To: KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org Kristian Khan
From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org Kristian Khan
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 00:54:15 +0100
Subject: Re:
Hi,
I tryed to send your organisation an e-mail, to the e-mail address, that is
on your website (http://www.liverpoolcab.org/),
but the e-mail wasn’t working, that’s why I’m sending e-mail.
I was just wondering, to which e-mail address, I should send to, if I wanted
to contact the Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.
Thanks in advance for the reply!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 9/6/07, Kristian Khan wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog.
>
> I am contacting you with regard to the complaint that you submitted to
> Saffron Follows, Citizens Advice complaints and policy officer, on 23rd
> May 2007. I have now been able to undertake an investigation into the
> issues that you raised and my finding are detailed below.
>
>
>
> I understand that you attended the Bureau on 27th February 2007 and saw
> our Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool on a free first interview basis about a
> harassment at work issue. Ms Pool completed a Bureau Legal Information
> Service sheet in which she advised you that you possibly may have a claim
> for harassment but there was insufficient time to obtain full details and you
> would benefit from speaking to someone who could advise on criminal aspect
> as well. Ms Pool took the case back to her firm, Morecrofts. You state
> that on 28th February you received a letter from Eleanor Pool informing
> you that they could take on the case at a cost of £140 per hour. I take
> the the view that any action taken by a solicitor after we have facilitated
> a free first 1/2 hour interview is not our concern – these concerns would
> need to be addressed to the solicitor directly and therefore I do not
> concede that the Bureau is responsible for this
>
>
>
> On 5th April 2007 you had an appointment to see an Employment Duty
> Solicitor from EAD at 1.30pm. EAD rang shortly before your appointment to
> say that unfortunately no one from the firm was available to attend. As
> this phonecall was received very close to 1.30pm you arrived minutes
> later. (From my recollection the preceding client/s had failed to attend
> anyway).
>
>
>
> As is common practice I apologized to you explaining that it was not our
> fault and provided you with the phone number of EAD so that you could
> contact them yourself to arrange an appointment with them to replace the
> cancelled on of 5th April 2007.
>
>
>
> You state in your complaint that you rang EAD and spoke to Michael Reiner
> who took details of the case and advised you that you were outside of the3-month time limit to commence employment tribunal proceedings and that only
> in very limited circumstances could this time limit be extended. You
> further state that you enquired about Legal Aid over the phone but Mr
> Reiner advised that he could not provide advice on this over the phone.
>
>
>
> As far as I am concerned you did received a free initial interview from
> EAD, ableit in telephone form, so as such I do not feel that the Bureau
> was at fault.
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
>
>
>
> Below I have taken each of the individual points that you made *(in bold)*and offered my response to each. I have copied and pasted the complainant’s
> points from the actual email complaint made by you.
>
>
>
>
>
> *1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty*
>
> *solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled*
>
> *meeting there on 05/04/07.*
>
> * *
>
> I did not set up a new meeting because the next employment duty solicitor
> slot was not until 24th April and that was fully booked. Therefore the next
> appt. would have been at some point in May and I was reluctant to leave
> things this long as I was aware (without knowing the details of the case)
> that time limits may have been evident. Furthermore, when Duty Sols. cancel
> they invariable see/speak to those clients at our request who were booked
> either on the same day or shortly after.
>
>
>
> *2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty *
>
> *solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked*
>
> *them about this twice.*
>
>
>
> We did not know the name; indeed we do not habitually know the names – the
> firms send different people and it was the firm who rang to cancel saying
> that no one from the firm was available to attend.
>
>
>
> *3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty*
>
> *solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through*
>
> *the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for legal
> *
>
> *aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about.*
>
>
>
> Please see response to Question 1 – furthermore we do not take
> responsibility for advising clients on their legal aid entitlements at the
> Reception desk at the time of booking a Duty Solicitor appt – this is why
> people are referred to the solicitor if they require specialist advice.
>
> * *
>
> *4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set *
>
> *me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren’t based *
>
> *in Liverpool. The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty
> Solicitor *
>
> *representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons, *
>
> *if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with *
>
> *someone there etc.*
>
> * *
>
> EAD are based in Liverpool. Their address is: Prospect House, Columbus
> Quay, Riverside Drive, Liverpool, L3 4DB.
