From: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
To: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:05:32 +0100
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

Regarding complaint

14 March 2008
22:40

Subject Regarding complaint
From Erik Ribsskog
To david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk
Sent 14 March 2008 22:46

Hi,
 
sorry that I’m sending another e-mail.

But I read through your letter again now.

And there are some more points, that also weren’t right:
 
– You write in your e-mail, that the CAB informed me that it was only the first 30 minutes of legal advice,
that was fee of charge.
 
This isn’t right.
 
Noone at the CAB informed me about this.

I thought it was free advice, since the Police, had sent me to the CAB, to ‘get the case brought up for
the Crowns Court’.

The Police also said that the CAB, ‘was Government’.
 
If the CAB, had told me, when I went there in February, straight from the Police, with the documents,
that I had given them.

If the CAB had made this clear, that it was only the first thirthy minutes that were free advice.

Then I would have gone back to the Police, and complained.
 
So it seems to me, like I have suspected from before.

That it must have been a plot, involving the Police, and the CAB, to make problems for me, or the
case I was bringing up against Arvato’s Microsoft-campaign.
 
(See also my main complaint from my e-mail earlier today).
 
Also, when I called EAD, they said that the time-limit was out for the harrasment at work case.

Then I went to Morecrofts the same day, and they said it had a longer time-limit, since it was an
harassment at work case, and not an employment case.
 
I think the issues I bring up in this e-mail, and the issues from the e-mail earlier today, seems like,
they probably all are part of a plot, to make me loose control, on the case against Arvato Microsoft
campaign, or something like this.
 
So I just thought I’d also add this perspective to my comlaint.

I think it isn’t right of the CAB, to take part in CIA-plots, or what it is, in a way like this.

So I wanted to also complain about this!
 
I’m sorry if I’m sending many e-mails!
 
Hope this is alright!
 
Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

Fwd: Complaint against Liverpool Central CAB.

14 March 2008
21:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He looked outside, on Dale St.

And he was red in his face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats my main complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 13 2008

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

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

Chronology of your complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stage 2 – review by the Chair of the Trustee Board

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

In his response the Chair:

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

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

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

• Explained how the duty solicitor system works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

David Harker

Chief Executive

Cc Chair of Liverpool Central CAB

Your complaint against Liverpool Central CAB

14 March 2008
20:14

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

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

Phoney e-mails from the CAB Chief
Executive.

johncons
Date: 2008-02-26
Time: 17:14:31 I’ve been having some problems with recieving
what seems to be phoney automated e-mails in
the name of the CAB Chief Executive.

I was wondering if anyone have some advice on
how to go forward with this?

Here are the links to an e-mail to the CAB,
explaining about this:

[censored]johncons-mirror.blogspot[censored]/
2008/02/e-mail-to-cab-252.html

[censored]johncons-mirror.blogspot[censored]/
2008/02/enclosure-1-e-mail-to-cab-252.html

[censored]johncons-mirror.blogspot[censored]/
2008/02/enclosure-2-e-mail-to-cab-252.html r>
[ Reply ] [ View Threads by johncons ] [ View Profile ]

Re: Phoney e-mails from the CAB
Chief Executive.

tigerwulf
Date: 2008-02-26
Time: 17:20:27 just change your addy and forget about it )
[ Reply ] [ View Threads by tigerwulf ] [ View Profile ]

Re: Phoney e-mails from the CAB
Chief Executive.

johncons
Date: 2008-02-26
Time: 17:25:46 The problem is that I wanted Citizens Advice,
to answer my e-mail properly.

It was a complaint I sent the Chief
Executive, regarding some problems with one
of their managers.

But the only answer I got, was an automated,
or ‘automated’ reply, that was sent about a
week after my e-mail was sent to them.

So I don’t really think the reply was
automated at all.

That’s why I’m calling it phoney.

Since it seems that the e-mail must have been
sent by a person.

Since automated replies, are usually sent
right away, and certainly not a week after
the e-mail they are replying to.

So I think it must be something phoney going
on at the CAB.

So I was wondering what other people would
have done if someone were sending them phoney
e-mails from the CAB Chief Executive.
[ Reply ] [ View Threads by johncons ] [ View Profile ]

Re: Phoney e-mails from the CAB
Chief Executive.

tigerwulf
Date: 2008-02-26
Time: 17:29:11 ahhh i get ya,i thought you was getting them
for no reason……..i take it you’ve phoned
them up about it?
[ Reply ] [ View Threads by tigerwulf ] [ View Profile ]

Re: Phoney e-mails from the CAB
Chief Executive.

johncons
Date: 2008-02-26
Time: 17:36:01 Well, not exactly.

I was getting a message claiming to be
automated, which wasn’t.

From the Chief Executive.

So I don’t think everything is like it should
be at the CAB.

It says what I did in the e-mail on the
blog.

It was to do with the complaint-procedure.

