Stikkord: Liverpool Central CAB

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

MD – 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] – To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293907

Erik Ribsskog

Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:24 PM

To: “PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)”

Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk

Hi,

yes, I contacted ACAS about the employement-case, back in 2009.

But they didn’t want to give me advice in writing.

I had to call them.

And then they just told me: ‘It’s no excuse for ignoranse’, (as I remember it).

But why they told me that, I’m not really sure about.

So it was a bit strange contacting them, I have to say.

I haven’t been aware of, that your organisation existed.

Or else I would have sent about this earlier.

You write that you haven recieved enough information.

So I have found an e-mail, that I sent, to the CAB adjudicator, in April 2008.

And I will paste that e-mail later in this e-mail.

Thanks for the reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Here is more about this:

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:27:17 +0100
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Citizens Advice

Hi,

I said I would enclose the screenshot, so I’m sending the screenshot now,
since I forgot
to enclose it with the first e-mail.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Apr 24, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
To: Barbara Stow

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

I’ve been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on it.

I hope it’s alright that I send you these comments!

Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.

What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay,
since he wouldn’t let
me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.

Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about what
went on in the company.

They didn’t call me, but they pushed a ‘phoney’ letter under the door to the
building I live in, which was
written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing
Director, had put in charge of
the investigation of the problems I had reported.

And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.

I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment, which
is the way I saw it.

Now lately, I’ve heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called
‘constructed dismissal’.

So I didn’t leave the employment.

I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.

I thought I’d make a point of this, since this isn’t reflected in your
report.

You write that the area was poorly lit.

It was in fact very poorly lit.

One couldn’t read like a folder or a newspaper there.

(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).

And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.

This isn’t reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was held in
the
dark, so that it wasn’t possible to read there.

11.

Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case, on a
payment plan type
of payment-solution.

Miss Pool said this.

So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment plan
type of payment-solution,
then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.

I thought I’d make a point of this as well, since I can’t see it’s reflected
in your report.

16.

You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David
Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.

This isn’t right at all.

My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.

And the CEO’s automated, or ‘automated’ reply, was sent back, on 22/8.

I’m a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is remarkable.

Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn’t be sent many days
later.

Since then, I suspect that they aren’t really automated at all.

Then I would start to think, that there’s something phoney going on.

So I’m a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I sent
the Chief Executive,
was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.

51.

You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address, listed
on

www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.

But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the e-mail-button.

Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk

and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you write
in your report.

I’m enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from
today, that shows this.

52.

You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.

But I don’t agree with this.

Due to these reasons:

The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was held
with the lights on.

But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.

Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he switched
the lights on.

And before this, it wasn’t possible to read in the area.

The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone list,
instead of the
phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.

But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the Chair
there, thats Chairman of
the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.

I don’t think this is very fair.

Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.

But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there, Follows,
weren’t answered at all.

This isn’t reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.

And what about the problems with the automated reply.

Or the ‘magic’ automated reply, would maybe be a better description of the
nature of this reply.

Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it found
it right to send itself.

Isn’t this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with
seemingly ‘magic’ automated replies?

Why didn’t the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?

Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.

So I don’t agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.

And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on, at
least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the Stage
3 report, from the Chief Executive.

These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.

So I thought I’d send you them, so that you could be aware, of the obvious
errors you’ve made, with the Liverpool
Central CAB’s e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you
have checked, and you say it’s now
the right address, which it isn’t.

And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief Executive,
was sent on the same date, as the
(‘magic’) automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in fact
sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
like you write in your report).

So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don’t think this
can be disputed.

The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative,
isn’t reflected on.

That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn’t
acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.

Since I explain what happened around this in detail.

That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the
EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.

So it shouldn’t really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was held
in the dark or not.

I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of ‘Street Theather’,
arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.

That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set up
there, in connection with my meeting there
on 5/4, last year.

This isn’t taken seriously.

I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in contact,
with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some
reason unclear to me, by some mafia.

(Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with a
collegue there, in the township, that the
shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level
studies).

When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I
explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that ‘don’t he understand, that noone
wants to be involved’.

I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of the
Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some type
of survailance operation, around me.

And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part of
this Police surveilance operation.

So that the whole meeting there, wasn’t a proper meeting at all, just some
kind of phoney set-up.

I don’t think this is right.

Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens have
the right, to work and live in Britain.

And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.

So I don’t think it’s right that my rights should be ignored, in a way like
this, since the Police want’s to have some
kind of set-ups, like it seems.

Anyway, how this is, I can’t see that this is reflected on in your report.

But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I’ve mentioned, and
due to the many things you just ignore in it,
and fail to reflect on.

Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this phoney
Police operation, or what this all is.

So I think this is very poor.

That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to work
for making sure that peoples rights are
respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.

Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the whole
CAB process around the meeting and
the complaint, is obviously corrupt.

So the reason that I’m writing this e-mail, isn’t really because that I
think something will be done regarding the
serious issues I’ve been pointing at here.

But I’m planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I’ll be
able to deal with this in that way, that
I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe
react or reflect on what’s going on.

So that’s really why I’m writing this e-mail.

Just to explain about this.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerly,

Erik Ribsskog

On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Eribsskog
>
> I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
>
> I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within the
> next two weeks when they have considered the report.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
> From: Barbara Stow
> To: Erik Ribsskog
> Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review by
> today, 18 April.
>
> I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
>
> I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the end
> of next week.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
> From: Barbara Stow
> To: Erik Ribsskog
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> Subject: Citizens Advice
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
>
> I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with the
> Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no
> authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> whether it has been considered properly.
>
> Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
>
> If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are
> unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know
> at the e-mail address above.
>
> I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not heard
> from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to add to
> what you have explained already.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:16 PM, PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

Thank you for your email dated 21 December 2016 about the above named charity.

The Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) is the registrar and regulator of charities in England and Wales.  Our core role is to protect the public’s interest in the integrity of charity. We enable charities to deliver effective services whilst also ensuring their compliance with charity law.  We do this by working with charities through providing advice and guidance and setting out best practices to resolve any difficulties encountered.  To address matters of serious concern, we will intervene to protect the charity by using our legal powers where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

Trustees collectively have, and must accept, ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of their charity, ensuring that it is solvent and well-run, and delivering the charitable outcomes for the benefit of the public for which it was set up in line with the requirements of the charity’s governing document, charity law, company law and any other relevant legislation.

We have looked carefully at the information you have provided and we appreciate the time that you have taken to send this to the Charity Commission.  We note that you are in dispute with the charity over the employment law advice that you may have received from the charity.  However, unfortunately, we are unable to become involved on this occasion. This is because of the following reasons:

·         We have not received sufficient information that clearly demonstrates that charity law has been breached in this instance.  It would be unfair for us to act on unsubstantiated allegations or opinions which could disrupt a charity’s work and have a detrimental effect on its users and beneficiaries;

·         We cannot become involved in disputes over employment law issues.  In such instances, we would recommend that you contact ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service:) as this organisation provides information, advice, training, conciliation and other services for employers and employees to help prevent or resolve workplace problems.

I trust that this response explains why we cannot become involved on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

16. januar 2017

Jeg sendte enda en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

Update/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016

Erik Ribsskog

Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:44 PM

To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk

Cc: a.abualeid@gmail.com, gillian.guy@citizensadvice.org.uk, Feedback , Phso Enquiries , Ratchford Janet , barbara.stow@btinternet.com, pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, whistleblowing@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, Andrew Haigh , cservices@bsigroup.com, casework@ico.org.uk, Malcolm Hachemi , national@theguardian.com, newsdesk@independent.co.uk, LO Postkasse LO , Akademikerforbundet , Politikk Høyre , “sande.vgs”

Hi again,

also, the IPCC have ‘periode’.

(They don’t want me to send more e-mails to them.

For some reason).

Or else I would have updated them as well.

(Since I complain about the Merseyside Police, etc).

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016
To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: a.abualeid@gmail.com, gillian.guy@citizensadvice.org.uk, Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk>, Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Ratchford Janet <Janet.Ratchford@ombudsman.org.uk>, barbara.stow@btinternet.com, pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, whistleblowing@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, Andrew Haigh <andrew.haigh@cht.nhs.uk>, cservices@bsigroup.com, casework@ico.org.uk, Malcolm Hachemi <malcolm.hachemi@isonharrison.co.uk>, national@theguardian.com, newsdesk@independent.co.uk, LO Postkasse LO <lo@lo.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, Politikk Høyre <politikk@hoyre.no>, “sande.vgs” <sande.vgs@vfk.no>

Hi,

I haven’t been aware of, that there is a Charity Commission before.

(Or else I would have complained earlier).

What happened was that I went to Citizens Advice Bureau, in Dale Street, with my employment-case, against Arvato, where I worked, (for Bertelsmann Arvato’s Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation), in 2005 and 2006.

And then Citizens Advice sent me to a law-firm that didn’t accept founding, from the legal aid-programme.

So I didn’t get anywhere with my employment-case.

And there were also a number of other problems.

They had meeting there in the dark, (I remember).

(As if to get me into shock, (or something)).

And I remember, that the adjudicator wrote, something like, that e-mails were a new invention, so Citizenz Advice, couldn’t be blamed, for not knowing how to deal with them.

