johncons

Måned: november 2007

  • Untitled Post

    Untitled Post

  • Untitled Post

    Untitled Post

  • Untitled Post

    Untitled Post

  • Untitled Post

    From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
    To: civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
    Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:00:09 +0000
    Subject: Fwd: PSD 07/0519/Sgt. Smyth/Rachel

    Hi,

    now I’ve sent you the following documents:

    – Enclosures 1-25

    – Enclosures A-G

    – Enclosures new1-new8

    – Thread about the use of negative reinforcement as a management method at
    Arvato Services, Liverpool.

    – Scan 1-253

    – Enclosures I-XII

    It would be very fine, if you have the oppertunity to confirm that you have
    recieved these files, since I discovered,
    while I was sending the enclosures, that the e-mail address, that is on your
    letters, is written a bit differently,
    (civil.litigation.e.@merseyside.police.uk), than the e-mail address that I
    was given in the meeting yesterday,
    (civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk).

    Hope that this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Erik Ribsskog
    Date: Nov 9, 2007 11:43 AM
    Subject: PSD 07/0519/Sgt. Smyth/Rachel
    To: civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk

    Hi,

    I’m refering to the meeting at Walton Lane Police Station, yesterday, where
    it
    was agreed that I should e-mail you some documents regarding the case we
    were discussing in the meeting.

    There are quite a few documents, so I’m going to be sending you several
    e-mails.

    When I’m finished sending you all of the documents, then I’ll send an e-mail
    with an overview of which documents I have been sending you.

    While I was at your Police Station yesterday, it seemed like I was harassed
    in
    the reception.

    First I rang the bell.

    Then a blond PC in her 30’s, I think, showed up, and asked me what it was
    regarding.

    Then she stopped listening to me.

    And started speaking with an African gentleman, who was sitting waiting in
    your
    waiting-area.

    Then she went to the back-office.

    Then she got back, and helped the gentleman.

    Then she asked me again what my visit was regarding.

    This seemed odd and harassing to me, because she shouldn’t have switched her

    attention away from me, after first asking me to tell her what my visit
    there was
    regarding.

    I don’t want to speculate, but I was wondering if this could some way that
    the
    Merseyside Police wanted to see if I was a racist, and wanted to check if
    I was politically correct enough to het help.

    It could seem a bit like this to me now, so I was wondering how I should go
    forward
    with reporting this.

    Also, I didn’t mention it yesterday in the meeting, I remember I felt
    ‘stupid’/looked
    down on, while I was waiting, while the PC went back to the back office.

    But I needed some time to think through the situation, before I knew how to
    present it.

    And yesterday, I was also so focused on preparing for the meeting, so I
    didn’t use
    that much time to think about this spesific situation.

    But after I got back home again, I have had the oppertunity, to think more
    about this,
    and thats why I’m writing about this to you now.

    To get advice on how I should go forward, with reporting this.

    Because like I told you in the meeting yesterday, I don’t think PC’s and
    Police Officers,
    should act inaproperatly or unrepresentatlively, (regardless of the
    circomstances), so
    that’s why I think I should report about harassment-situations like this.

    Hope that this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

  • Untitled Post

    From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
    To: civil.litigation.e@merseyside.police.uk
    Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:43:48 +0000
    Subject: PSD 07/0519/Sgt. Smyth/Rachel

    Hi,

    I’m refering to the meeting at Walton Lane Police Station, yesterday, where
    it
    was agreed that I should e-mail you some documents regarding the case we
    were discussing in the meeting.

    There are quite a few documents, so I’m going to be sending you several
    e-mails.

    When I’m finished sending you all of the documents, then I’ll send an e-mail
    with an overview of which documents I have been sending you.

    While I was at your Police Station yesterday, it seemed like I was harassed
    in
    the reception.

    First I rang the bell.

    Then a blond PC in her 30’s, I think, showed up, and asked me what it was
    regarding.

    Then she stopped listening to me.

    And started speaking with an African gentleman, who was sitting waiting in
    your
    waiting-area.

    Then she went to the back-office.

    Then she got back, and helped the gentleman.

    Then she asked me again what my visit was regarding.

    This seemed odd and harassing to me, because she shouldn’t have switched her

    attention away from me, after first asking me to tell her what my visit
    there was
    regarding.

    I don’t want to speculate, but I was wondering if this could some way that
    the
    Merseyside Police wanted to see if I was a racist, and wanted to check if
    I was politically correct enough to het help.

    It could seem a bit like this to me now, so I was wondering how I should go
    forward
    with reporting this.

    Also, I didn’t mention it yesterday in the meeting, I remember I felt
    ‘stupid’/looked
    down on, while I was waiting, while the PC went back to the back office.

    But I needed some time to think through the situation, before I knew how to
    present it.

    And yesterday, I was also so focused on preparing for the meeting, so I
    didn’t use
    that much time to think about this spesific situation.

    But after I got back home again, I have had the oppertunity, to think more
    about this,
    and thats why I’m writing about this to you now.

    To get advice on how I should go forward, with reporting this.

    Because like I told you in the meeting yesterday, I don’t think PC’s and
    Police Officers,
    should act inaproperatly or unrepresentatlively, (regardless of the
    circomstances), so
    that’s why I think I should report about harassment-situations like this.

    Hope that this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

  • Untitled Post

    Virket som om dem hadde en eller annen form for PC-test av meg på Walton Lane Police Station i går.

    Når jeg kom dit kl 15, så ringte jeg på klokka.

    Så kom det ei blond PC i 30 åra vel.

    Spurte hvorfor jeg var der.

    Så ignorerte hun meg, og spurte en afrikaner i 20 åra, om han fikk hjelp.

    Også sa han at han hadde venta i 20 min.

    Så gikk PC dama inn på bakrommet et par minutter.

    Snakka med afrikaner igjen.

    Så spurte hu meg igjen hvorfor jeg var der.

    Jeg lurer på om det kan ha vært noe at dem skulle sjekke at jeg reagerte på at dem hjalp afrikaneren
    før meg, og ikke var politisk korrekt nok til å få hjelp.

    Siden jeg skrev en komentar om de afrikanske jentene i flat 2 på bloggen her om dagen.

