Fwd: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.

14 March 2008
21:16

Subject Fwd: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
From Erik Ribsskog
To david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk
Sent 14 March 2008 21:17
Attachments

Hi,
 
I forgot to add the enclosure.
 
So I’m sending it with this e-mail.
 
Hope this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Mar 14, 2008 9:14 PM
Subject: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
To: david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk

 
Hi,
 
thank you very much, for your letter, which I recieved in an e-mail today.
 
You write that I have the chance to get someone outside of the CAB, to
have at the complaint if I wanted.

I think this sound smart, since there are a few points, that I’m still wondering
about.
 
First I wanted to explain why I sent a lenghty complaint, to the Complaints
Officer, last year.
 
It was because the Police, told me to go to the CAB, since they couldn’t help
me with what seemed to be organised criminal activity at work.
 
Since it had to do with work, the Police said, then I had to go to the CAB.

So I wanted to explain to the CAB, what had been going on at work, in case
the Police were trying to fool me, with telling me to go to the CAB.
 
Since I thought this sounded a bit strange.
 
Also, you write that I had some problems with the environment at the CAB.
 
But I brought this up, since it seemed to me, that this must have been part
of some plot.
 
Because, first there was a 12-13 y.o. girl, standing outside the CAB office,
in the State House, which is an office building.

Then someone buzzed me in, I had to ask twice.
 
Then they let me sit in the dark, for about ten minutes.

Then a CAB-representative, that looked very like he was gay, held the meeting
there in the dark.
 
And the solicitor had canceled.

I think I should have been set up for a new solicitors-meeting.

Then, at the end of the meeting, the CAB-representative, turned on the lights.

Then the woman working there, in her fifties, placed herself in the reception,
scanning my face, as I walked out of the office.
 
And none of them were out for lunch.
 
This seemed like a set-up to me.

When I left the State Building, the receptionist there, didn’t look at me, or
answer my salute.

He looked outside, on Dale St.

And he was red in his face.

I was almost run over by a lorry, or trailer, if I remember correctly.
 
And then the CAB-representative lied, in the answer to the complaint.

He said he had turned on the lights, at the beginning of the meeting.
But he didn’t.

This is also shown by that he read me the fax-number to the company, and not
the telephone-number. (Like he appologised for).

I think this supports my version, that the meeing was held in the dark.
 
That it was so dark, that he read the fax-number, instead of the phone-
number from the list.
 
And I think they should have turned the lights on there, when I arrived.
 
At 1.30 pm. 5/4/07 (The day before Good Friday).
 
(I have a scanned copy of the CAB appointment-notice, that I will enclose with this e-mail).

I was a bit late, since I was writing some documents, to bring to the meeting.
 
So I was at the CAB, at around 1.35 pm.
 
Then I was left sitting waiting, til untill 1.45 pm.
 
And the meeting started, and I guess the lights were turned on, something like 1.55 pm.
 
So I think it’s strange, that they have lunch till 1.55 pm, in an office building.
If they work 8 to 5, then I think it’s strange, that they have lunch at 1 pm.
 
Because I think most offices like this, have lunch at 12 am.
 
And also, if they have lunch from 12 am, untill 1.55 pm, I think this is to long lunch-break.

So I’m worried about what they might be doing there in the lunch-break.
 
I think they should turn on the lights, when citizens enter their offices.
 
And not twenty minutes later.
 
But I suspect, that this was to do with a plot.

To check if I reacted on the girl they had placed outside, or on the homosexual
CAB-representative, that held the meeting in the dark.

Due to the way the woman working there scanned my face, when I went out.

She was just standing there, and ‘scanning’ my face, when I went out, in a
totally strange way.

Like it was some kind of psycho movie.
 
So I think, that one should be able to go to the CAB, without being set up in
a plot like that.

Thats my main complaint.

And I don’t want to go back there now.
 
And also, that your automated message was sent so late.
Like you write:
 
‘You also supplied copies of e-mails sent to me on August 3rd and August 16th and
my automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply dated August 22nd.’. 
 
Shouldn’t this have been reflected on?
 
Why was the automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply sent on 22/8?
 
When the e-mail it was answering was sent on 16/8?
 
Why wasn’t this explained about?

What was the automated reply doing in the mean-time?
 
Shouldn’t the automated reply have been sent to me on 16/8?
 
What happened between 16/8 and 22/8 with the automated message?
Was it a manual ‘automated’ message?

In that case, it shouldn’t be called ‘automated’.
 