(Something like that).

But I thought that if the Citizens Advice, don’t know how, to deal with e-mails.

Then they shouldn’t use e-mails.

(Before they’ve learned how to use them).

And I wasn’t given any compensation at all, (the adjudicator and the CAB directors just freed Liverpool Central CAB on all the complaints).

And my employment-case haven’t gotten anywere, after I was sent by Liverpool Central CAB to Moorcrofts, (who didn’t accept founding from the legal aid-programme, and that was really I went to CAB, (I was sent there by Merseyside Police who said they were ‘government’)).

(If I remember it right.

Because this is some years ago).

So this I wanted to complain about.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016
To: gillian.guy@citizensadvice.org.uk
Cc: Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk>, Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Ratchford Janet <Janet.Ratchford@ombudsman.org.uk>, barbara.stow@btinternet.com, pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, whistleblowing@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk, Andrew Haigh <andrew.haigh@cht.nhs.uk>, cservices@bsigroup.com, casework@ico.org.uk, Malcolm Hachemi <malcolm.hachemi@isonharrison.co.uk>, national@theguardian.com, newsdesk@independent.co.uk, eribsskog@gmail.com

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

I remind you that I did send you a previous complaint about case handling around August 2016 but no response. I therefore remind you again to kindly and personally respond to our complaint embarking from the moral and professional duties your title carries. I accept no further communication from the Client Services Team as I no more see them qualified to review my case – they should also comprehend that this is my complaint and its my own decision alone to decide how and when to bring this case to end.

Best regards,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

On 19 December 2016 at 16:39, Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Abu-Aleid,

Thank you for your email.

We are in receipt of your communication to the office of the Chief Executive of Citizens Advice which we thank you for. We will be responding to your query and we understand that you are still unsatisfied with our response to your complaint.

While you may not agree with the Independent adjudicator’s report, we hope you can appreciate that you have reached the final stage of our complaints procedure.

Because of this, we regard the complaint as closed and we will not reopen the matter for further investigation. Going forward, any correspondence we receive about this will be filed but it may not be acknowledged or responded to.

Regards,

Kimberley

The Client Services TeamCitizens Advice
Tel: 03000 231 900

On 20 December 2016 at 10:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

*** REMINDER ***

ᐧ

On 16 December 2016 at 11:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

I write in reference to received independent adjudication review report dated 15 November 2016. Before delivering our opinion concerning this review report, I will start with highlighting complaint major milestones:

1. CITIZENS ADVICE

1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES

In September 2015 I contacted Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office to discuss and help with ongoing complaints against number of health institutions, namely: CHT PACS, Local Care Direct, NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery.

On Tuesday 08 September 2015, I met with Ms Ginny Woolfenden to review the march of ongoing complaints; she then confirmed that her role will be a pure interface channel to ease communication with the concerning institutions.

On 14 September 2015, Ms Ginny Woolfenden stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; this leads to corollary understanding that NHS advocacy operations are not subject to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman nor to Legal Ombudsman, and therefore, the Citizens Advice complaint procedure persists as the ultimate recourse for such review.

On 10 June 2016, I emailed the PACS Team affirming that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden and all Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre members are no more authorised to represent my side. This shall effectively ends their participation in current complaint communication as well as no more information sharing is allowed from or with them. However, they remain responsible for any countered inconvenience due to their work”. Thus, any further communication after this notification date would be a clear violation to agreed terms with al involved parties.

1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN

Formal complaints may be referred for a registered third party for their independent review if no satisfactory local resolution can be achieved, among which is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) established to “investigates complaints about government departments and some other public bodies – they can also look into complaints about NHS hospitals or community health services”, the latter is different from Legal Ombudsman which “can help resolve legal service disputes” – quoted from CAB website. This however, does not deny the right to seek justice through the legal route if client decided not to communicate with the Ombudsman.

On June 2015, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stressed to wait till all involved health institutions get finalized before complaints to be considered. Following listed institutions and their status:

1. Local Care Direct: NHS Advocacy played no role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.

2. NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery: NHS Advocacy played limited role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.

3. CHT PACS: NHS Advocacy played ambiguous role. Troubling referral made to PHSO. Vague End of resolution letter delivered in November 2016 upon new complaint headed to the Chairman of the Board in September 2016 but no final response received.

2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE

2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE

I usually use a particular method for defining complaint scope to avoid falling into anticipated manipulation scenarios. If to take formal marriage relationship as an example, a spouse can divorce another for various reasons but one cannot use good honeymoon times to justify or deny escalating life hurdles and surprises. Hence, conflicts to be predominantly addressed based on current changes in the concerning relationship.

The same applies to a formal relationship between an independent client and advocacy caseworker from citizens advice and law centre; the investigator shall address the complaint triggers not to propagate or use overall service assessment to mitigate or deny the encountered inconvenience and subsequently waste of charity funds. I therefore did stress in number of times for all involved parties to address issues in email 25 May and June 11 2016 subsequently to avoid time and complaint mismanagement.

On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall finalise any complaint scope argument.

2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS

In conjunction with 25 May 2016 and 11 June 2016 emails, the following focal emails were also provided to the independent adjudicator to bring a rational end to the anticipated communication clarity argument:

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 16:09 “I do not believe I can continue to support you as an advocate without fully understanding your instructions – which I feel I have been unable to do over the recent months”.

# Mr Gerard Curran Email 23 May 2016 at 14:00 “Further to your client’s email below, please accept my sincere apologies as I am slightly confused by your client recent emails”.

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 12:32 “I would suggested that you revert directly to the PHSO rather than chasing after the Trust”.

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 16 May 2016 at 11:10 “I cannot take your complaint to the PHSO until I have been given the final response from the Trust. I have asked Gerard, complaints manager to confirm the Trusts position in writing so that I can do this”.

2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016

I requested in person from the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to investigate suspected collaboration between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.

I did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in this complaint meeting. I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since.

I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “Complaints can be addressed to the bureau manager or chair. You can tell the bureau on the phone or face-to-face that you want them to investigate your complaint”.

2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016

Hence no call received from Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager, I needed a recorded reference to protect my complaint existence, and therefore communicated with Huddersfield CAB again to request a written reference but nothing received. However, one member did provide contact details for Mr Nick Whittingham. Later on, I wrote a letter to Chief Executive at Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre to “complain and reveal unclear communication and expectations” between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.

To avoid subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered:

“COMPLAINT FACT: I previously complained through a 1st class recorded post letter dated 03 June 2016. I based my complaint understanding on the Chief Executive will to investigate the forwarded email and its related communication in details”. 11 June 2016

I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.

I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “If you are still not happy after the local Citizens Advice response, you can request a further review. The review will be conducted under the direction of the Citizens Advice Chief Executive”.

2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:

I initially needed to substantiate the background of the prospective independent adjudicator to affirm I am communicating with responsible personal with official corporation email and professional title whilst the Citizens Advice previously refused to “release any of her private contact details without her permission”, Steve Anderson said on 15 September 2016.

I eventually did an online search for Ms Barbara Stow and coincidently arrived in one of her previous case communication with Mr Erik Ribsskog who volunteered by “planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I’ll be able to deal with this in that way, that I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or reflect on what’s going on”. I hence thought to summarise his communication in the following key words: “disappointed, suspect, lie, ignored, strange, magic, errors, worrying, fail, set-ups, ignored, games, corrupt, phoney”, which I find similar to my case in terms of resulted frustration.

E-mail from the independent CAB Adjudicator, Barbara Stow, on 29/4/08.

https://ribsskog.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/e-mail-from-the-independent-cab-adjuticator-barbara-stow-on-29408/

On 15 November 2016, Ms Barbara Stow stated: “You will see that the notepaper has a different email address from the one from which I have been corresponding with you. That is the one that I normally use for this purpose but it was temporarily unavailable when I began working on your case”. I am afraid Ms Barbara Stow delivered report contains the same email,barbara.stow@btinternet.com, she previously used with Mr Erik Ribsskog.

In addition, I have never requested from the independent adjudicator “to influence the progress of your complaints about your medical treatment”. I did predict the outcome from her review providing her previous story with Mr Erik Ribsskog but still forwarded focal emails to avoid her any excuse. This was also an opportunity to utilise the complaint to investigate the extent of failure in CAB operations hoping this will drive someone from the establishment to stand-up for such violations.

I hereby advise Mr Erik Ribsskog and other affected members of the public that you might not consider taking legal action but definitely you can contact the Charity Commission to open a statutory inquiry into a charity when there is significant public interest in the issues involved and the outcome.

2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:

On 24 September 2016, Ms Barbara Stow confirmed that “the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, and “Specifically, my remit is to examine whether, in my opinion, complaints have been dealt with in compliance with the Citizens Advice procedure, and investigated fairly. If I find deficiencies I say so and I may direct that there should be further investigation. At the end of a review I send a report to national Citizens Advice who will send it to you and to the bureau”.

2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:

I admit struggling with too many repetitive arguments in addressing Ms Barbara Stow raised points, especially her double-standard approach in most listed points aimed to allow the author an avenue to escape controversial issues. Due to health condition restrains, I decided to respond to following most vital arguments:

# POINT 59:

On 16 May 2016, Mr Gerard Curran wrote: “your client does not wish to attend a local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further”, but declined to “provide an evidence of such accusation if to proceed”, requested on 25 May 2016.