  • Untitled Post

    From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
    To: Michael.Rimer@legalservices.gov.uk Michael Rimer
    Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:15:55 +0000
    Subject: Re: Your e-mail (complaint about a duty solicitor)

    Hi,

    I’m not sure if you have read the complaints thorowly enought then,
    because it has a been a problem with lying and breaching of agreements.

    And giving wrong advice over the phone.

    This is unprofessional conduct, and it has been examples of this in both
    complaints.

    So I was wondering if you please could tell me how I should go forward,
    if I wanted to complain about legal firm in regarding unprofessional conduct
    in conection with the duty solicitior programme.

    Thank you very much for your help in advance!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
    >
    > Dear Mr Ribsskog
    >
    > Thank you for the further information. Your complaints are of a lack of
    > what you perceive as being acceptable customer service from each (not
    > being told who was dealing with your case, having meetings cancelled and
    > not rescheduled, being passed from one person to the next and having to
    > explain your case to each one, all of which can be frustrating when you
    > have your own legal issues as a primary concern).
    >
    > May I suggest that you raise your concerns with the firms directly. It
    > may assist if you shorten your accounts by summarising the main points
    > of complaint, in order to get the text onto a one page letter.
    >
    > It might be that the person who dealt with your complaint at the Legal
    > Complaints Service thought, as I did at first, that you were concerned
    > by the behaviour of a criminal duty solicitor. However, it seems as
    > though it relates to an employment dispute. In any event, I think that
    > you ought to be referring your concerns to the firms, as it is they who
    > ought to be listening to the points you make and considering whether
    > they need to take a fresh look at their customer service.
    >
    > Your sincerely
    >
    > Michael
    >
    > >>> “Erik Ribsskog” 08 November 2007 11:20 >>>
    > Hi,
    >
    > thank you very much for your answer!
    >
    > Well, in April, I called the Law Society about the problems, and they
    > adviced me
    > to bring the complaints through their complaint-procedure.
    >
    > Now, about six months later, the Law Society tells me that it is the
    > LSC,
    > who
    > should have dealt with these complaints.
    >
    > The complaints are regarding poor service and unprofessional conduct,
    > from
    > law-firms,
    > in conection with duty solicitor meetings, being set up by the CAB.
    >
    > I’m going to enclose a copy of the two complaints that I sent the Law
    > Society.
    >
    > One complaint regarding the Morecrofts Solicitors firm, and one
    > complaint
    > regarding
    > the EAD solicitors firm.
    >
    > So I’m looking forward to hearing more from you, regarding how I should
    > go
    > forward
    > with these complaints.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for the help!
    >
    > Yours sincerely,
    >
    > Erik Ribsskog
    >
    >
    > On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
    > >
    > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
    > >
    > > Your email has been referred to me as you appear to have had some
    > > difficulties in finding out where to make a complaint about a duty
    > > solicitor who assisted you recently. I am a lawyer in the LSC’s
    > head
    > > office legal department.
    > >
    > > I am not clear from your email what it is exactly that you were
    > unhappy
    > > about the duty solicitor who assisted you. Did the duty solicitor
    > see
    > > you at a police station? Or did the duty solicitor see you at the
    > > magistrates’ court? If you outlined very briefly the nature of your
    > > complaint about the solicitor, i.e., what he did that you thought
    > was
    > > wrong, or what he didn’t do that you think he ought to have done,
    > that
    > > would be helpful.
    > >
    > > I am mindful to suggest that you make a complaint to the firm
    > directly.
    > > Usually, a complaint against a solicitor is best made to the senior
    > or
    > > managing partner at the solicitor’s firm. Otherwise, the solicitor
    > whom
    > > you are unhappy about wont know what it is he has done wrong, in
    > your
    > > view. Depending on the firm’s response, the Customer Service Team
    > > (whom you originally emailed about this) will be in a better position
    > to
    > > say whether your complaint should be referred to the firm’s account
    > > manager at the Legal Services Commission, or whether it should be
    > dealt
    > > with by the Law Society’s Legal Complaint Service.
    > >
    > > Kind regards
    > >
    > > Michael
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Michael Rimer
    > > Legal Adviser
    > > Corporate Legal Team
    > > Legal Services Commission
    > > 85 Gray’s Inn Road,
    > > London WC1X 8TX
    > >
    > > DX 328 Chancery Lane
    > >
    > > Note: The email may contain confidential legal advice which is
    > likely
    > > to be subject to legal professional privilege and which may be
    > exempt
    > > from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact
    > the
    > > author or the Commission’s Legal Director to seek authorisation
    > before
    > > disclosing this email outside the Commission.”
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >>> “Erik Ribsskog” 06 November 2007 02:25 >>>
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I can’t see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, thats
    > > why I’m
    > > trying to send it again.
    > >
    > > Yours sincerely,
    > >
    > > Erik Ribsskog
    > >
    > > ———- Forwarded message ———-
    > > From: Erik Ribsskog
    > > Date: Oct 19, 2007 4:36 PM
    > > Subject: Re: Your e-mail
    > > To: Legal LSC
    > >
    > >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > thank you very much for your answer.
    > >
    > > I will now try to summarise the corespondce I’ve been having with
    > you
    > > and
    > > Simon Williams from the Legal Complaints Service.
    > >
    > > Simon Williams (The Legal Complaints Service) says that I should
    > > contact the
    > > LSC to complain about
    > > a duty solicitor.
    > >
    > > And you (The LSC) are saying that I should contact The Legal
    > > Complaints
    > > Service to complain about
    > > a duty solicitor.
    > >
    > > So I’m not sure how to conclude this summary.
    > >
    > > Could you please confirm again who I should contact if I want to
    > > formally
    > > complain about poor service
    > > and uprofessional conduct from a law-firm in connection with the
    > duty
    > > solicitors scheme.
    > >
    > > Because Simon Williams from The Legal Complaints Service is writing
    > > this in
    > > a letter from 26/9:
    > >
    > > ‘Here, a meeting under the duty solicitors programme is unlikely to
    > be
    > > something done under a retainer
    > > (that is, a relationship between solicitor and client), as duty
    > > solicitors
    > > are those who provide assistance
    > > to those who are without representation
    > >
    > > […]
    > >
    > > As you are not a client of EAD, this office is unable to consider
    > your
    > > complaint. I will, therefore, take
    > > steps to close this file’.
    > >
    > > So it’s obvious that the Legal Complaints Service aren’t looking at
    > > complaints against law-firms in
    > > connection to the duty solicitors scheme.
    > >
    > > Williams, write in an e-mail from 2/10:
    > >
    > > ‘ *Q2: If not, then who is it one are supposed to complain to, about
    > > poor
    > > service/unprofessional* *conduct, by law-firms, in connection with
    > the
    > > Dury
    > > Solicitors scheme?*
    > >
    > > I have looked into this matter and would suggest that you refer to
    > > this
    > > website:
    > >
    > >
    > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/liverpool_information.asp
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > It contains information and contact details of the Merseyside Duty
    > > Solicitors scheme and I hope that you will find it useful.
    > >
    > > I should also note that the Legal Services Commission is an
    > > organisation
    > > wholly separate from the Law Society and, if you have any specific
    > > questions
    > > in relation to the procedures, you should direct them to the LSC,
    > > rather
    > > than our Office.’.
    > >