It should be explained in the e-mail in the
first link, just change the parts where it
say censored, with h t t p and . c o m

http://www.ukchatterbox.co.uk/msg/1767634

Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Problems with the CAB
25 February 2008
14:54
Subject
Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Problems with the CAB
From
Erik Ribsskog
To
Thomas, Sue
Sent
25 February 2008 14:41

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Harker, David <David.Harker@citizensadvice.org.uk>
Date: Aug 22, 2007 7:59 PM
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Problems with the CAB
To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

I am on leave until Thursday 30th August. I will reply as quickly as possible on my return.
David
The Citizens Advice service is a network of charities that helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers.
• For information and advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
• For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
• Volunteer hotline 08451 264 264
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).

Fwd: Problems with the CAB
25 February 2008
14:52
Subject
Fwd: Problems with the CAB
From
Erik Ribsskog
To
Thomas, Sue
Sent
25 February 2008 14:41

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Problems with the CAB
To: david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk

Hi,

I can’t see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet.

I reackon that it’s probably a letter on the way in the post, but I send this e-mail anyway,
just in case.

Hope that this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 3, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: Problems with the CAB
To: david.harker@citizensadvice.org.uk

Hi,

I’m a Norwegian living in Britain, who has had some problems with the contact with the CAB.

I’ve contacted your complaints-department, and the Complaints Officer regarding these problems.
The complaint was sent to my local CAB, but they didn’t reply within due course.

Then I contacted the Complaints Officer twice, and asked how I should go forward when the
local CAB didn’t send an answer to my complaint.

I’ve sent two e-mails to the Complaints Officer regarding this, one on 5/7 and one on 22/7, but
I haven’t recieved any reply.

I was adviced by the Norwegian Embassy to contact the CAB regarding these problems.

And the problems in the complaint surrounds issues that also has to do with different Government
and other institutions, like the police and the law-society, and due to this and the nature of
the problems, I think that this issues should be dealt with responsably.

I tryed to find out about how the CAB was organized on the CAB website, I didn’t manager to find
an organisation-chart, but from reading on the CAB website, it looks to me that you are the
line-manager of the Complaints Officer.
So, thats why I’m sending this enquiery to you, I’m very sorry if it has been sent to the wrong
person, but I think that the CAB should answer peoples e-mails, since the CAB are working
on issues regarding induvidual rights, then I think one propably has the right to get an answer
when one contacts the CAB. And also due to that I think

So sorry if I’m sending this e-mail to the wrong person.

I’m going to forward the e-mails with the correspondence with the Complaints Officer.

Hope that you have the time to help with this, and sorry again if I have sent this to wrong
address!

Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog

Re: Complaint about Liverpool CAB
25 February 2008
14:46
Subject
Re: Complaint about Liverpool CAB
From
Erik Ribsskog
To
Thomas, Sue
Sent
25 February 2008 14:38

Hi,

thank you very much for your e-mail!

It’s no use for me to argue then I guess.

But when I think about what happened last year with the complaint, then I begin to wonder, because I
sent two e-mails to the Complaint Officer, and I sent two e-mails to the Chief Executive, but I didn’t
recieve an answer to any of these four e-mails.

I recieved one automated reply from the Chief Executive.
But I suspect a bit that this automated reply could have been phoney.

Since the automated reply, was sent several days after the e-mail it was a reply to.
I’m going to forward you that e-mail again, so that you can see yourself what I mean.

If you want, then I can also forward the unanswered e-mails from the Comlaints Officer again.

I was wondering if you agree with me that I should have recieved proper answers on the four
e-mail I sent the Complaints Officer, and the Chief Executive, last year, regarding the complaint
in mention and the process surrounding it.

And I was wondering, if you don’t think it was a bit strange with the automated reply, being
sent from your offices, several days after my e-mail, that it was an automated answer to.
And also, if it wasn’t a bit strange that I sent two e-mails to the Complaints Officer, which
weren’t answered, and I also didn’t get a propler answer on the two e-mails I sent the
Chief Executive last year.

So I was wondering if you were agreeing with me, that these mentioned lack of answers
on e-mails, and delayed for days automated replies, shouldn’t be investigated.
I think I could bring this up now, since the process is back with the Complaint Officer
and the Chief Executive again.
So I thought that I could use the oppertunity now, to bring this up.

Last year, then I got a reply/answer from the local CAB, right after the automated reply
from the Chief Executive, so it seemed to me, at the time, that these e-mails were linked
in someway, since I was very busy with work etc. at the time.
So I thought that the answer I (finally) recieved from the local CAB, had to do with the
automated message I got from the Chief Executive.
This because, since the automated reply, from the Chief Executive, wasn’t sent, untill
days after the e-mail it was answering, then it seemed to me, I remember thinking, that a
person had sent the (automated) reply.

Since, normally, automated replies are sent right away.

I was a bit in a hury with work etc. at the time, so I didn’t notice at first, that the e-mail
was an automated reply.

I thought it was a reply sent from a person, due to it taking days to be sent from you.

But now, I’m a aware of that the e-mail in mentioned, acctually claims to be an
automated reply.