On 18 May 2016, I responded: “This is another inaccurate judgment if to consider that the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints, which affirms the hidden intention to delay the process”.

On 19 May 2016 Ms Ginny Woolfenden wrote: “you are now asking me to set up a meeting with the Trust and for this meeting to be recorded. For sake of completeness – can you provide me with a clear agenda for what you want to discuss at this meeting” ignoring the fact being told on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”, this to avoid double standard communication.

On 25 May 2015, I responded: “I again cannot understand the purpose nor able to set a specific agenda for your proposed unclear “local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further” whilst you contradictorily just said I did “not raised any new issues” and accused me of not willing to attend, which overall do not reflect genuine intentions”.

# POINT 61:

Ms Ginny Woolfenden has confirmed she plays no legal role in the concerning complaints with NHS institutions. In her 14 September 2015 email, she stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; ”; this leads to corollary understanding that received NHS advocacy operations not subject to Legal Ombudsman unless Ms Ginny Woolfenden was delivering undeclared legal advice to the NHS whilst serving an opponent client.

# POINT 63:

On 25 May 2016, I wrote: “The August 2015 request for deletion and clarification about the Head of Ophthalmology Department, Mr Owrou’s incorrect report statement was compromised in October 2015 to a request for an objection statement to be loaded to my NHS profile records against his statement. The latter action was drafted under the supervision of Kirklees NHS Advocacy. The TRUST response, however, did not reflect about or confirmed such action accomplishment. Hence, the TRUST’s response become professionally incomplete, and therefore the TRUST are very obliged to respond along with a DATED copy of the subject objection statement if indeed actioned and loaded”.

# POINT 67:

I find it inconsistent approach to advocate that chief executive “had offered to assist with the complaint against the Trust but the client clearly did not wish to take up the offer”, knowing the latter is not the sole of my complaint to Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. That said, the chief executive himself declined to comment about the ethical responsibility for the assigned NHS Caseworker to confirm if her designed complain is fully unanswered before referral to PHSO as well as to respond and explain her unclear series of May 2016 email communications. Plus, it is my own decision alone to choose to whether seek justice through the legal route or to communicate with the Ombudsman if not satisfied with the response.

The Chief Executive with his counterparts use such vague statements to support their fragile positions else fully addressed in 11 June 2016 email communication. In fact, I find it inadequate practice to take a credit for offering a service to a vulnerable client whilst knowing it is unfeasible offer, especially from a senior officer at Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre regardless of his membership status, which I find irrelevant to the client or to be used to justify a loose argument.

Furthermore, Ms Barbara Stow herself read the forwarded to date emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”.

# POINT 68 to 74:

Phone conversation with Ms Grace from CAB Client Services Team on 13 June 2016 concluded in me: “sending a detail list of reasons you’re unhappy with the way your complaint has been handled by your local office. Once we have received these reasons we will request a copy of your file from the local office. Thus, I forwarded to her account a duplicate version of 11 June 2016 email unanswered inquiries previously raised to the Chief Executive.

On 29 June 2016, Ms Kimberley from CAB Client Services Team mentioned that “After looking into your complaint further, we note that your complaint is about the services that were provided to you by Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. Therefore, if you want to take this matter further the next stage would be to contact the Legal Ombudsman. It is not correct for Citizens Advice to either continue with a review of your complaint, or escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudicator because your complaint is about the services of a regulated solicitor”.

However, “When requested to provide explanation or confirmation, Ms Kimberley provided no further comments to support her investigation time nor able to confirm back if Ms Ginny Woolfenden is the same person as “Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre”; I think this in-line with Ms Barbara Stow investigation scope providing she earlier “explained that the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, which confirms the ambiguity of the entire fantastical review framework designed to diminish client’s right for fair investigation.

On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall rationally finalise any complaint scope argument if the concerning CAB team is indeed time and cost effectiveness oriented.

# POINT 74:

In spite of clarity argument about 03 June 2016 complaint letter, the Kirklees team is aware of my eyes health condition if to ignore the fact that march of the complaint confirms my intention to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.

In fact, when requested to “response as came in my email to Ms Ginny Wolfenden. I would be grateful also if you can confirm if the action drafted by Ms Ginny Wolfenden is delivered as per your reading of trust response”, the Chief Executive responded on 10 June 2016: “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which confirms the vagueness of his response and who support his approach.

# POINT 75 & 76:

On 14 November 2016, I wrote to Ms Barbara Stow stating that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden apparently invites the client (Me) in her comfortable zone to learn about his weak and strong points and bass them outside work communication system to the concerning CHT team for their proper protective action; in certain scenarios, she use phone or meetings to avoid being hold responsible through recorded email; she also push clients to prepare agenda for a meeting proposed by others to avoid get legally stuck in front of the CHT management if the meeting got recorded”.

On 19 May 2016, I wrote to Ms Ginny Woolfenden: “I always insisted to have everything recorded but not to go for unauthentic meetings and phone conversations to be twisted as needed and as reflected over the march of my complaint. Hence, your previous statement makes Kirklees NHS Advocacy follow the TRUST path in misinterpreting my positon as well as my clear statement on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”. It also overlooks the fact the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints if they really have the good will to address my issues. Please call for witness: Ms [Nureen] and Ms Vanessa from PACS, and the HRI CEO Office secretary to affirm how many times I called for a meeting arrangement.

Ms Barbara Stow is again manipulating 23 May 2016 email’s narrative without authentic foundation merely to avoid reflecting on the core complaint trigger, email 25 May 2016, which Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre overlooked because it reveals the truth behind all May 2016 communication. In fact, if Ms Ginny Woolfenden on 23 May 2016 “could not support him if communication was only to be by email”, then it would be “inconsistent for [her] to deliver a later dated 07 June 2016 letter with such controversial content and still not able to reflect to your own statement in below unclosed email communication” just after knowing that “I then raised the complaint to the Chief executive Mr Whittingham on 03 June 2016”.

# POINT 77 & 78:

I just wonder which procedures were followed and which specific points to provide if “I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand and respond to my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since”. This is the most absurd argument in to date review stage which affirms Ms Barbara Stow’s irrefutable “superficial and defensive” role as well as it reveals the corruption extent at CAB complaint procedures.

# POINT 80:

Old school argument intended to mitigate encountered manipulations in the entire time-frame allocated to investigate the complaint raised to Citizens Advice Bureau. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.

# POINT 82:

I just wonder what is the purpose of the continues nonsense talk about a “local resolution remained open” whilst Ms Barbara Stow herself has read through forwarded emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”, which confirms she only notes what validated its predetermined agenda.

Indeed, it is a hilarious independent adjudication review to propagate important issues in total illusion and without true bases. In June 2016, the PHSO declined to consider my complaint against the CHT Trust before receiving final position letter as well as the first stage response is incomplete as reported in the provided email, which in return destroys the “PHSO referral” repetitive song by all involved parties.

Furthermore, the PHSO wrote a two months delayed deleterious letter around 09 August 2016 to Huddersfield PACS falsely stating that I told them I did not receive a response to my October 2015 complaint, which reveals the size of collaborative fraud in the concerning system. That said, Ms Barbara Stow affirmed her exhausted position through seeking events occurred after June 2016.

# POINT 84:

Firstly, it is rationally accepted that the general aim of any investigation is service improvement and customer satisfaction; such process may combines intangible and or tangible remedies. Secondly, I tend to organise complaint stages into primary and secondary milestones but leave the “ultimate” outcome to evolve with the rise of events especially when based in a volatile environment. That said, the shared outcome with Ms Barbara Stow was to satisfy her curiosity upon her request; else this is not in-line with the “heart” of her investigation scope.

However, I did feel after reading the gist of her 12 November 2016 response that conveyed main outcome may misrepresented or rendered of secondary importance, and therefore, I effectively informed Ms Barbara Stow that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden has partially hindered October 2015 complaint targeted outcome from the CHT, which to receive immediate surgical operation for both eyes in Huddersfield or else. Meanwhile, Kirklees Chief Executive and CAB Feedback team have respectively constrained the flow of complaint in number of times due their understanding of my court hearing even if not admitted”.

In addition, I am surprised for Ms Barbara Stow to be “curious about what you had wanted the advice and law centre to do in practical terms that would help your situation at the time – in June 2016 when you sent your letter of complaint to the Kirklees chief executive” but instead of “faithfully” reporting “The offered financial redress option can be a direct payment to an accredited private ophthalmology clinic to provide the concerning surgery in the nearest opportunity, as the closer the operation to be done the better results achieved”, she assumed no “further investigation of his complaint about the advocacy service would serve any useful purpose”, which confirm her dramatic fantasy of caring for client’s “distressing eye condition”.

# POINT 94:

To avoid the subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.

I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.

# POINT 96:

I previously stated that I submitted recorded complaint on 3 June 2016 to CEO of Kirklees CAB and Law Centre. The Royal mail tracking information confirmed letter delivery on 06 June 2016 noon time (11:55). On 10 June 2016 at 14:26 the Chief Executive said “letter of 3rd June 2016, received by me today”, and yet proceeded investigation and decided the same day to “do not uphold your complaint”.