    > > So he’s saying that the LCS should deal with the complaint.
    > >
    > > Is this correct?
    > >
    > > Who could I ask for advice/help regarding this, since I’m being in a
    > > way
    > > ‘thrown around’ here, from one organisation to the
    > > other.
    > >
    > >
    > > Also, you are writing that:
    > >
    > > ‘In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
    > > there
    > > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
    > > colleague
    > > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
    > the
    > > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.’.
    > >
    > >
    > > So you are writing that since you have an online directory, then it
    > > can’t be
    > > something wrong
    > > in regards to your customer-helpline’s advice.
    > >
    > > I can’t see that it’s an excuse for giving wrong advice (giving me
    > the
    > > phone-numbers to law-firms
    > > in Wales), I can’t see that this can be excused by you also having
    > an
    > > online
    > > directory.
    > >
    > > What is the point of having a customer-helpline, if one can’t trust
    > > the
    > > advice?
    > >
    > > Since like you are writing, you also have an online directory, so
    > this
    > > fact
    > > means that any mistakes
    > > the helpline makes, must be misunderstandings.
    > >
    > > I don’t see the logic in this.
    > >
    > > I think you must be mistaking.
    > >
    > > Even if you have an online directory, I don’t see how this explains
    > > mistakes
    > > from your helpline.
    > >
    > > It’s not a valid excuse I mean.
    > >
    > > If I go to Tesco and say I got the wrong change back.
    > >
    > > Then Tesco can’t say that, of it must be a misunderstanding because
    > you
    > > have
    > > paid by debit-card.
    > >
    > > Thats the same reasoning to me.
    > >
    > > So it would be very fine, if you could please confirm that I’ve
    > > understood
    > > your excuse right.
    > >
    > > Because in that case, I don’t think it’s a valid excuse, and I would
    > > please
    > > like to complain about it.
    > >
    > > I hope that this is alright!
    > >
    > > Thank you very much for your answer again!
    > >
    > > Yours sincerely,
    > >
    > > Erik Ribsskog
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 10/19/07, Legal LSC wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Our ref: KPL/MISC/07/07/70 (5)
    > > > Date: 19 October 2007
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Dear Mr Ribbskog,
    > > >
    > > > Thank you for your e-mail on 16 October 2007.
    > > >
    > > > You are always welcome to put forward an informal complaint
    > regarding
    > > a
    > > > duty solicitor’s poor service and/or misconduct, in connection
    > with
    > > > the Local Duty Solicitors Scheme, to the Account Manager of our
    > > relevant
    > > > regional office. They will be happy to investigate your complaint
    > > and
    > > > will communicate with the duty solicitor involved to clarify the
    > > areas
    > > > of your complaint and endeavor to resolve the issue.
    > > >
    > > > However, it is not within our capacity or powers to enforce any
    > > actions
    > > > upon the relevant duty solicitor in regards to their poor service
    > > and/or
    > > > misconduct.
    > > >
    > > > For complaints on the poor service and/or misconduct of any
    > > solicitor
    > > > to be dealt with formally and with enforceable actions, you must
    > > direct
    > > > your complaints to the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service
    > (LCS),
    > > > who are an independent complaints handling body that deals with
    > all
    > > > formal complaints against solicitors. Even though they are part of
    > > the
    > > > Law Society, they operate independently.
    > > >
    > > > Further details on the LCS are available at the following website:
    > > >
    > > > http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/home.page
    > > >
    > > > Both the above options are available to you and it is your
    > decision
    > > on
    > > > where you want to direct your complaint and how it is resolved.
    > > >
    > > > In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
    > > there
    > > > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
    > > colleague
    > > > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
    > > the
    > > > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.
    > > >
    > > > I hope the above is of assistance to you.
    > > >
    > > > Yours sincerely
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Ka Poh Ling
    > > > Central Customer Services Unit
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ***********************************************************************************
    > > > Disclaimer
    > > >
    > > > This email (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely
    > for
    > > the
    > > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
    > > > unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
    > > If you
    > > > are not the intended recipient please destroy all copies and
    > inform
    > > the
    > > > sender by return e-mail.
    > > >
    > > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
    > > intercepted and
    > > > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding
    > whether
    > > to
    > > > send information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal
    > Services
    > > > Commission are available from
    > > > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/regions.asp
    > > >
    > > > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor,
    > record
    > > and
    > > > retain any incoming and outgoing emails for security reasons and
    > for
    > > > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
    > > policy on
    > > > staff use. Email monitoring and/or blocking software may be used
    > and
    > > email
    > > > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
    > > not
    > > > broken when writing or forwarding emails and their contents. No
    > > contracts
    > > > can be entered into on our behalf by email.
    > > >
    > > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and
    > do
    > > not
    > > > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
    > > >
    > > > The Legal Services Commission checks all mails and attachments for
    > > known
    > > > viruses; however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
    > > your own
    > > > risk.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ***********************************************************************************
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ************************************************************************************
    > > Disclaimer
    > >
    > > This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely
    > for the
    > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
    > unauthorised
    > > use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not
    > the
    > > intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
    > return
    > > e-mail.
    > >
    > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
    > intercepted and
    > > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether
    > to send
    > > information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services
    > Commission
    > > are available from
    > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions.asp
    > >
    > > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record
    > and
    > > retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and
    > for
    > > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
    > policy on
    > > staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and
    > e-mail
    > > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
    > broken
    > > when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts
    > can be
    > > entered into on our behalf by e-mail.
    > >
    > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
    > not
    > > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
    > >
    > > The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for
    > known
    > > viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
    > your own
    > > risk.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ************************************************************************************
    > >
    > >
    >

  • Untitled Post

    Resolution form

    Part 1:

    Alison Lobb

    Morecrofts Solcitors

    Ground Floor, Tithebarn House, 1-5 Tithebarn Street, Liverpool, L2 2NZ.

