 |
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
Law Clinic Appointment
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM | |
|
To: Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> | ||
| ||
-
Google Mail – Law Clinic Appointment
-
Google Mail – Employment-case
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Employment-case
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM
To:
Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk>
Hi,I’m not based in Sweden, I live in Leather Lane in Liverpool.
I worked at Bertelsmann Arvato’s Microsoft Scandinavian Product
Activation in the Cunard Building,
in Liverpool.
I’m a Norwegian native, but Microsoft’s Scandinavian
product-activation, was run from Liverpool, like
it says in the link in the e-mail.
The University in Liverpool, has also let Arvato put up posters for
their Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation-campaign,
on your campus, and a lot of the people working part time on the
Microsoft-campaign were students from your university,
and other universities and colleges in Liverpool, who were treated in
a inhuman way there, I think I have to say, with the
illigal management-methods and the bullying from managers and all.
I don’t think I would have contacted you from Sweden, if I was living
there and this was a Swedish employment-case.
But I can hear with the other Pro Bono clinics.
But thank you very much for your answer!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Erik Ribsskog,
>
> Thank you for your email. It seems from your message that you are based in
> Sweden? If that is so, then unfortunately, we are not able to offer legal
> advice via email/telephone. The Law Clinic offers appointments in which our law
> students interview clients under the supervision of local, practising solicitors
> and a letter of advice is sent out within a period of 2 – 3 weeks following the
> interview. The service is aimed at members of the general public from the
> Merseyside area of Liverpool.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> Marie Ball
> Clinic Administrator
> Liverpool Law Clinic
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 January 2009 08:13
> To: Law Clinic
> Subject: Employment-case
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an employment-case, against Bertelsmann Arvato’s Microsoft
> Scandinavian Product Activation, that
> I’m trying to get help with:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/groups/
view/14830-arvato-services- ltd-s-microsoft-scandina > vian-product-activation
>
> There were a lot of bullying from managers there, and a lot of other problems.
>
> Is this something that your Pro Bono clinic have the chance to help
> with you think?
>
> Thanks in advance for the answer!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
-
Jeg ringte posten nå, på 47 21316250.
http://www.posten.no/Kundeservice
Hvis du bor i utlandet, så får du bare lov å omadressere posten i 13 måneder, så er det slutt.
Jeg trodde 47 var landskoden for Norge jeg, jeg visste ikke at det var landskoden for Sovjet.
Men sånn er det, man kan ikke vite alt.
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
-
Google Mail – Klage på vedtak.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Klage på vedtak.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
To:
postmottak@fmoa.no
Hei,jeg fikk et brev fra dere igår hvor dere igjen nekter meg hjelp til advokat.
Jeg overhørte på Rimi Bjørndal i 2003, at jeg var forfulgt av noe ‘mafian’.
Jeg ble forsøkt drept på gården til min onkels nå eksdama i Kvelde i
Larvik i 2005.
Da måtte jeg dra til utlandet uten noe klær eller andre ting, siden
jeg ikke måtte rømme
fra de folka som var mange og hadde våpen osv.
Så jeg er en flyktning.
Og dere maser om mangel på dokumentasjon.
Dere nekter å gi meg advokat.
Jeg har forklart dere om alt som har foregått.
Dere slår meg i hue med noen paragrafer.
Dere er som tyskerne som hjalp Hiltler under krigen.
Det kan ikke være sånn at man må ha advokat for å få advokat.
Da hadde man ikke trengt advokat fra førsten av.
Nei, dere må bruke huene deres, og ikke late som at dere er som
tyskerne som hjalp
Hitler under krigen, som lata som at dem ikke hadde hjerner inni huene sine.
Sånn er dere hos fylkesmannen nå.
Det kan ikke være sånn at man må ha advokat for å få advokat siden
dere er paragrafryttere.
Derfor vil jeg klage på det vedtaket, og henstiller at dere bruker
fornuften, for nå er dere vrange
med vilje.
Og dere er umenneskelige når dere nekter mafia-ofre advokat.
Med hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
-
Google Mail – Appeal to the Ombudsman LGO REF 8000279
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Appeal to the Ombudsman LGO REF 8000279
LGOAT Mailbox
<lgoatmail@lgo.org.uk>
Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:35 PM
To:
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Cc:
WorkPro <incoming@lgo7.lgo.org.uk>
Thank you for your prompt response Mr RibsskogYour complaint was closed in July 2008 in light no or insufficient
evidence of maladministration at the Ombudsman’s discretion. As a
complainant you would have three months to dispute that decision. In
view of the time that has passed it is not feasible to review your
complaint at this stage.