In other words, if the Chief Executive arrived in his office around 9 o’clock, therefore it took him approximately 5 hours 26 minutes to reach his decision after “looked at your case file and the work that has been done for you and have considered your complaint in relation to unclear communication and expectations”.

However, when challenged to provide answers to raised inquiries in email 11 June 2016, the Chief Executive replied on 13 June 2016 “You are trying to draw me into re-visiting issues and I am not prepared to do that. I have offered to assist with your complaint against the Trust and you clearly do not wish to take up my offer. I think our correspondence must now come to an end”. However, on 10 June 2016 Chief Executive said “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which is purely to do with NHS Caseworker’s drafted action part of the troubled complaint as well as the clarity argument in 25 May 2016 email communication.

As per aforementioned, it is inadequate to talk about “opportunity Cost, at the expense of the service to other clients, in responding to complaints in fine details”, whilst complaint then did reach the maximum advertised 8 weeks on the CAB website to consider all raised issues. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.

* * * * * * *

CONCLUSION:

In brief, the independent adjudicator was bias in relating client (Me) circumstances in which objective facts are made less influential in shaping her post-truth review report. I found repeated assertion of ignoring focal points or and painting them as unimportant or irrelevant. I believe it is an intellectually inconsistent review report that conflicts with the Citizens Advice’s propagated vision.

I am not in a position to discuss qualifications or titles but I found involved personals did not faithfully fulfill their assigned duties. I therefore call on the Chief Executive at Citizens Advice Bureau to intervene and further investigate our complaint.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

21. desember 2016

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication Review Report – 15 November 2016

Erik Ribsskog

Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM

To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk

Hi,

I haven’t been aware of, that there is a Charity Commission before.

(Or else I would have complained earlier).

And then Citizens Advice sent me to a law-firm that didn’t accept founding, from the legal aid-programme.

So I didn’t get anywhere with my employment-case.

And there were also a number of other problems.

They had meeting there in the dark, (I remember).

(As if to get me into shock, (or something)).

And I remember, that the adjudicator wrote, something like, that e-mails were a new invention, so Citizenz Advice, couldn’t be blamed, for not knowing how to deal with them.

(Something like that).

But I thought that if the Citizens Advice, don’t know how, to deal with e-mails.

Then they shouldn’t use e-mails.

(Before they’ve learned how to use them).

And I wasn’t given any compensation at all, (the adjudicator and the CAB directors just freed Liverpool Central CAB on all the complaints).

(If I remember it right.

Because this is some years ago).

So this I wanted to complain about.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

Best regards,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

On 19 December 2016 at 16:39, Feedback <feedback@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Abu-Aleid,

Thank you for your email.

We are in receipt of your communication to the office of the Chief Executive of Citizens Advice which we thank you for. We will be responding to your query and we understand that you are still unsatisfied with our response to your complaint.

While you may not agree with the Independent adjudicator’s report, we hope you can appreciate that you have reached the final stage of our complaints procedure.

Because of this, we regard the complaint as closed and we will not reopen the matter for further investigation. Going forward, any correspondence we receive about this will be filed but it may not be acknowledged or responded to.

Regards,

Kimberley

The Client Services TeamCitizens Advice
Tel: 03000 231 900

On 20 December 2016 at 10:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

*** REMINDER ***

ᐧ

On 16 December 2016 at 11:36, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

I write in reference to received independent adjudication review report dated 15 November 2016. Before delivering our opinion concerning this review report, I will start with highlighting complaint major milestones:

1. CITIZENS ADVICE

1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES

In September 2015 I contacted Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office to discuss and help with ongoing complaints against number of health institutions, namely: CHT PACS, Local Care Direct, NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery.

On Tuesday 08 September 2015, I met with Ms Ginny Woolfenden to review the march of ongoing complaints; she then confirmed that her role will be a pure interface channel to ease communication with the concerning institutions.

On 14 September 2015, Ms Ginny Woolfenden stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; this leads to corollary understanding that NHS advocacy operations are not subject to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman nor to Legal Ombudsman, and therefore, the Citizens Advice complaint procedure persists as the ultimate recourse for such review.

On 10 June 2016, I emailed the PACS Team affirming that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden and all Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre members are no more authorised to represent my side. This shall effectively ends their participation in current complaint communication as well as no more information sharing is allowed from or with them. However, they remain responsible for any countered inconvenience due to their work”. Thus, any further communication after this notification date would be a clear violation to agreed terms with al involved parties.

1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN

Formal complaints may be referred for a registered third party for their independent review if no satisfactory local resolution can be achieved, among which is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) established to “investigates complaints about government departments and some other public bodies – they can also look into complaints about NHS hospitals or community health services”, the latter is different from Legal Ombudsman which “can help resolve legal service disputes” – quoted from CAB website. This however, does not deny the right to seek justice through the legal route if client decided not to communicate with the Ombudsman.

On June 2015, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stressed to wait till all involved health institutions get finalized before complaints to be considered. Following listed institutions and their status:

1. Local Care Direct: NHS Advocacy played no role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.

2. NHS England and Crosland Moor Surgery: NHS Advocacy played limited role. Final response received. Referral made to PHSO.

3. CHT PACS: NHS Advocacy played ambiguous role. Troubling referral made to PHSO. Vague End of resolution letter delivered in November 2016 upon new complaint headed to the Chairman of the Board in September 2016 but no final response received.

2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE

2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE

I usually use a particular method for defining complaint scope to avoid falling into anticipated manipulation scenarios. If to take formal marriage relationship as an example, a spouse can divorce another for various reasons but one cannot use good honeymoon times to justify or deny escalating life hurdles and surprises. Hence, conflicts to be predominantly addressed based on current changes in the concerning relationship.

The same applies to a formal relationship between an independent client and advocacy caseworker from citizens advice and law centre; the investigator shall address the complaint triggers not to propagate or use overall service assessment to mitigate or deny the encountered inconvenience and subsequently waste of charity funds. I therefore did stress in number of times for all involved parties to address issues in email 25 May and June 11 2016 subsequently to avoid time and complaint mismanagement.

On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall finalise any complaint scope argument.

2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS

In conjunction with 25 May 2016 and 11 June 2016 emails, the following focal emails were also provided to the independent adjudicator to bring a rational end to the anticipated communication clarity argument:

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 16:09 “I do not believe I can continue to support you as an advocate without fully understanding your instructions – which I feel I have been unable to do over the recent months”.

# Mr Gerard Curran Email 23 May 2016 at 14:00 “Further to your client’s email below, please accept my sincere apologies as I am slightly confused by your client recent emails”.

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 23 May 2016 at 12:32 “I would suggested that you revert directly to the PHSO rather than chasing after the Trust”.

# Ms Ginny Woolfenden Email 16 May 2016 at 11:10 “I cannot take your complaint to the PHSO until I have been given the final response from the Trust. I have asked Gerard, complaints manager to confirm the Trusts position in writing so that I can do this”.

2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016

I requested in person from the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to investigate suspected collaboration between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.

I did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in this complaint meeting. I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since.

I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “Complaints can be addressed to the bureau manager or chair. You can tell the bureau on the phone or face-to-face that you want them to investigate your complaint”.

2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016

Hence no call received from Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager, I needed a recorded reference to protect my complaint existence, and therefore communicated with Huddersfield CAB again to request a written reference but nothing received. However, one member did provide contact details for Mr Nick Whittingham. Later on, I wrote a letter to Chief Executive at Kirklees Citizens Advice and Law Centre to “complain and reveal unclear communication and expectations” between Ms Ginny Woolfenden, Solicitor and Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service Caseworker and Mr Gerard Curran, Patient Advice and Complaints Manager at Calderdale Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.

To avoid subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered:

“COMPLAINT FACT: I previously complained through a 1st class recorded post letter dated 03 June 2016. I based my complaint understanding on the Chief Executive will to investigate the forwarded email and its related communication in details”. 11 June 2016

I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.

I believe the above is within advertised complaint procedure: “If you are still not happy after the local Citizens Advice response, you can request a further review. The review will be conducted under the direction of the Citizens Advice Chief Executive”.

2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:

I initially needed to substantiate the background of the prospective independent adjudicator to affirm I am communicating with responsible personal with official corporation email and professional title whilst the Citizens Advice previously refused to “release any of her private contact details without her permission”, Steve Anderson said on 15 September 2016.

I eventually did an online search for Ms Barbara Stow and coincidently arrived in one of her previous case communication with Mr Erik Ribsskog who volunteered by “planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I’ll be able to deal with this in that way, that I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe react or reflect on what’s going on”. I hence thought to summarise his communication in the following key words: “disappointed, suspect, lie, ignored, strange, magic, errors, worrying, fail, set-ups, ignored, games, corrupt, phoney”, which I find similar to my case in terms of resulted frustration.

E-mail from the independent CAB Adjudicator, Barbara Stow, on 29/4/08.

https://ribsskog.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/e-mail-from-the-independent-cab-adjuticator-barbara-stow-on-29408/

On 15 November 2016, Ms Barbara Stow stated: “You will see that the notepaper has a different email address from the one from which I have been corresponding with you. That is the one that I normally use for this purpose but it was temporarily unavailable when I began working on your case”. I am afraid Ms Barbara Stow delivered report contains the same email,barbara.stow@btinternet.com, she previously used with Mr Erik Ribsskog.