    Solicitors reference: I called your office last week, and I was at your office today,

    agreeing that I would send this resolution form to your companies e-mail address.

    My name:

    Erik Ribsskog

    Flat 3

    5 Leather Lane

    Liverpool

    L2 2AE

    Phone-number: 0151 236 3298.

    Mobile: 0775 834 9954.

    Part 2:

    The person dealing with my case is or was:

    First it was Eleanor Pool who dealt with the case as a duty solicitor from Morecrofts

    on the meeting in the CAB on 27/2.

    Then, after I agreed with Pool on that I would pay for the case with a payment-plan

    type of founding, then the case was dealt with by Mr. Milletts secretary Samantha,

    on behalf of Mr. Millett.

    My complaint is:

    1. Pool told me on 11/4 that it would be ok for me to pay for the case with a payment-

    plan type of founding.

    Yet, when Samantha called me on 24/4, (after I had called Pool earlier that day to

    ask why noone had called me about a meeting, like we had agreed on when I went

    to Morecrofts on 11/4), she said that I first had to pay Morecrofts £250, before I could

    get to speak with Mr. Millett about the case.

    I told Samantha, on the phone on 24/4, that this was not what I had agreed with Pool.

    I told Samantha that Pool had said it would be ok with a payment-plan type of founding,

    but Samantha said that it wouldn’t be possible with a payment-plan.

    I said that I needed some more time to think about this, and after this phone-call, I

    have been in contact with the Law Society and others, to get advice on how to deal with

    this situation.

    I’ve also been in regular contact with Samantha after this, to update her about what I’ve

    been doing to try to sort with the founding, and more, regarding the case.

    I took some weeks for it to get clear to me exactly how I should go forward to complain

    about this approperatly, but last week, I recieved a Resolution form from the Law Society,

    and I called your reseption on 18/5, asking for the name of the solicitor who deals with

    complaints, and also informing on that I would go to your office this week with the

    resolution form.

    I asked the reseptionist to inform Samantha about this, and also asked her if she could

    inform the other persons in the company that she thought needed to be informed about

    this.

    Complaint 1A: I would like to complain about that I was promised by Pool on 11/4 that the

    case could be payed for with a payment-plan founding solution, but that Samantha

    later told me that the case couldn’t be payed for with a payment-plan founding solution.

    I think that when Pool tells me that this is ok on 11/4, then what she says as a

    representative of Morecrofts is binding for the company, and then it shouldn’t

    be changed later by the company.

    Complaint 1B: I would also like to complain about that even if I told Samantha that

    I had agreed with Pool on 11/4 to pay for the case with a payment-plan founding

    solution, Samantha still insisted on that this wasn’t possible.


    I think Samantha shouldn’t have ignored what I was saying. And if she didn’t trust me,

    she could have checked this with Pool, and got it confirmed that we had already

    agreed on that I could pay for the case with a payment-plan solution.

    2. When Samantha called me on 24/4, she said told me that she had been trying to

    call me on my mobile three times since 11/4. (To set up a meeting for me with Mr.

    Millett, must have been the reason for her to call me. I agreed with Pool on 11/4,

    that someone from your company would call me to set up a meeting with Mr.

    Millett about the case.)

    Since I was in contact with the police in January, (and also started applying for new jobs

    etc. in January), I have been carefull with having the ring-tone level on my two mobile-

    phones on a high level, so that I shouldn’t miss calles from new employers, the police

    etc.

    (And I try to use my newest mobile for buisness-calls, but I might have given Pool the

    number to my old mobile on the meeting at the CAB on 27/2, since it got a bit stressful

    in the meeting that day, since the meeting was only scheduled to last thirty minutes,

    and I wasnt aware of that untill the thirthy minutes had passed, so it could be that I

    gave her the number to my old mobile, from old habit, when Pool asked me for my

    contact-information).

    But because I had taken care to have both the phones switched on, and also have

    the ring-tone volume-level on loud on both mobiles, then I found it very unlikely that

    I would manage to miss three phone-calls from Morecrofts between 11/4 and 24/4.

    So I asked Samantha if she had been calling from the number that are on your

    letters, and first she didn’t answer, she just asked me why I was asking so many

    questions.

    I answered that I was really only asking one question, and then she answered that she

    had been calling from that number.

    After the call, I checked the call-registry on both my mobiles, just to be 100% certain,

    but I couldn’t find any calls from Morecrofts on any of the call-registries.

    Complaint 2A: I would like to complain about that noone called me from Morcrofts to

    set up a meeting about the case, even if Pool on 11/4 said that someone would.

    Complaint 2B: I would like to complain about that Samantha said that she had tryed

    to call me three times between 11/4 and 24/4, on my mobile, but this can’t be right,

    since on my there haven’t been any calls from Morecrofts to any of my mobiles, in

    this periode.

    3. On the meeting with Pool on the CAB on 27/2, I wasn’t informed on that the meeting

    only lasted thirty minutes, untill Pool informed me about this when the thirty minutes

    had passed.

    Complaint 3: I think Pool should have informed me on that the meeting only lasted

    thirthy minutes, before the meeting started, then it would have been possible for

    me to plan which things I wanted to bring up in the meeting, in a way so that

    I could get the most imortant things brought up before the meeting had ended.

    4. In the meeting on 27/2, Pool adviced me on telling the details of the case to

    the jobcentre, who then would have given it on to my old employer.

    (This was regarding a question-form that the jobcentre had sent me, and which

    they only gave me a week to reply on).

