As of 11/**/14, the designated representative from [redacted] has not cooperated with our attempts to schedule a conference call to discuss this matter.ConclusionIn brief, [redacted] has requested changes that are inconsistent with the certified translation that she ordered. We have accommodated every reasonable request for changes within the requirements of certification. Additionally, we have provided services beyond our contractual obligations in order to remedy the complaints raised by [redacted].

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

From ULS’ statement it seems that both parties want to achieve the same outcome, namely an accurate translation that wouldn’t “significantly deviate[d] from the source text” but could be attested as a certified translation. For me it includes, besides content and context, formatting and punctuation as well. Unfortunately that is not what ULS delivered. ULS worked constantly against that goal by either ignoring mistakes or deliberately creating new ones. Every draft but especially the translation I received in the mail contained serious mistakes in form and content (such as typos, wrong dates, wrong names, major formatting changes etc.). These mistakes were created by ULS. It shows that ULS does not take the time to review the documents before sending them out to the client; otherwise, such mistakes would have been corrected beforehand. The other complaint on the Revdex.com homepage supports my thesis that this is obviously ULS’ business practice. So yes, I requested ULS several times to correct mistakes that were created by them. ULS refused or followed-up sloppy so mistakes did accumulate through the process. For instance: The original document says “July **, 2006,” the translation reads “July **, 2008;” names and titles were changed, words were drawn together so it would read “she waslikewise” instead of “she was likewise,” spaces between content and signatures were removed so the document appeared as one cohere text; in other places to many spaces were insert within sentences so words would be cut off from the rest of the text; characters were added such as a slash behind words etc. I could go on and on about these mistakes. In fact, they filled pages. ULS claims: “As is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document.” This was not the case; if it was attempted by ULS, the company does not know how to format a document. Besides these stylistic changes the documents were contextual altered. The original documents are written in professional language while the translation was in parts very casual translated, which changed tone and meaning to some extent. For instance “personnel responsibility” was turned into “personal responsibility,” “sweepstakes” became “game shows,” “event pages” (a fixed and common term for special websites) were translated with “action pages,” “technic” became “techniques;” ULS translated that my behavior towards clients and colleagues was “quite correct” when in fact it was “always correct;” ULS translated I was in charge of “the oversight of clients and press deadlines” when in fact “I attended client meetings and press conferences;” ULS stated that “I cared for clients,” which is a very casual way of saying that I provided “customer service” etc. These alterations might seem insignificant to ULS but in accumulation they indeed alter the tone and meaning of the original documents. Appearance, content and tone do not reflect the quality of the original work. I do not care which synonyms of a word are used for the translation as long as they are correct translations of the German words and as long as they keep the original nature and tone. In this case the documents are business/professional in nature not casual. If ULS is truly unable to deliver an accurate translation in content and form, I then at least expect a mistake-free translation in an adequate form. ULS stated in an email from August **, 2014: “In the spirit of accommodation you may, if you so desire, submit a final request for any and all changes you wish us to review. This must be received by us on or before September **, 2014.” I sent my review with corrections back to ULS on September *, 2014 but ULS responded with new conditions on September **, 2014: “Before we proceed we will need you to explicitly agree in writing to the terms [I] outlined in [my] email of August [redacted], 2014,” namely that “all subsequent requests for review will be billable at the contracted rate of $65 per hour and will have to be prepaid as a retainer by check or money order for at least five (5) hours before we address any further questions.” As mentioned in my complaint I was willing to agree to the new terms if all of the changes annotated in my last email of September *, 2014 are corrected to reflect an accurate translation. The annotated chances included the corrections regarding the sentence formatting, sentence composition, punctuation, grammar, incorrect phrasing, as well as incorrect names and dates throughout the document. Second, the final translation created by the company would not contain any new or additional mistakes or typos, as happened before. This leaves ULS with the decision on how to translate the content and the opportunity to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation but at the same time gives ULS the responsibility to create a mistake-free translation including a review of the documents before sending them out. As of today, November **, 2014, I have not received a second translation. I think it is my right to receive a mistake-free translation in an adequate form and appearance that reflects the quality of the original documents. I paid a lot of money in advance (at least to me $1,500.00 is a lot of money) so I assumed and still expectto receive a qualitative service in response. ULS did not state at any point that the work it provides would be sloppy. Neither the Internet website nor the contract mentioned that kind of business practice.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

Based on the comments supplied by [redacted], we have updated the translation of her documents. We incorporated most of the changes requested in her email of December *, 2014, with two exceptions. [redacted] has accepted the draft as presented, and will receive the certified hard copy shortly.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that the matter has been resolved. I received the translation with most changes. I'm still not happy about the whole process and the business's unprofessional work. I had to fight for my right to receive a quality service and product; I'm glad it is over after 5! months of struggle. At the end, I agreed to the new terms to bring it to an end but it was involuntary and a big risk, because I was not willing to pay more than I already had. I would not recommend ULS to anyone.

Sincerely,