In addition, I have never requested from the independent adjudicator “to influence the progress of your complaints about your medical treatment”. I did predict the outcome from her review providing her previous story with Mr Erik Ribsskog but still forwarded focal emails to avoid her any excuse. This was also an opportunity to utilise the complaint to investigate the extent of failure in CAB operations hoping this will drive someone from the establishment to stand-up for such violations.

I hereby advise Mr Erik Ribsskog and other affected members of the public that you might not consider taking legal action but definitely you can contact the Charity Commission to open a statutory inquiry into a charity when there is significant public interest in the issues involved and the outcome.

2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:

On 24 September 2016, Ms Barbara Stow confirmed that “the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, and “Specifically, my remit is to examine whether, in my opinion, complaints have been dealt with in compliance with the Citizens Advice procedure, and investigated fairly. If I find deficiencies I say so and I may direct that there should be further investigation. At the end of a review I send a report to national Citizens Advice who will send it to you and to the bureau”.

2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:

I admit struggling with too many repetitive arguments in addressing Ms Barbara Stow raised points, especially her double-standard approach in most listed points aimed to allow the author an avenue to escape controversial issues. Due to health condition restrains, I decided to respond to following most vital arguments:

# POINT 59:

On 16 May 2016, Mr Gerard Curran wrote: “your client does not wish to attend a local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further”, but declined to “provide an evidence of such accusation if to proceed”, requested on 25 May 2016.

On 18 May 2016, I responded: “This is another inaccurate judgment if to consider that the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints, which affirms the hidden intention to delay the process”.

On 19 May 2016 Ms Ginny Woolfenden wrote: “you are now asking me to set up a meeting with the Trust and for this meeting to be recorded. For sake of completeness – can you provide me with a clear agenda for what you want to discuss at this meeting” ignoring the fact being told on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”, this to avoid double standard communication.

On 25 May 2015, I responded: “I again cannot understand the purpose nor able to set a specific agenda for your proposed unclear “local resolution meeting to discuss this matter further” whilst you contradictorily just said I did “not raised any new issues” and accused me of not willing to attend, which overall do not reflect genuine intentions”.

# POINT 61:

Ms Ginny Woolfenden has confirmed she plays no legal role in the concerning complaints with NHS institutions. In her 14 September 2015 email, she stated: “Kirklees NHS Complaints Advocacy Service can not undertake any legal action or litigation with regard to the NHS – so if you want undertake ‘legal actions to assure and protect against any future inconvenience caused’ I am afraid that this is not something I or Kirklees Law Centre can assist with”; ”; this leads to corollary understanding that received NHS advocacy operations not subject to Legal Ombudsman unless Ms Ginny Woolfenden was delivering undeclared legal advice to the NHS whilst serving an opponent client.

# POINT 63:

On 25 May 2016, I wrote: “The August 2015 request for deletion and clarification about the Head of Ophthalmology Department, Mr Owrou’s incorrect report statement was compromised in October 2015 to a request for an objection statement to be loaded to my NHS profile records against his statement. The latter action was drafted under the supervision of Kirklees NHS Advocacy. The TRUST response, however, did not reflect about or confirmed such action accomplishment. Hence, the TRUST’s response become professionally incomplete, and therefore the TRUST are very obliged to respond along with a DATED copy of the subject objection statement if indeed actioned and loaded”.

# POINT 67:

I find it inconsistent approach to advocate that chief executive “had offered to assist with the complaint against the Trust but the client clearly did not wish to take up the offer”, knowing the latter is not the sole of my complaint to Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. That said, the chief executive himself declined to comment about the ethical responsibility for the assigned NHS Caseworker to confirm if her designed complain is fully unanswered before referral to PHSO as well as to respond and explain her unclear series of May 2016 email communications. Plus, it is my own decision alone to choose to whether seek justice through the legal route or to communicate with the Ombudsman if not satisfied with the response.

The Chief Executive with his counterparts use such vague statements to support their fragile positions else fully addressed in 11 June 2016 email communication. In fact, I find it inadequate practice to take a credit for offering a service to a vulnerable client whilst knowing it is unfeasible offer, especially from a senior officer at Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre regardless of his membership status, which I find irrelevant to the client or to be used to justify a loose argument.

Furthermore, Ms Barbara Stow herself read the forwarded to date emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”.

# POINT 68 to 74:

Phone conversation with Ms Grace from CAB Client Services Team on 13 June 2016 concluded in me: “sending a detail list of reasons you’re unhappy with the way your complaint has been handled by your local office. Once we have received these reasons we will request a copy of your file from the local office. Thus, I forwarded to her account a duplicate version of 11 June 2016 email unanswered inquiries previously raised to the Chief Executive.

On 29 June 2016, Ms Kimberley from CAB Client Services Team mentioned that “After looking into your complaint further, we note that your complaint is about the services that were provided to you by Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre. Therefore, if you want to take this matter further the next stage would be to contact the Legal Ombudsman. It is not correct for Citizens Advice to either continue with a review of your complaint, or escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudicator because your complaint is about the services of a regulated solicitor”.

However, “When requested to provide explanation or confirmation, Ms Kimberley provided no further comments to support her investigation time nor able to confirm back if Ms Ginny Woolfenden is the same person as “Virginia Woolfenden, a regulated solicitor, not against Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre”; I think this in-line with Ms Barbara Stow investigation scope providing she earlier “explained that the purpose of my review is to consider how your complaint was handled, not whether it is justified”, which confirms the ambiguity of the entire fantastical review framework designed to diminish client’s right for fair investigation.

On 05 September 2016, I wrote to Mr Steve Anderson from the Client Services Team that “I can predict you are working on a good quoted, paraphrased, legally written review to support your argument in front of the independent adjudicator not to serve the client. Otherwise, a sincere review can be concluded in a short response without much hassle from the assigned NHS Advocacy Caseworker herself to reply to the open email communication 25 May 2016, which if she did then had avoided this complaint unless she realised the inconvenience she put me in as a client”. This shall rationally finalise any complaint scope argument if the concerning CAB team is indeed time and cost effectiveness oriented.

# POINT 74:

In spite of clarity argument about 03 June 2016 complaint letter, the Kirklees team is aware of my eyes health condition if to ignore the fact that march of the complaint confirms my intention to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.

In fact, when requested to “response as came in my email to Ms Ginny Wolfenden. I would be grateful also if you can confirm if the action drafted by Ms Ginny Wolfenden is delivered as per your reading of trust response”, the Chief Executive responded on 10 June 2016: “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which confirms the vagueness of his response and who support his approach.

# POINT 75 & 76:

On 14 November 2016, I wrote to Ms Barbara Stow stating that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden apparently invites the client (Me) in her comfortable zone to learn about his weak and strong points and bass them outside work communication system to the concerning CHT team for their proper protective action; in certain scenarios, she use phone or meetings to avoid being hold responsible through recorded email; she also push clients to prepare agenda for a meeting proposed by others to avoid get legally stuck in front of the CHT management if the meeting got recorded”.

On 19 May 2016, I wrote to Ms Ginny Woolfenden: “I always insisted to have everything recorded but not to go for unauthentic meetings and phone conversations to be twisted as needed and as reflected over the march of my complaint. Hence, your previous statement makes Kirklees NHS Advocacy follow the TRUST path in misinterpreting my positon as well as my clear statement on 29 April 2016 “I now believe no authentic communication with the health services in Kirklees but recorded”. It also overlooks the fact the TRUST refused to respond to my request on 21 August 2015 to meet with the CEO, Medical Director, and the Head of Complaints if they really have the good will to address my issues. Please call for witness: Ms [Nureen] and Ms Vanessa from PACS, and the HRI CEO Office secretary to affirm how many times I called for a meeting arrangement.

Ms Barbara Stow is again manipulating 23 May 2016 email’s narrative without authentic foundation merely to avoid reflecting on the core complaint trigger, email 25 May 2016, which Kirklees Citizens Advice & Law Centre overlooked because it reveals the truth behind all May 2016 communication. In fact, if Ms Ginny Woolfenden on 23 May 2016 “could not support him if communication was only to be by email”, then it would be “inconsistent for [her] to deliver a later dated 07 June 2016 letter with such controversial content and still not able to reflect to your own statement in below unclosed email communication” just after knowing that “I then raised the complaint to the Chief executive Mr Whittingham on 03 June 2016”.

# POINT 77 & 78:

I just wonder which procedures were followed and which specific points to provide if “I even offered my smart phone for the Huddersfield Citizens Advice Office Manager to read the 25 May 2016 email communication to understand and respond to my concerns but she declined to comment. She promised to review the matter and update the following day through the phone but no response received since”. This is the most absurd argument in to date review stage which affirms Ms Barbara Stow’s irrefutable “superficial and defensive” role as well as it reveals the corruption extent at CAB complaint procedures.

# POINT 80:

Old school argument intended to mitigate encountered manipulations in the entire time-frame allocated to investigate the complaint raised to Citizens Advice Bureau. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.