    Since I wasn’t aware on that the meeting only lasted thirty minutes, untill the

    thirty minutes had passed, the meeting got a bit stressful at the end.

    I only had a couple of days left to deliver the answer to the jobcentre-form or

    else I could have lost my allowance, since I was unemployed at that time.


    So I reckoned that this was about the only chance I would get to get advice

    on how to answer the form, since I reckoned that it would take more than

    a couple of days to arrange a new similar meeting.


    So I asked if Pool could have a look at the form before we ended the meeting.


    Then Pool advised me to answer the questions to the job-centre.

    Complaint 4A: I’m not sure if Pool should have adviced me to answer the

    questions to the job-centre, since those questions were about the same

    things that were covered about the case.

    So, I think that, since that I from November last year, have been in contact

    with the police, the CAB, and your company about this case in which

    these questions are dealt with, then I think that these questions shouldnt

    been dealt with at the jobcentre, or other places, untill the legal-process

    that I started by contacting the police in Novemeber had ended.

    Complaint 4B: I’m not an expert on this, but this is how I see this after thinking

    more about this. I reckon that Pool should maybe have set up a new meeting

    to disuss the rest of issues that we didn’t have time to disuss on the first

    meeting. (I’m not an expert on how duty solicitor meetings should be

    arranged, but I reckon that if I want to find out if this was done right, I should

    write it in this form now.)

    5. I didn’t know anything about legal-aid and how the other different founding

    alternatives (payment plan etc.), for cases that was sent from the police,

    via the CAB, to a duty solicitor, untill the weeks after the meeting on

    the CAB on 27/2.

    Complaint 5: I think that I should have been informed on in the meeting

    at the CAB on 27/2 that Morecrofts only accepted founding from private

    founds (and not from legal-aid).


    I didnt get aware of this untill Pool told me this when I went to your office

    on 19/3.

    I think that since this was an employement case, I should have been

    informed on that it wasn’t possible to pay for the case by legal-aid.

    6. When Samantha called me on 24/4, I remember that she kept

    interupting me all the time while we were speaking about the case

    and the things regarding the case.

    At the end of the call I explained to her that I fould it difficult to comunicate

    with her, when she kept interupting me all the time.

    I got her to agree on that we should try to speak only one at the time

    for the rest of the call, and we managed to do that for the remainding

    one or two minutes of the call.

    Complaint 6: I think that it shouldn’t be necessary to make special

    agreements about that one should interrupt eachother during a call.

    I think people working for legal firms, and that are used to dealing

    with members of the puplic regarding legal cases, should know this

    from before.

    So I would like to complain about this anyway, even if it went fine with

    the call for the last one or two minutes.

    7. When I called Samantha on 11/5, I explained that I had tryed to call

    her earler that week, and that I had left her a voice-mail etc.

    Samantha said that I could have called her the day before, that she

    was in then.


    But I had try to call her the day before, and the reseptionist had told

    me that Samantha wasn’t in that day.

    Also Samantha told me that I should have left her a voice-message,

    even if I did this when I tryed to call her on 9/5.

    I had also told the reseptionist to tell Samantha that I had been trying

    to call her on 10/5.

    On 8/5 I also tryed to call Morecrofts on the number that is on their

    letters, at around 3.30 pm. (I tryed to call at least twice around that

    time on your main phone-number, 0151 236 8871).

    Complaint 7A: So I’d like to complain about your company not answering

    the phone on 8/5, and on Samantha saying that I should have left a

    voice-mail when I had done it, and on Samantha saying that she was

    in on 10/5, when the reseptionist had told me that she was not in.

    I think one incident like this could be accepted, but when there are

    three incidents like this, just to get in contact with a person in your

    company, than I think isn’t really acceptable.

    Also in the conversation with Samantha on 11/5, I had to keep telling

    her to please slow down the speed when she was speaking.


    She was speaking very fast (and with an accent), so it wasn’t possible

    for me to understand what she was saying, much of the time.

    And even if I repeatedly asked her to please remember that I wasn’t

    British, and to therefore please speak a bit slower, she kept ignoring

    me and kept on talking very fast.

    (When I studied at the University of Sunderland, I took a test that for a

    large part was about understanding spoken English. And I got a good

    result on the test, so I didn’t need to take English classes to follow

    the lectures at the universityl. But when I spoke with Samantha on

    11/5, I didn’t have a chance of understanding large parts of what she

    was saying. I usually don’t have this problem at all when speaking

    with English people).

    Complaint 7B: I think a person working with customer in a legal firm,

    should try to make an effort to speak in a way that is easy to understand,

    especially if one are asked to please speak slower many times by

    the customer calling.

    Part 3

    I am happy for you to deal with my complaint in writing.

    I would like the following to sort out my complaint:

    I am seeking further advice on how to get the case out of the situation it is

    in now (regarding the finance), and this is the most important thing for me,

    to get the case progressing in an appropriate way, including with the founding.

    I think that I would please like to have another contact in your company if

    thats possible, due to the comunication-problems explained in complaint

    number 1, 6 and 7.

    I also think that the other issues should be dealt with approperatly.

  • Untitled Post

    Resolution form

    Part 1:

    Mr. Nick Laird

    EAD Solicitors

    Prospect House

    Colombus Quay

    Liverpool

    L3 4DB

    Solicitors reference: I called your office last week (4/7), and was informed that you

    were the person in the company that dealt with complaints.

    My name:

    Mr. Erik Ribsskog

    Flat 3

    5 Leather Lane

    Liverpool

    L2 2AE

    Phone-number: 0151 236 3298.

    Mobile: 0775 834 9954.

    Part 2:

    The person dealing with my case is or was:

    I wasn’t given the name of the Duty Solicitor that was supposed to meet me at the

    Citizens Advice Bureau.

    The person from your company that I spoke with on the phone was Mr. Michael Reiner.

    My complaint is:

    1. I think that the EAD, when they cancelled the Duty Solicitors meeting at the

    CAB (Dale Street, Liverpool), on 5/4/07, should have taken the initative to set

    up a new meeting with me, to replace the meeting that had been canceled.

    They didn’t want to set up a new meeting, even if I asked them about the

    possiblity of them doing this, when I called their office, explained the matter,

    and got to speak with their representativ Michael Reiner on 5/4.