>
>
>
>
>
> *5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number*
>
> *to the EAD solicitiors firm. *
>
>
>
> Upheld – I accidentally gave you the fax number (708-0606) and for this I
> apologize.
>
>
>
> *6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their
> offices*
>
> *where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public*
>
> *areas, during their opening hours. This to insure that contacts between
> representatives from the CAB and *
>
> *members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect *
>
> *from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think*
>
> *belonged more to a privat place/situation.) I think they should have the
> lights on during the opening hours, and that*
>
> *they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held *
>
> *with the lights off. (Like they did when I went there for the Duty
> Solicitors meeting, and ended *
>
> *up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then
> speaking with *
>
> *the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4).*
>
>
>
> The lights were *partially* switched off as we were closed for lunch. I
> switched them on again when I began speaking to you and I admit that
> they perhaps should have been left on fully in order to create a
> professional atmosphere.
>
> * *
>
> *7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the
> *
>
> *Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors
> firm*
>
> *only accepted payment from private founds. And that Morecrofts didn’t
> accept founding founded by the legal aid-*
>
> *programme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool,
> informed*
>
> *me of on 22/3.*
>
>
>
> Please see response to Question 3.
>
>
>
> *8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with *
>
> *Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the *
>
> *meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes. I wasnt made
> aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when*
>
> *the thirty minutes had passed.*
>
>
>
> As far as I am aware, clients are advised that the Duty Solicitor service
> is a “free first 1/2. I can confirm that both Reception staff and myself
> make clients aware of this at the time of booking the appointment.
>
>
>
> *9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid
> system, *
>
> *and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty
> Solicitor*
>
> *Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2. Especially since this was an
> employment-case (like I told them that the *
>
> *police had told me to tell them that it was). *
>
>
>
> Please see response to Question 3.
>
> * *
>
> *10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone
> (about when*
>
> *one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3,
> should*
>
> *have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she was
> *
>
> *calling from. I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill
> the solicitor called me.*
>
> *But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said ‘yes hello this is
> Erik*
>
> *Ribsskog speaking’, but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name was
> *
>
> *or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were.*
>
> * Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone, then
> *
>
> *the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public*
>
> *there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without*
>
> *me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there.*
>
> *I had gone there to ask about two things. *
>
> *1. About when one needs a criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid
> system works. *
>
> * *
>
> *But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the
> room to *
>
> *wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed
> that *
>
> *my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished.*
>
>
>
> If the solicitor failed to give her name then I am afraid that I do not
> see how the Bureau was to blame for that. We cannot be held responsible
> for what a solicitor does or does not do. You state that you attended CAB
> on 20th March 2007 and spoke to a criminal solicitor by phone, and then asked
> us about Legal Aid and was advised to check the CLS Eligibility calculator.If the Bureau was fully booked on that day then you may well have been
> advised to check this calculator as we like to offer some “signposting”
> advice that will enable the client to undertake some work/research on this
> case prior to their appointment at the Bureau. The CLS calculator advised
> that it could not assist you as you were self-employed and so you returned
> to the CAB and was given the appt. 5th April 2007.
>
>
>
> *11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the meeting*
>
> *there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting.*
>
> *Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were more
> *
>
> *things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting.*
>
>
>
> It would seem that there was no availabilty for you to see an adviser on
> 20th March 2007 and this may explain why you were only given “signposting”
> advice i.e. be allowed to talk to a solicitor on the phone and then be
> given the CLS calculator website.
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
>
>
>
> In conclusion I have investigated your concerns and I hope that you are
> satisfied with this response, however you should remain dissatisfied then
> you can contact the following:
>
>
>
> THE CHAIR
>
> LIVERPOOL CENTRAL CAB
>
> 1ST FLOOR
>
> STATE HOUSE
>
> 22 DALE STREET
>
> LIVERPOOL
>
> L2 4TR
>
>
>
> Yours Sincerley
>
>
>
> *KRISTIAN KHAN*
>
> *GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR. *
>
>