# POINT 82:

I just wonder what is the purpose of the continues nonsense talk about a “local resolution remained open” whilst Ms Barbara Stow herself has read through forwarded emails where “the CHT management … propagate a troubled meeting discussion in 23 June letter to MP, or in August to the PHSO or to later offer to discuss a meeting plan over phone in 19 August and yet today is 25 August 2016 and still no meeting and agenda delivered through email or in writing”, which confirms she only notes what validated its predetermined agenda.

Indeed, it is a hilarious independent adjudication review to propagate important issues in total illusion and without true bases. In June 2016, the PHSO declined to consider my complaint against the CHT Trust before receiving final position letter as well as the first stage response is incomplete as reported in the provided email, which in return destroys the “PHSO referral” repetitive song by all involved parties.

Furthermore, the PHSO wrote a two months delayed deleterious letter around 09 August 2016 to Huddersfield PACS falsely stating that I told them I did not receive a response to my October 2015 complaint, which reveals the size of collaborative fraud in the concerning system. That said, Ms Barbara Stow affirmed her exhausted position through seeking events occurred after June 2016.

# POINT 84:

Firstly, it is rationally accepted that the general aim of any investigation is service improvement and customer satisfaction; such process may combines intangible and or tangible remedies. Secondly, I tend to organise complaint stages into primary and secondary milestones but leave the “ultimate” outcome to evolve with the rise of events especially when based in a volatile environment. That said, the shared outcome with Ms Barbara Stow was to satisfy her curiosity upon her request; else this is not in-line with the “heart” of her investigation scope.

However, I did feel after reading the gist of her 12 November 2016 response that conveyed main outcome may misrepresented or rendered of secondary importance, and therefore, I effectively informed Ms Barbara Stow that “Ms Ginny Woolfenden has partially hindered October 2015 complaint targeted outcome from the CHT, which to receive immediate surgical operation for both eyes in Huddersfield or else. Meanwhile, Kirklees Chief Executive and CAB Feedback team have respectively constrained the flow of complaint in number of times due their understanding of my court hearing even if not admitted”.

In addition, I am surprised for Ms Barbara Stow to be “curious about what you had wanted the advice and law centre to do in practical terms that would help your situation at the time – in June 2016 when you sent your letter of complaint to the Kirklees chief executive” but instead of “faithfully” reporting “The offered financial redress option can be a direct payment to an accredited private ophthalmology clinic to provide the concerning surgery in the nearest opportunity, as the closer the operation to be done the better results achieved”, she assumed no “further investigation of his complaint about the advocacy service would serve any useful purpose”, which confirm her dramatic fantasy of caring for client’s “distressing eye condition”.

# POINT 94:

To avoid the subsequent clarity argument, the concerning Kirklees team is firstly aware of sight and facial pain condition if to ignore the march of the complaint can lead to reasonable understanding that I intended to write “unexpected unclear communication”. Nevertheless, email dated 11 June 2016 was headed to Chief Executive to avoid prospective misunderstanding excuse. He also did not request further clarification if encountered.

I again did not discuss Local Care Direct GP or Crosland Moor Surgery Nurse Services in the complaint scope. I might forget to refer to concerning email 25 May 2016 in the letter but I definitely enclosed copies of the concerning email communication with the concerning parties so the Chief Executive can fairly understand case background. The letter is recorded and therefore envelope weight records with the Royal Mail can be reached to affirm there was more than one sheet posted – letter footer line shall read: Page 1 of 6.

# POINT 96:

I previously stated that I submitted recorded complaint on 3 June 2016 to CEO of Kirklees CAB and Law Centre. The Royal mail tracking information confirmed letter delivery on 06 June 2016 noon time (11:55). On 10 June 2016 at 14:26 the Chief Executive said “letter of 3rd June 2016, received by me today”, and yet proceeded investigation and decided the same day to “do not uphold your complaint”.

In other words, if the Chief Executive arrived in his office around 9 o’clock, therefore it took him approximately 5 hours 26 minutes to reach his decision after “looked at your case file and the work that has been done for you and have considered your complaint in relation to unclear communication and expectations”.

However, when challenged to provide answers to raised inquiries in email 11 June 2016, the Chief Executive replied on 13 June 2016 “You are trying to draw me into re-visiting issues and I am not prepared to do that. I have offered to assist with your complaint against the Trust and you clearly do not wish to take up my offer. I think our correspondence must now come to an end”. However, on 10 June 2016 Chief Executive said “My role as Complaints Officer is not to act a second opinion and I have no comment to make on the detail of your case”, which is purely to do with NHS Caseworker’s drafted action part of the troubled complaint as well as the clarity argument in 25 May 2016 email communication.

As per aforementioned, it is inadequate to talk about “opportunity Cost, at the expense of the service to other clients, in responding to complaints in fine details”, whilst complaint then did reach the maximum advertised 8 weeks on the CAB website to consider all raised issues. In fact, the reader of entire September 2016 emails to the CAB Client Services Team can easily realize irrefutable manipulation of complaint time-frame if not poor effort management.

* * * * * * *

CONCLUSION:

In brief, the independent adjudicator was bias in relating client (Me) circumstances in which objective facts are made less influential in shaping her post-truth review report. I found repeated assertion of ignoring focal points or and painting them as unimportant or irrelevant. I believe it is an intellectually inconsistent review report that conflicts with the Citizens Advice’s propagated vision.

I am not in a position to discuss qualifications or titles but I found involved personals did not faithfully fulfill their assigned duties. I therefore call on the Chief Executive at Citizens Advice Bureau to intervene and further investigate our complaint.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

21. desember 2016

Jeg sendte en ny e-post til HM Courts-Service

Gmail – Summons/Fwd: Update/Fwd: Countdown…

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Summons/Fwd: Update/Fwd: Countdown…

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:04 AM

To:

"Customer Services (CSHQ)" <CUSTOMERSERVICECSHQ@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>

Cc:

"Harker, David" <david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

you see, my local Citizens Advice Bureau, have been messing with me, in a complaint I've escalated to Mr. David Harker, who now don't reply.

But I've read up on the internet, and I see that my Landlord need to have a 'possesing order', from the County Court, to throw me out.

But I'm sending a copy of this e-mail to Mr. David Harker, the CAB Chief Executive, and hope that he can please help.

Thank you very much for your e-mail!

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Customer Services (CSHQ) <CUSTOMERSERVICECSHQ@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. I can only suggest you seek

independent legal advice, which can be obtained from a solicitor, legal advice agency or

Citizens Advice Bureau: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk.

Regards

Benny Stone

Complaint Handling and

Enquiries Team
Her Majesty's Court Service
Customer Service

Division
1st

Floor 1.41
102

Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

Sent: 13 March 2011 00:55
To: Customer Services

(CSHQ)
Cc: Kieron Grimes
Subject: Summons/Fwd: Update/Fwd:

Countdown…

Hi,

my landlord wants to throw me out.

I'm really a refugee from Norway.

I owe them some arrears, but they haven't done things like fixing the

boiler, for one to two years.

Now, I've agreed that the Council sends them the Housing Benefit

directly.

Still they want to throw me out.

How do I freeze this, and have a court-case, where it's decided who

owes who how much money.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Date:

Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Update/Fwd: Countdown…
To: mulligan@una.org.uk

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at

11:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: Countdown…
To: "Harker, David" <david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk>
Cc: emb.london@mfa.no, Liverpool

Direct <liverpool.direct@liverpool.gov.uk>, Kieron Grimes <KieronGrimes@tjthomas.co.uk>, post@taperne.no

Hi,

can the Landlord just throw me out like this?

I think they are unreasonable, since I'¨ve let Liverpool City Council send

my housing benefit directly to them, so they aren't going to get more economical

problems due to this case.

Also they are slow with repairs, they used one to two years, to fix the

boiler, so even if I have arrears, it isn't just me who haven't fullfilled my

obligations, in this case, it's also the Landlord.

The Landlord also lies, and say the bins are accessable 24 hours, while

they are only accessable when the neighbour restaurant is open, since the bin

store is at their premesiss.

I think I'm being unfairly threated here.

It's like the Landlord get's to have their cake, and eat it to.

(They get away with not doing repairs etc., and still threaten to throw me

out).

What are my rights in this?

Can they just throw me out, when we have a dispute like this.

(I also have a case against them, I mean, due to disrepair).

Thanks in advance for any reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at

3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Countdown…
To: KieronGrimes@tjthomas.co.uk
Cc: Liverpool Direct <liverpool.direct@liverpool.gov.uk>

Hi Mr. Grimes,

you are now being un-reasonable.

I've agreed with the Council that the Housing Benefit is being sent

directly to your company.

So this must be pure hate from you, towards me, for some reason.

You're also lieing about the garbage-throwing arrangement.

So you're a liar and a hater, so you shouldn't come close to my door,

or I'll attack you.

I'm also sending about this to the Council.

Erik Ribsskog

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Kieron Grimes <KieronGrimes@tjthomas.co.uk> wrote:

Eric,

I've

created a contract with a new tennant and it's signed. I will come to the

apartment Monday 4th of April personally and make sure everything is as it

should be. If you are still present in the aparatment at that time, police

will be notified at your expense.