    I think that the usual thing to do when one have to cancel a meeting,

    like this duty solicitor meeting, would be to set up a new meeting

    to replace the meeting that was canceled.

    And I think that it’s unacceptable that this wasn’t even offered.

    Complaint 1: I would like to complain about the EAD refusing to set up

    a new duty solicitor meeting after the inital meeting was canceled (by

    themselves).

    2. Michael Reiner informed me on the phone when I called the EAD

    company on 5/4, that EAD didn’t help members of the public with

    calculating if they are eligable for legal aid in (non union) employment-

    cases.

    I don’t think that the EAD should have agreed with the CAB to meet

    me in a duty solicitor meeting, to help me calculate if I was eligable

    for recieveing legal-aid, if this is a work-task that EAD doesn’t do.

    It makes no sence that they should agree with the CAB to help me

    calculate if I’m eligable for legal-aid, and then when I call them after

    they have canceled the meeting, then they tell me that they don’t

    do this type of work-task at all.

    It makes no sense that they should agree with the CAB to do a work-

    task they dont do.

    I don’t think it’s acceptable for a solicotors firm to act like this.

    Complaint 2 A.: I would like to complain about the EAD solicitors

    firm first agreeing to help me, and then refusing this.

    Complaint 2 B: I would like to complain about the EAD agreeing

    to to do a work-task they don’t do (Like Reiner explained, that

    they didn’t help people with calculating if they are eligable for

    recieving legal-aid in individual employment-cases).

    3. I think the EAD should have informed me on why they canceled

    the meeting.

    This was not informed to me by eighter the CAB or the EAD when I

    called the EAD later.

    I don’t remember if I asked them a direct question about this, but I

    think it’s a natural thing to do when one cancel a scheduled meeting

    like this.

    Complaint 3: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn’t

    inform me of the reason for why they canceled the duty solicitor

    meeting on the CAB 5/4.

    4. I think the EAD should have informed me about the name of the

    duty solicitor that was supposed to meet me.

    I asked the CAB twice about the name of the solicitor (because I

    reckoned that this was my contact with EAD, so it would be very

    usefull for me to know this). But the CAB couldn’t tell me who

    it was, even if I asked them twice. (First when I was there for

    the meeting that was canceled, and secondly when I called the

    CAB a bit later that day, to get the right phonenumber for the EAD).

    When I called EAD later the same day, and got to speak with Reiner,

    I again asked who the dury solicitor that I was supposed to meet

    at the CAB was, but Reiner didn’t give me the duty solicitors name.

    I think that if the duty solicitor cancels the meeting, and agrees with

    the CAB that I could instead call the EAD and get advice from them

    over the phone, then he should leave his name with the CAB, and

    tell them to give me the his name when I show up for the meeting,

    so that I know who to ask for when I call the EAD.

    When I called the EAD I got transfered a bit around from person

    to person, before I got to speak with Reiner. I think I was speaking

    with eighter two or three other people before I got to speak with

    Reiner.

    That one don’t know who to ask for, and that one have to explain

    about the case several times to several people, could maybe lead

    to that one gets a bit stressed, and maybe loses a bit of the focus

    that one normally would have had on the case, if one had been

    transfered directly to the right person.

    So I think that this also added to the general level of unproffesionalism

    that it seemed to me was quite characteristic to the way the EAD (and

    the CAB) handled the meeting on 5/4. So even if it sounds a bit stupid

    maybe, I think I’ll also add a complaint about that I wasn’t given the

    duty solicitors name by the EAD (eighter directly or through the CAB).


    Complaint 4: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn’t

    inform me about the name of the duty solicitor that was supposed

    to meet me, even if I asked both the EAD (Reiner) and the CAB

    about this.

    5. I think that the EAD shouldn’t have adviced me on such a complicated

    case over the phone.

    The EAD only wanted to help me over the phone, and therefore a

    misunderstanding happened regard what type of case it was.

    Since we only discussed it over the phone, and the EAD didnt get to see

    the documents that belonged to the case, and I answered that it was an

    employement-case when Reiner asked me, because this was what the

    police had told me that it was.

    If the EAD had agreed to meet me, they would have seen that it was,

    (like the Morecroft solicitor told me on 11/4), that it also was an

    harassment-case.

    So, because of this misunderstanding, Reiner on the phone, told me that

    the case had only got a three month ‘time-limit’, and that since it had

    passed more than three months since the last incident in the case,

    Reiner said that the three month ‘time-limit’ for the case had ‘expired’,

    and that there really wasn’t much hope regarding getting a case like

    this through the justice-system, due to the three month ‘time-limit’ having

    expired.

    But, when I told this to the solicitor from Morecrofts on 11/4, the solicitor

    told me that the case was also an harassment-case, and that it therefore

    had a longer ‘time-limit’ than three months.

    I think that, if EAD had done their job properly, then they would have

    read through the cases documents, and also come to the same

    conclusion.

    Therefore I think that it was a bit irresponsible to give advice about this

    over the phone. The way Reiner explaned it, was that it wasn’t really much

    hope for me to get any progress on the case due to the time-limit problem,

    so it sounded on him like that it wasn’t really worth the bother for me to

    be using more time on trying to get help with the case.

    So, if they do their advice-job in this way, I think it could lead to members

    of the public being given wrong information (in the same way I was given

    by Reiner on 5/4), which could lead to perfectly good cases being

    given up by the person contacting them for advice.

    And one could also think of many other types of misunderstandings that

    could happen due to them doing their duty soliciting work and

    legal-advice over the phone instead of in meetings, like one would think

    would be more practical when it comes to legal-cases, that I reckon often

    can be quite complicated.

    Complaint 5A: I would like to complain about that the EAD gave me wrong

    advice on the phone on 5/4 about the ‘time-limit’ for the case I had agreed

    to meet them about in a duty solicitor meeting at the CAB (To get help

    from them to see if I was eligable to recieve legal-aid for the case).

    Complaint 5B: I would like to complain about the EAD giving advice on

    the phone about cases that they have initialy agreed on to advice about

    in meetings. Reiner from EAD said in the phone-call on 5/4 that one

    needs to know the details of the case to see if someone are eligable for

    legal-aid.