This is very strange I think.
And I think it should have been explained about.
 
In case some mafia-people have been sending phoney automated, or
‘automated’ replies, in your name, when you were on holiday.

At least I think this should have been explained and investigated.
Because automated replies don’t behave like this.
 
And the Liverpool Central CAB, have written their old e-mail address,
on their website.

So they have an e-mail address, that isn’t working, on their web-site.

Then people can’t just send e-mails, to complain, they have to call,
and speak with the ones they are complaining about.

So I this also should have been brought up in your letter.
 
But thank you very much anyway, for you letter!
 
But I must also point out, that I think the very serious problems that
I mention in this e-mail, should be looked upon, and dealt with.
 
So I hope you have the chance, to have someone outside of the CAB,
to have a look at this, like you mention in your letter!
 
Hope this is alright!
 
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
 

March 13 2008

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

This is the third stage of the Citizens Advice complaints procedure. The aim of the review is to look at how your complaint was handled by the CAB at local level and to check that the fundamental issues were addressed. I have read through the case file and correspondence.

Chronology of your complaint

In February 2007 you saw a duty solicitor at the bureau for advice on how to deal with harassment at work. .

In March you again attended the bureau and asked to see a solicitor. It appears that you were allowed to use the bureau phone and were put in touch with an external solicitor.

You were given an appointment to see a duty solicitor on April 5^th, but this meeting was cancelled as the solicitor was unable to attend the bureau.

On May 18^th 2007 you contacted the Complaints Officer at Citizens Advice by phone, explained that you wanted to make a complaint against Liverpool Central CAB, and that you would send a more detailed complaint by email.

On May 23^rd you sent a 53 page complaint by email plus an additional 30 plus attachments which were not directly related to your complaint.

On May 31^st the Complaints Officer emailed to confirm that she had been in contact with the bureau, that they had located the notes related to your case, that your complaints material had been forwarded on to them, and that a member of their managerial team would now investigate your complaint.

Stage 1 – review by the General Unit Coordinator (GUC)

On September 6^th the GUC sent you his full response by email. His review:

• Confirmed that you had been interviewed, on a free 30 minute basis, by a duty solicitor on February 27^th 2007. The notes taken indicated that the solicitor felt you might have a claim for harassment but there was insufficient time to get full details during that interview.

• In response to your complaint that you should have been informed beforehand that further advice from the solicitor would be charged stated that the initial interview was given on a payment free basis but that any subsequent issues you had with the solicitor needed to be taken up directly with them.

• Explained what had happened when you arrived for your appointment with the Employment Duty Solicitor i.e. that unfortunately the EAD had to cancel their session at the last minute and the bureau had been unable to inform you of this.

• You apparently contacted the EAD directly and were informed that regardless of the missed appointment you were out of time to commence with employment tribunal proceedings. You stated that you asked how the legal aid system worked but were told by the solicitor that he was unable to discuss the issue in detail over the phone.

• Stated that as far as he was concerned you had received a free initial consultation as per the standard rota system.

The GUC then went on to address some specific points that you had raised:

• He explained that he had not set up an appointment for the next available duty solicitor slot after April 5^th as it would not have been possible for you to see a solicitor until May and this may have impacted on legal time limits.

• Confirmed that the bureau only has details of which practice will be providing a solicitor for rota duty, not the name of the individual solicitor.

• Confirmed that reception staff cannot provide detailed information on the legal aid process.

• Confirmed that the solicitors practice in question was Liverpool based.

• Apologized for accidentally providing you with the fax number for the practice, not the main telephone number.

• Stated that the lights in the bureau were partially off when you attended in April because the bureau was in fact closed for lunch.

• Confirmed that clients are made aware in advance that only the initial 30 minute consultation with the duty solicitor is free of charge.

• Confirmed that the bureau cannot be held responsible for the actions of a solicitor after the initial consultation.

• The GUC concluded by stating that if you were dissatisfied with his response you were entitled to a further review by the bureau Chair.

Stage 2 – review by the Chair of the Trustee Board

On October 27^th you sent an email requesting a further review by the Chair of the Trustee Board. During this period there seems to have been some difficulties with email contact which may explain the delay in the production of this review. The copy of the response I have is undated but I have been told by the bureau that it was sent to you on December 14^th 2007. In your request for a review you set out the reasons why you were not happy with the response given by the bureau.

In his response the Chair:

• Set out what he considered to be the main points of your complaint.