Regards,

Kieron

Grimes

This

email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure

Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in

partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of

problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.

Communications via

the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal

purposes.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of

the addressee(s). 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. Any reply to this message

could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in

mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message

by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be

monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail

monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be

read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not

broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

16. mars 2011

Jeg sendte en ny e-post til CAB

Gmail – Re: Update/Fwd: To the Revenue and Benefits Service <<#22175-85070#>>

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Re: Update/Fwd: To the Revenue and Benefits Service <<#22175-85070#>>

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:21 PM

To:

"Harker, David" <david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

I've contacted you about problems with this landlord, (and with CAB Liverpool City Centre), earlier.

I think that now they are extra aggressive and un-reasonable.

I was wondering if you please have some advice, regarding what to do in this matter, since I don't have anywhere else to live at the moment.

Again thank you very much for the help in earlier e-mails!

Thanks in advance for any help!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Liverpool Direct <Liverpool.Direct@liverpool.gov.uk>

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Update/Fwd: To the Revenue and Benefits Service <<#22175-85070#>>
To: eribsskog@gmail.com

Your unique reference number is: 85070

Please include your unique reference number in all email communication.

Dear Mr. Ribsskog,

Thank you for your e-mail about housing benefit.

Liverpool City Council cannot get involve in civil matters. If you have a dispute with your landlord, you can seek independent advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau, Welfare Rights or seek legal advice.

If you would like any further assistance on this matter or anything else please let me know via the e-mail address below

Kind regards

Shirley

Liverpool Direct

liverpool.direct@liverpool.gov.uk

www.liverpool.gov.uk

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank you

Want free reminders by text of when to put your bins out? Text BINS, your house number and postcode to 62233. (You will not be charged for any of the reminder messages you receive. An Inbound text message to 62233 will be charged at standard network message rates.)

Would you prefer to receive your council tax bill via e-mail? Go to www.liverpool.gov.uk and complete the easy online registration form.

— Original Message —
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Received: 26/01/11 18:11:30 o'clock GMT
To: Liverpool Direct <liverpool.direct@liverpool.gov.uk>

CC:post.nord-trondelag@politiet.no
Subject: Update/Fwd: To the Revenue and Benefits Service

Here are some more threats in a new e-mail from the Landlord.

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Mahoney <DavidMahoney@tjthomas.co.uk>

Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: To the Revenue and Benefits Service
To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Cc: Kieron Grimes <KieronGrimes@tjthomas.co.uk>, Lorna Murphy <LornaMurphy@tjthomas.co.uk>

I assume you wish to live in our premises rent free whilst claiming housing benefit?

this is not a hate crime ,as you put it ;you are simply a bad debtor

i have instructed my managers to terminate your tenancy and proceed to eviction and debt collection

david mahoney

From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 January 2011 16:55
To: Liverpool Direct
Cc: sales

Subject: To the Revenue and Benefits Service

Hi,

I received a letter from my Landlord today.

They want my housing benefit, to be sent directly to them.

But the problem is, that they neven fix things that get broken.

The boiler didn't work for more than one year, the washing-machine stopped working a couple of years ago, and I had to buy new, since they never fixed it, and I had to wash my clothes in the bath-tub, and I did it wrong, so I had to buy new clothes as well.

(They also lie about the garbage-throwing facilities, and say they are possible to use, 24 hours, but they close at 11 pm., and one have to walk passed a beer-garden, full of people drinking, so it can also be embarrasing throwing the garbage, so the bins should be on a public are, like in Leather Lane I think, and not in the bin-store belonging to a restaurant).

So I have to work as a genator, and fix the bath-room lamp with duct-tape etc.

Also I am unemployed, and on a strict budget.

So then I don't think it's fair that they should get the whole rent, when I have to do their genetor-work etc., so I sometimes deduct a bit from the rent, since they don't do their job with repairs.

Also there is load music from the discoteque outside, four nights a week.

Also, they write 'I am lead to belive', about that I get housing allowance, but that's like they are spying on me, I think.

That's not a proper reference, I think.

They go behind my back in a vendetta-way with this letter I got today, I think.

Because they don't tell you the problems that have been with the repairs etc.

So their letter doesn't mirror how the tenancy-situation really is, I think.

So I hope you don't listen to this horrible landlord, but let me have this bargaining-card with them, so that they don't get even worse.

I wonder if they do this as some kind of hate-crime against me, because their reference/excuse for attacking me, in their letter to you, wasn't fine, I think, (so I send a copy of this e-mail to the police).

So I hope you don't listen to their one-sided letter, but continue to send me the Housing Allowance as usual.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

I've earlier contaced you about the problems with the garbage-bins, that they aren't easily accesable.

So these problems, with this landlord, should be known by the Council, from before.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been automatically scanned for viruses and malicious content by MessageLabs for your protection

______________________________________________________________________

—— Please do not remove your unique tracking number ——
<<#22175-85070#>>

______________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER:

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied or used only by the intended recipient(s). If you have received it in error please contact the sender immediately by returning the e-mail or by telephoning a number contained in the body of the e-mail then and please delete the e-mail without disclosing its contents elsewhere. No responsibility is accepted for loss or damage arising from viruses or changes made to this message after it was sent. The views contained in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of the author’s employer or service provider.

This email has been automatically scanned for viruses and malicious content by MessageLabs for your protection

______________________________________________________________________

27. januar 2011

New complaint to the CAB.

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.

19. januar 2009

Politiet i England spiller ikke på lag. (In Norwegian).

Nå driver jeg å tenker igjenom ting her.

Sivilombudsmannen, sendte meg jo et brev, for noen uker siden, om at UD hadde beordret ambassaden i London, til å kontakte meg, og svare på min e-post til dem.

Det gikk ut på, at jeg har en arbeidssak mot Arvato/Microsoft, i Liverpool, hvor det virket som at det var noe ‘mob’ i firma, som kontrollerte de nordiske damene der osv.

Så kontaktet jeg ambassaden, og var nede i London, to ganger, med dokumentene til denne saken osv.

Dokumenter som er bevis på mobbing fra ledere osv.

Men ambassaden, ville ikke involveres.

De ba meg kontakte britisk politi.

Som jeg allerede hadde vært i kontakt med.

Men britisk politi, de spiller ikke på lag, når det gjelder denne arbeidssaken mot Arvato/Microsoft.

Det er en kriminalsak, av to årsaker, mener jeg.

1. Mobbingen der, fra ledere, var såpass alvorlig, at det var snakk om gjentatt trakassering, mener jeg er klart.

Noe som er et lovbrudd her i Storbritannia.

Ledelsesmetodene de har der, har jeg også fått høre er ulovlige. (Skriking gjennom rommet, og utskjelling, altså psykologisk straff).

I tillegg til den direkte mobbingen som jeg nevnte først.

2. Nordiske damer som jobbet hos Arvato/Microsoft, var under kontroll av noe ‘mob’, tror jeg det var.

At de ble brukt til å spionere på meg, eller noe.

I hvertfall så plasserte han Michael O’Shaughnessy, hun Emelie Wallin, sånn at hun satt rett ovenfor meg.

Enda han ikke var leder i firma, eller noe.

Eller i slekt med hun jenta.

Så han var nok noe mob, som beordret hun Emelie Wallin, til å sitte rett ovenfor meg, og spionere på meg da.

Noe sånt.

Men politiet i Liverpool, de vil ikke ha noe med dette å gjøre, så de sender meg til noe som heter Citizens Advice Bureau, som er en veldedig organisasjon.

Og det er jo bare tull.

Der har man jo ikke noe rettigheter.

Så det som har skjedd, etter at jeg ble sendt dit, er at CAB og diverse advokatfirma, bare har tullet med meg, og det har ikke vært noe fremdrift på den her arbeidssaken.

På tross av den er veldig bra dokumentert, og burde være en helt grei sak.

Det burde ikke være noe tvil om at det er slik jeg har skrevet.

Ettersom jeg har e-poster og møte-referater og alt mulig, som bekrefter hva som har foregått der.

Men politiet i Liverpool spiller ikke på lag.

Og dette er fra kontakt i 2006 og 2007.

Men jeg var også i kontakt med politiet i Liverpool, i 2005 og 2006, angående å prøve å finne ut hva som foregikk i Norge, iom. at jeg hadde overhørt at jeg var forfulgt av noe ‘mafian’ der, på Rimi Bjørndal, i desember 2003.

Og jeg ble forsøkt drept på gården til onkelen min, i Kvelde, i Larvik, juli 2005.

Men politiet i Liverpool, spiller ikke på lag, når det gjelder den saken heller.

Så hva de driver med, det vet ikke jeg.

Men etter å ha blitt regelrett mobbet, av politiet i Liverpool, og blitt kallt ‘Miss Erik Ribsskog’, og etter at de har brukt falske e-post adresser osv.

Etter dette, så kontaktet jeg ambasseden i London igjen.

Og sendte de en e-post.

Og forklarte jeg hadde prøvd å følge rådet deres, om å kontakte britisk politi, og CAB, angående problemene på Arvato/Microsoft.

Men, disse bare kødder med meg.

Og spiller ikke på lag da.

Jeg skrev det litt mer formellt da.