    I think that if he didn’t know the details of the case, then he shouldn’t

    advice on how long ‘time-limit’ there is for the case eighter.

    I think this was an unaceptable way for them to do their duty solicitor

    job. (Which I think this must be called, since they had canceled

    the duty solicitor meeting, and I think the EAD and the CAB must

    have agreed on that it was ok for me to call them for advice instead,

    since the CAB adviced me to do this.)

    And even if one can’t call it a duty solicitor job, for some reason that

    I’m not aware of, then I still think it’s unaceptable of them to give advice

    on how long ‘time-limit’ there is for a case, without knowing the details

    of the case.

    6. If one goes to the EAD web-page on the internet, on the url:

    http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/employment/, it says that ‘EAD advices

    on all aspects of employement law work for trade unions, union members

    and individual workers’.

    I don’t think the EAD should put it on their web-site that they advice on

    all aspects of employement law for individual workers, when they don’t

    individual workers at all, like Reiner said in the phone-call on 5/4.

    He said that they only dealt with employment-cases that were trade-

    union cases, and that this was the reason that they couldn’t help me

    with calculating if I was eligable for legal aid.

    Also, the fact that they agreed with the CAB to meet me on 5/4, to

    help me calculate if I was eligable for recieving legal-aid, fits with what

    they write on the web-page, that they really help individual workers

    with things like this.

    So it’s a bit unclear to me if the information on their web-page is wrong,

    or if the information I was given by Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 was

    wrong.

    So I think I’ll complain about that I have recieved contradicting information,

    and then someone who are more experts on this can hopefully have a

    look at it, and try to find out what these, to me, seemingly contradicting

    statements are due to.

    Complaint 6: I’d like to complain about that the information on the EAD

    webpage says that the EAD advices individual workers in employement

    cases, whereas Mr. Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 informed me that

    EAD only gave advice about employement-cases when these cases

    were trade-union cases.

    Part 3

    I am happy for you to deal with my complaint in writing.

    I would like the following to sort out my complaint:

    The most important thing to me, is to try to find a solution on how to get some

    progress on the case, so that it is brought through the justice-system in an

    appropriate way.

    I think the complaint should be dealt with by you appropriately.

    I’ve lost a bit of confidence in your company due to what happened on 5/4, so

    I would like to see how your company deals with this complaint, before I decide

    how I should go further with this.

  • Untitled Post

    From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
    To: Michael.Rimer@legalservices.gov.uk Michael Rimer
    Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:20:51 +0000
    Subject: Re: Your e-mail (complaint about a duty solicitor)

    Hi,

    thank you very much for your answer!

    Well, in April, I called the Law Society about the problems, and they
    adviced me
    to bring the complaints through their complaint-procedure.

    Now, about six months later, the Law Society tells me that it is the LSC,
    who
    should have dealt with these complaints.

    The complaints are regarding poor service and unprofessional conduct, from
    law-firms,
    in conection with duty solicitor meetings, being set up by the CAB.

    I’m going to enclose a copy of the two complaints that I sent the Law
    Society.

    One complaint regarding the Morecrofts Solicitors firm, and one complaint
    regarding
    the EAD solicitors firm.

    So I’m looking forward to hearing more from you, regarding how I should go
    forward
    with these complaints.