If you are still experiencing problems with the council relating to the
same issues then you will need to raise this as a new complaint.
Firstly you would need to complete the council’s complaints procedure
and if you remain unhappy after that you can refer your complaint back
to the Local Government Ombudsman.
I hope this is of assistance but should you have any further queries
please contact the Advice Team on 024 7682 1960.
Best regards
Mandy Cashmore
Customer Service Adviser
LGO Advice Team
Tel: 0845 602 1983
Ext: 0123
Fax: 024 768 20001
Web: www.lgo.org.uk
NOTICE – This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information
—–Original Message—–
From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 January 2009 13:15
To: LGOAT Mailbox
Subject: Re: Appeal to the Ombudsman.
Hi,
that sounds very good!
The reference should be 08 000 279, and the post-code should be L2 2AE.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM, LGOAT Mailbox <lgoatmail@lgo.org.uk>
wrote:
> Thank you for your recent e-mail.
>
> Could you please provide your complaint reference and postcode so that
> we can trace your complaint.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Mandy Cashmore
> Customer Service Adviser
> LGO Advice Team
>
> Tel: 0845 602 1983
> Ext: 0123
> Fax: 024 768 20001
>
> Web: www.lgo.org.uk
>
>
> NOTICE – This message contains information intended only for the use
of
> the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
> please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 January 2009 11:33
> To: LGOAT Mailbox
> Subject: Appeal to the Ombudsman.
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if the Local Government Ombudsman in York could have a
> look at
> the complaint I have against the Liverpool City Council again please,
> after the
> complaint was closed.
>
> Because the Council didn’t answer my complaint properly.
>
> They only offered to meet me at the Sports-center, but that was to do
> with another
> complaint it seemed to me.
>
> I think they should answer a written complaint in writing.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
-
Google Mail – SV: Anmeldelse av telefonterror.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
SV: Anmeldelse av telefonterror.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM
To:
Kjetil Knivebakken <kjetil.knivebakken@politiet.no>
Hei,det høres bra ut!
Jeg sender med den regninga jeg nevnte på ny mobil, som jeg har måttet
kjøpe meg,
for å få sove i fred om natta og.
Pengene kan sendes til:
Erik Ribsskog
Flat 3
5 Leather Lane
Liverpool
GB-L2 2AE
Storbritannia
Med vennlig hilsen
Erik Ribsskog
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Kjetil Knivebakken<kjetil.knivebakken@politiet.
no> wrote: > Bekrefter herved mottak av e-post.
> E-posten er videreformidlet til Straffesakseksjon.
>
> Mvh
> SØNDRE BUSKERUD POLITIDISTRIKT
> F.sek Kjetil Knivebakken
> Arkiv
> post.sondre.buskerud@politiet.
no >
img003.jpg
435K
-
Google Mail – Appeal to the Ombudsman.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Appeal to the Ombudsman.
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
To:
advice@lgo.org.uk
Hi,I was wondering if the Local Government Ombudsman in York could have a look at
the complaint I have against the Liverpool City Council again please, after the
complaint was closed.
Because the Council didn’t answer my complaint properly.
They only offered to meet me at the Sports-center, but that was to do
with another
complaint it seemed to me.
I think they should answer a written complaint in writing.
Yours sincerely
Erik Ribsskog
-
Google Mail – New Complaint
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
New Complaint
Erik Ribsskog
<eribsskog@gmail.com>
Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM
To:
"Follows, Saffron" <saffron.follows@citizensadvice.org.uk>
Hi,I’m sending you a new complaint.
The CAB has set me up with a ‘Duty Solicitior’ and an ‘Employment Duty
Solicitor’, for meetings.
But the Legal Services Commission told me today, on the phone, that
there is no Duty Solicitor scheme for employment-cases.
On Wikipedia, it says, that Duty Solicitiors are for people being
accused of a crime.
But I just wanted to bring up an employment-case, against a former employer.
I was wondering if you could please help me with making this clear,
because then I’d know how to go on
with dealing with the problems with the Solicitors and more.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Kristian Khan <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org
> Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Subject: RE:
To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Mr Ribsskog
Please acept my apologies for the dealy in replying to you – I have
been out of the office for 2 weeks.
Should you wish to contact the Chair then you would need to send you
email to: bureau@liverpoolcab.org
Regards
KRISTIAN KHAN
GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR
______________________________
__ From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 October 2007 01:01
To: Kristian Khan
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 <KristianKhan@liverpoolcab.org
> 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 B ureau 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 the 3-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.
>
>