Så svarer ikke ambassaden.

Så sender jeg det til UD.

Så svarere ikke UD.

Så sender jeg det til SMK.

Så svarer de, at dette ikke sorterer under dem.

Så sender jeg det til Sivilombudsmannen.

Og de sier, etter et drøyt halvt år, at UD instruerte ambassaden, før jul i fjor, om å kontakte meg.

Men det har ikke ambassaden gjort.

Så nå har Sivilombudsmannen, ringt UD.

Og UD har fortalt Sivilombudsmannen, at de har bedt ambassaden om å kontakte meg igjen.

Altså for andre gang.

To ganger har UD instruert ambassaden i London, om å kontakte meg.

Sist gang, for ca. tre uker siden.

Men, ambassaden i London, har fortsatt ikke kontaktet meg.

Så jeg må snart kontakte Sivilombudsmannen igjen, og forklare det, at de ikke har kontaktet meg nå heller.

Jeg tenkte over dette nå da.

Om hva jeg skal si til ambassaden, hvis de ringer.

Hvordan jeg skal forklare problemene med politiet i Liverpool og med CAB.

Jeg må vel si da, at politiet og CAB, og nå også IPCC (som er tilsvarende Spesialenheten i Norge).

At disse ikke spiller på lag med meg, når det gjelder den saken mot Arvato/Micosoft, men at de istedet driver å mobber meg, og kaller meg ‘Miss Erik Ribsskog’, i brev osv.

Og både politiet og IPCC, nekter å returnere telefonsamtalene mine.

Og alle driver å kødder, må man si.

IPCC svarer ikke på e-posten engang.

Så at de ikke spiller på lag, mot de folka på Arvato/Microsoft, som har begått lovbrudd da.

Og at dem bare mobber og kødder.

Så hipp hurra for ambassaden i London, politiet i Liverpool, CAB og IPCC.

De er veldig seriøse og flinke.

Så sånn er det.

Med vennlig hilsen

Erik Ribsskog

16. oktober 2008

E-mail to Saffron Follows, CAB.

Google Mail – Private email addresses reproduced on your blog

width=143 height=59 alt=”Google Mail”>

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Private email addresses reproduced on your blog

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM

To:

"Follows, Saffron" <Saffron.Follows@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

I'm sorry, but I've conducted an investigation into this, and I can't see that there have been

any incidents like you have mentioned, in the same way, that you on the Citizens Advice

Bureaux, have failed to comment on, the phoney business, at your Liverpool-office, and

at your head-office.

I'll enclose a copy of my last e-mail to the CAB, regarding this.

I think also think it must be this way.

That, if I have no right to get help from the CAB, since they are a charity, and not Government. (Like the Merseyside Police, told me you were, last year).

Then, I don't think that the CAB, have any right, to get help from me, since I'm not Government eighter.

I hope you agree with me on this.

I'll see if I can find a copy of the menitoned e-mail.

Please note, that I write in the e-mail, among other things, that I, due to the mentioned problems, don't really want to have anything more to do, with the CAB, after the way, that the complaint-process was handeled.

I hope you have the time to read the e-mail, and to please take a note of this!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Here is a copy of the mentioned e-mail:

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk Thomas, Sue
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:17:20 +0100

Subject: Re: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Hi,

ok, I know that the CAB is a charity, and that this means that I really have
no right to get help,
from the CAB.

But that I have to beg.

I understand, that this means, that it's your priogative, at the CAB, not to
give help, if you choose,
since people haven't got any right to get help from charities.

Then again, I think, that for the record, I have to say, that I think that

the way, the set-ups, at the
CAB, in Liverpool, last year, and also the set-ups in your head-office in
London, have been covered
up, makes me think that the whole CAB must be corrupt.

And I doubt very strongly, that I'll ever go to the CAB, and beg for

help again.

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh in this e-mail, but I wouldn't want to be treated
like this again.

So this concludes my involvement in this process.

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

On 6/18/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Apologies that I didn't reply to this. However the complaints process has

> now been concluded – my letter following the Independent Adjudicator's
> review is the end of it. So I am sorry but I am not going to add anything
> else to what has already been said and the apologies given.

>
>
> *Sue Thomas*
> *Head of Advice Policy & Standards*
> *Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425*
> —-Original Message—–
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

> *Sent:* 13 June 2008 09:27
> *To:* Thomas, Sue
> *Subject:* Fwd: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB
>
> Hi,
>
> I can't see that I've recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm

> sending it again.
>
> Hope this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

> Date: May 12, 2008 5:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB
> To: "Thomas, Sue" <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk>

>
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks very much for your e-mail.
>
> I was wondering about the street theater operation, that was going on, at
> the CAB, in April of last year,
> and was included in the complaint.

>
> (With the gay-looking CAB-representative helding the meeting in the dark
> etc.).
>
> I wonder what happened with this issus, noone seems to have commented on
> this, or is my knowledge of

> the English language that is failing me, English only being my second
> language?
>
> Thanks in advance for the reply!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>

> On 5/12/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> When the Independent Adjudicator sent you her reivew (on 24th April),

>> she said that Citizens Advice would consider the report and then write to
>> you. I am sorry that my reply is a little late but I was away from the
>> office last week and so have only been able to finish my letter to you

>> today.
>>
>> <<Ribsskog-Liverpool Central.doc>>
>>
>> *Sue Thomas*
>> *Head of Advice Policy & Standards*
>> *Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425*

>>
>> P* 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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>

> P* please consider the environment – do you really need to print this
> email?*
>
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.

>
> P* 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
>
> 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.
>

On 7/11/08, Follows, Saffron <Saffron.Follows@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr Ribsskog,

Citizens Advice has been aware for some time that you have posted an item on the internet in relation to your complaint against one of our bureaux and to date we have made no attempt to ask you to remove this.

However, I have today become aware that you have detailed email addresses for a number of individuals including myself and David Harker. Neither of our email addresses are public and therefore you have no entitlement to reproduce them in a public domain such as the web. Can I therefore ask that you remove any individual addresses with immediate effect?

Yours sincerely,

Saffron Follows
Complaints & Advice Policy Officer
Citizens Advice

P 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

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.

11. juli 2008

E-mail to the CAB, 18/6/08.

Google Mail – Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM

To:

"Thomas, Sue" <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

ok, I know that the CAB is a charity, and that this means that I really have no right to get help,

from the CAB.

But that I have to beg.

I understand, that this means, that it's your priogative, at the CAB, not to give help, if you choose,

since people haven't got any right to get help from charities.

Then again, I think, that for the record, I have to say, that I think that the way, the set-ups, at the

CAB, in Liverpool, last year, and also the set-ups in your head-office in London, have been covered

up, makes me think that the whole CAB must be corrupt.

And I doubt very strongly, that I'll ever go to the CAB, and beg for help again.

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh in this e-mail, but I wouldn't want to be treated like this again.

So this concludes my involvement in this process.

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

On 6/18/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

Apologies that I didn't reply to this. However the complaints process has now been concluded – my letter following the Independent Adjudicator's review is the end of it. So I am sorry but I am not going to add anything else to what has already been said and the apologies given.

Sue Thomas
Head of Advice Policy & Standards
Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425

—-Original Message—–
From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

Sent: 13 June 2008 09:27
To: Thomas, Sue
Subject: Fwd: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Hi,

I can't see that I've recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm sending it again.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Date: May 12, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB
To: "Thomas, Sue" <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

thanks very much for your e-mail.

I was wondering about the street theater operation, that was going on, at the CAB, in April of last year,

and was included in the complaint.

(With the gay-looking CAB-representative helding the meeting in the dark etc.).

I wonder what happened with this issus, noone seems to have commented on this, or is my knowledge of

the English language that is failing me, English only being my second language?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

On 5/12/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

When the Independent Adjudicator sent you her reivew (on 24th April), she said that Citizens Advice would consider the report and then write to you. I am sorry that my reply is a little late but I was away from the office last week and so have only been able to finish my letter to you today.

<<Ribsskog-Liverpool Central.doc>>

Sue Thomas
Head of Advice Policy & Standards
Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425

P 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

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.

P please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.

P 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

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.

18. juni 2008

E-mail to Sue Thomas, CAB, 13/6/08.

Google Mail – Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB

Erik Ribsskog

<eribsskog@gmail.com>

Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM

To:

Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk

Hi,

I can't see that I've recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm sending it again.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: May 12, 2008 5:12 PM

Subject: Re: Your complaint about Liverpool Central CAB
To: "Thomas, Sue" <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

thanks very much for your e-mail.

I was wondering about the street theater operation, that was going on, at the CAB, in April of last year,

and was included in the complaint.

(With the gay-looking CAB-representative helding the meeting in the dark etc.).

I wonder what happened with this issus, noone seems to have commented on this, or is my knowledge of

the English language that is failing me, English only being my second language?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

On 5/12/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:

When the Independent Adjudicator sent you her reivew (on 24th April), she said that Citizens Advice would consider the report and then write to you. I am sorry that my reply is a little late but I was away from the office last week and so have only been able to finish my letter to you today.

<<Ribsskog-Liverpool Central.doc>>

Sue Thomas
Head of Advice Policy & Standards
Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425

P 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

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.

13. juni 2008