    Thanks in advance for the help!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
    >
    > Dear Mr Ribsskog
    >
    > Your email has been referred to me as you appear to have had some
    > difficulties in finding out where to make a complaint about a duty
    > solicitor who assisted you recently. I am a lawyer in the LSC’s head
    > office legal department.
    >
    > I am not clear from your email what it is exactly that you were unhappy
    > about the duty solicitor who assisted you. Did the duty solicitor see
    > you at a police station? Or did the duty solicitor see you at the
    > magistrates’ court? If you outlined very briefly the nature of your
    > complaint about the solicitor, i.e., what he did that you thought was
    > wrong, or what he didn’t do that you think he ought to have done, that
    > would be helpful.
    >
    > I am mindful to suggest that you make a complaint to the firm directly.
    > Usually, a complaint against a solicitor is best made to the senior or
    > managing partner at the solicitor’s firm. Otherwise, the solicitor whom
    > you are unhappy about wont know what it is he has done wrong, in your
    > view. Depending on the firm’s response, the Customer Service Team
    > (whom you originally emailed about this) will be in a better position to
    > say whether your complaint should be referred to the firm’s account
    > manager at the Legal Services Commission, or whether it should be dealt
    > with by the Law Society’s Legal Complaint Service.
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Michael
    >
    >
    >
    > Michael Rimer
    > Legal Adviser
    > Corporate Legal Team
    > Legal Services Commission
    > 85 Gray’s Inn Road,
    > London WC1X 8TX
    >
    > DX 328 Chancery Lane
    >
    > Note: The email may contain confidential legal advice which is likely
    > to be subject to legal professional privilege and which may be exempt
    > from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact the
    > author or the Commission’s Legal Director to seek authorisation before
    > disclosing this email outside the Commission.”
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >>> “Erik Ribsskog” 06 November 2007 02:25 >>>
    > Hi,
    >
    > I can’t see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, thats
    > why I’m
    > trying to send it again.
    >
    > Yours sincerely,
    >
    > Erik Ribsskog
    >
    > ———- Forwarded message ———-
    > From: Erik Ribsskog
    > Date: Oct 19, 2007 4:36 PM
    > Subject: Re: Your e-mail
    > To: Legal LSC
    >
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > thank you very much for your answer.
    >
    > I will now try to summarise the corespondce I’ve been having with you
    > and
    > Simon Williams from the Legal Complaints Service.
    >
    > Simon Williams (The Legal Complaints Service) says that I should
    > contact the
    > LSC to complain about
    > a duty solicitor.
    >
    > And you (The LSC) are saying that I should contact The Legal
    > Complaints
    > Service to complain about
    > a duty solicitor.
    >
    > So I’m not sure how to conclude this summary.
    >
    > Could you please confirm again who I should contact if I want to
    > formally
    > complain about poor service
    > and uprofessional conduct from a law-firm in connection with the duty
    > solicitors scheme.
    >
    > Because Simon Williams from The Legal Complaints Service is writing
    > this in
    > a letter from 26/9:
    >
    > ‘Here, a meeting under the duty solicitors programme is unlikely to be
    > something done under a retainer
    > (that is, a relationship between solicitor and client), as duty
    > solicitors
    > are those who provide assistance
    > to those who are without representation
    >
    > […]
    >
    > As you are not a client of EAD, this office is unable to consider your
    > complaint. I will, therefore, take
    > steps to close this file’.
    >
    > So it’s obvious that the Legal Complaints Service aren’t looking at
    > complaints against law-firms in
    > connection to the duty solicitors scheme.
    >
    > Williams, write in an e-mail from 2/10:
    >
    > ‘ *Q2: If not, then who is it one are supposed to complain to, about
    > poor
    > service/unprofessional* *conduct, by law-firms, in connection with the
    > Dury
    > Solicitors scheme?*
    >
    > I have looked into this matter and would suggest that you refer to
    > this
    > website:
    >
    > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/liverpool_information.asp
    >
    >
    > It contains information and contact details of the Merseyside Duty
    > Solicitors scheme and I hope that you will find it useful.
    >
    > I should also note that the Legal Services Commission is an
    > organisation
    > wholly separate from the Law Society and, if you have any specific
    > questions
    > in relation to the procedures, you should direct them to the LSC,
    > rather
    > than our Office.’.
    >
    > So he’s saying that the LCS should deal with the complaint.
    >
    > Is this correct?
    >
    > Who could I ask for advice/help regarding this, since I’m being in a
    > way
    > ‘thrown around’ here, from one organisation to the
    > other.
    >
    >
    > Also, you are writing that:
    >
    > ‘In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
    > there
    > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
    > colleague
    > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on the
    > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.’.
    >
    >
    > So you are writing that since you have an online directory, then it
    > can’t be
    > something wrong
    > in regards to your customer-helpline’s advice.
    >
    > I can’t see that it’s an excuse for giving wrong advice (giving me the
    > phone-numbers to law-firms
    > in Wales), I can’t see that this can be excused by you also having an
    > online
    > directory.
    >
    > What is the point of having a customer-helpline, if one can’t trust
    > the
    > advice?
    >
    > Since like you are writing, you also have an online directory, so this
    > fact
    > means that any mistakes
    > the helpline makes, must be misunderstandings.
    >
    > I don’t see the logic in this.
    >
    > I think you must be mistaking.
    >
    > Even if you have an online directory, I don’t see how this explains
    > mistakes
    > from your helpline.
    >
    > It’s not a valid excuse I mean.
    >
    > If I go to Tesco and say I got the wrong change back.
    >
    > Then Tesco can’t say that, of it must be a misunderstanding because you
    > have
    > paid by debit-card.
    >
    > Thats the same reasoning to me.
    >
    > So it would be very fine, if you could please confirm that I’ve
    > understood
    > your excuse right.
    >
    > Because in that case, I don’t think it’s a valid excuse, and I would
    > please
    > like to complain about it.
    >
    > I hope that this is alright!
    >
    > Thank you very much for your answer again!
    >
    > Yours sincerely,
    >
    > Erik Ribsskog
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10/19/07, Legal LSC wrote:
    > >
    > > Our ref: KPL/MISC/07/07/70 (5)
    > > Date: 19 October 2007
    > >
    > >
    > > Dear Mr Ribbskog,
    > >
    > > Thank you for your e-mail on 16 October 2007.
    > >
    > > You are always welcome to put forward an informal complaint regarding
    > a
    > > duty solicitor’s poor service and/or misconduct, in connection with
    > > the Local Duty Solicitors Scheme, to the Account Manager of our
    > relevant
    > > regional office. They will be happy to investigate your complaint
    > and
    > > will communicate with the duty solicitor involved to clarify the
    > areas
    > > of your complaint and endeavor to resolve the issue.
    > >
    > > However, it is not within our capacity or powers to enforce any
    > actions
    > > upon the relevant duty solicitor in regards to their poor service
    > and/or
    > > misconduct.
    > >
    > > For complaints on the poor service and/or misconduct of any
    > solicitor
    > > to be dealt with formally and with enforceable actions, you must
    > direct
    > > your complaints to the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service (LCS),
    > > who are an independent complaints handling body that deals with all
    > > formal complaints against solicitors. Even though they are part of
    > the
    > > Law Society, they operate independently.
    > >
    > > Further details on the LCS are available at the following website:
    > >
    > > http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/home.page
    > >
    > > Both the above options are available to you and it is your decision
    > on
    > > where you want to direct your complaint and how it is resolved.
    > >
    > > In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
    > there
    > > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
    > colleague
    > > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
    > the
    > > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.
    > >
    > > I hope the above is of assistance to you.
    > >
    > > Yours sincerely
    > >
    > >
    > > Ka Poh Ling
    > > Central Customer Services Unit
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ***********************************************************************************
    > > Disclaimer
    > >
    > > This email (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for
    > the
    > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
    > > unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
    > If you
    > > are not the intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform
    > the
    > > sender by return e-mail.
    > >
    > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
    > intercepted and
    > > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether
    > to
    > > send information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services
    > > Commission are available from
    > > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/regions.asp
    > >
    > > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record
    > and
    > > retain any incoming and outgoing emails for security reasons and for
    > > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
    > policy on
    > > staff use. Email monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and
    > email
    > > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
    > not
    > > broken when writing or forwarding emails and their contents. No
    > contracts
    > > can be entered into on our behalf by email.
    > >
    > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
    > not
    > > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
    > >
    > > The Legal Services Commission checks all mails and attachments for
    > known
    > > viruses; however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
    > your own
    > > risk.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > ***********************************************************************************
    > >
    >
    >
    > ************************************************************************************
    > Disclaimer
    >
    > This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for the
    > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its unauthorised
    > use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the
    > intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return
    > e-mail.
    >
    > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be intercepted and
    > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether to send
    > information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services Commission
    > are available from http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions.asp
    >
    > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record and
    > retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and for
    > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission policy on
    > staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and e-mail
    > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken
    > when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts can be
    > entered into on our behalf by e-mail.
    >
    > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
    > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
    >
    > The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for known
    > viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own
    > risk.
    >
    > ************************************************************************************
    >
    >