• Confirmed that the GUC had not made another appointment for you to see an EAD but had followed standard procedure and provided you with details for the solicitors practice so that you could instead make direct contact. This was to ensure that you received advice straight away and were not inconvenienced by the cancelled appointment.

• Stated that the GUC had not rescheduled the appointment due to potential legal deadlines.

• Explained how the duty solicitor system works.

• Confirmed that in general the CAB does not know the names of individual solicitors who attend the duty session.

• Confirmed that the solicitors practice in question was based in central Liverpool.

• Again apologised for the fact that you were given the wrong contact number.

• Stated that the lights in the bureau were turned off because it was lunch time.

• Stated that clients are informed by reception staff that only the first 30 minutes with the duty solicitor are free of charge. He stated that it was the responsibility of the solicitor, not the CAB, to explain the legal aid process to clients.

• Concluded by providing details of the next stage in the standard complaints procedure.

On February 11^th 2008 Sue Thomas, Head of Advice Policy and Standards at Citizens Advice, received a number of e-mails from you. At this point it became clear that you were not happy with the way your complaint had been handled by the bureau. You also raised concerns about the lack of contact by Citizens Advice in the early stages. Your complaint therefore was moved to the next stage and referred for review under my direction.

Conclusions

There was a four month delay between the receipt of your complaint and the initial response from the bureau. Whilst I appreciate that there was a lot of material involved in your complaint, this falls well outside of the organisational deadlines and is not acceptable. The stage 2 review also seems to have been completed outside the usual deadlines, again with no evidence of contact with you to explain the delay.

I would ask bureau staff to re-familiarise themselves with the standard procedure for handling complaints. There may be a substantive explanation for this, but unfortunately it is not documented in the file notes and clearly had not been communicated to you.

I am concerned that there seem to be no notes documenting what action was taken by the bureau following your initial interview with the duty solicitor in February and I would ask that bureau staff re-familiarise themselves with the organisational requirements and standards of case recording.

Turning to the content of the reviews, both addressed the issues that you have raised in some depth. Your complaint is lengthy in nature considering that your contact with the bureau has been minimal.

I am satisfied that the bureau made acceptable arrangements for you to seek legal advice in this matter, the issues that you raised are certainly too specialised for the bureau to deal with.

You have raised a number of issues about the bureau environment; these have already been addressed in some detail and I do not feel I can add anything that would help.

Finally, I would like to turn to your issues about the way your complaint was dealt with by Citizens Advice. You first spoke to our Complaints Officer (Saffron Follows) on 18^th May and e-mailed her your complaint on 23^rd May. On 31^st May she replied to say she had contacted the bureau and you should hear from them in 20 working days.

You have given us copies of e-mails sent to Saffron dated 5^th July and 22^nd July to which you received no response. You also supplied copies of e-mails sent to me on August 3^rd and August 16^th and my automatically generated ‘out of office’ reply dated August 22^nd. As a result of these emails Saffron contacted the bureau at the end of August in order to chase progress. I apologise that you were not made aware of this action and appreciate how this may have added to your frustration.

Overall I will apologise for the delays in dealing with your initial complaint and the lack of responsiveness from this office. I certainly uphold your complaint in that respect. However I feel that the bureau did deal fully with the issues you raise though can see that you are not happy with their responses. Bureaux have to find ways of coping with the demand for their advice services, and it is not inappropriate for bureaux to work closely with local solicitors to help provide advice.

If you are unhappy with this review, you have the right to a final review conducted by an Adjudicator who is independent of Citizens Advice. The aim of the Adjudicator’s review is to assess whether the complaint’s investigation had been handled fairly and in line with procedures. If you would like such a review, please write to me, stating the points in my review on which you disagree.

Yours sincerely,

David Harker

Chief Executive

Cc Chair of Liverpool Central CAB

Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

14 March 2008
20:14

Subject
Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB
From
Follows, Saffron
To
eribsskog@gmail.com
Sent
14 March 2008 11:01
Attachments

<>
Dear Mr Ribsskog,
Please find attached the stage 3 review of your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.
Yours sincerely,
Saffron Follows
Complaints & Policy Officer
• please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?
The Citizens Advice service helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice is an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
• Information and Advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
• For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
• Volunteer hotline 08451-264-264 (local rate Mon-Fri)
NOTICE: this e-mail originates from Citizens Advice, an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (Charity Registration Number 279057, VAT number 726 0202 76, Company limited by guarantee, Registered Number 1436945 England, Registered office Myddelton House, 115-123 Pentonville Road, London N1 9LZ). It contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply to this e-mail (other than for the reason stated above).
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.