And the process is back with you in Middleton House, then I thought it would maybe
be right time to bring this up.
And here if you had the chance to investigate this.
I’m sending a copy of the automated reply.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog

On 2/25/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:
I understand your concern. However Saffron Follows is our only Complaints’ Officer – her role in your complaint was limited to passing it to the bureau; and the review which is carried out under the oversight of the Chief Executive will look at how your complaint was handled by Citizens Advice as well as by the bureau.

Sue Thomas
Head of Advice Policy & Standards
Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425
—–Original Message—–
From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 February 2008 00:30
To: Thomas, Sue
Subject: Fwd: Complaint about Liverpool CAB

Hi,

I’m forwarding the e-mail I sent you on 14/2 again, since I’m also sending an
update in another e-mail.

Since it seems the same Complaint Officer is involved (see the other e-mail), even if I’ve complained
about the Complaints Officers involvement in the case from before.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2008 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Complaint about Liverpool CAB
To: “Thomas, Sue” <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk>

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

It sounds very good, that you’ll have a look at the complaint.

I’m in a very busy periode at work at the moment, so I won’t go into to detail about the problems there.
Except for two things that come to mind.

1. The e-mail address, that is on Liverpool Central CAB’s website, is incorrect. (It’s to do with the the ending,
after the dot, they have changed the provider of the e-mail addresses is seems, but they haven’t updated the
website).

2. The CAB representative lied in the complaint-answer.
He said that he had turned the lights on, at CAB. (I think it’s very strange that the CAB let people in to their
premisses, without turning on the lights there first).
He said he had turned the lights on, at the beginning of the meeting.
But that’s not right, he turned the lights on, close to the end of the meeting.
Eg. he read me the number to the law-firm, in the dark.
And it turned out he had read the law firms fax-number to me.
Which must have been because it was to dark to read properly there.
So this, the representative says, that he turned the lights on, before the meeting/at the beginning of the meeting,
isn’t right at all.
More of half of the meeting was being held in the dark there, with a level of light, thats was like twilight, in the way
that it wasn’t possible to read.

I had to put a folded I had picked up away, since it was to tirering to read it, due to the lights being switched off.

And also it seemed like it was some kind of plot.
With a young girl, maybe 12-13 y.o. standing outside the CAB, in the stairs, in an office-building, for no appearent
reason.
And then the lights being turned off in the CAB-premisses.
Me being the only person there, for about 5-10 minutes.
Then the representative, who seemed clear to me, to be homosexual, started having the meeting in the dark.

Close to the end of the meeting, the lights were turned on.

Then, the woman working there, with dark hair, and in her fifties, went into the reception.
She was just standing there, not doing any work.
Only scanning my face, when I left the CAB premisses, as to see, if I had reacted on the CAB representative
and/or the girl outside.
So it seemed a bit like being in a Clockwork Orange-esque movie, of some type.
But I’m going to have a closer look at the complaint, in two or three weeks time, when I’m finished with the
busy periode at work.
If you think that’s alright.

Also, I was wondering, about Complaint Officer Saffron Follows.
This because, when the Liverpool Central CAB, last year, failed to answer the complaint, before the
time they had said they would answer the complaint.

Then I contacted Follows, on two occations, asking what was wrong, since the CAB, didn’t answer me.

But Follows didn’t reply back to me, at all.
So I was wondering then, if it’s right that she should be involved, since I a bit question what went on
last year, when I contacted Follows on several occations, without being answered.

So I was wondering a bit what you were thinking about this.

I was wondeing if this wasn’t maybe a couse for complaint.
And that Follows, due to this, already is involved, in the way, that she is the subject of a complaint,
that has to do with the file you have asked for from the Liverpool Central CAB.

I’m questioning a bit, if it’s right that Follows should be involved now, when there have been problems,
that seems to be cause for a complaint, regarding Follow’s involvment in this case, from before.

I’m not sure if you agree with me in this.
But I hope you understand what I mean, and that you have the time to have a look at this, and answer
me back regarding this.

Hope this is alright, and thanks in advance for the help!

Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog

On 2/13/08, Thomas, Sue <Sue.Thomas@citizensadvice.org.uk> wrote:
All CABx use a standard complaints process. Initially, the manager is involved (Stage 1), then the Chair (Stage 2). After this if you are not happy with the outcome of the Chair’s review, the next step is a review carried out under the direction of the Citizens Advice Chief Executive.
I believe that is the next stage on your complaint. Therefore Saffron Follows (Complaints’ Officer) has asked Liverpool CAB for a copy of their file on your complaint and the file on the advice you were given. Once we have this we will be clear that our assumption on what next is correct.
What would help us would be for you to let us have a clear statement of why you are not satisfied with the Chair’s response. This will give us the basis on which to look at the way your comlaint has been handled.
Thanks
Sue Thomas
Head of Advice Policy & Standards
Tel: 020 7833 7034 Mob: 07970 990425
please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?
The Citizens Advice service helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice is an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Information and Advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
Volunteer hotline 08451-264-264 (local rate Mon-Fri)
NOTICE: this e-mail originates from Citizens Advice, an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (Charity Registration Number 279057, VAT number 726 0202 76, Company limited by guarantee, Registered Number 1436945 England, Registered office Myddelton House, 115-123 Pentonville Road, London N1 9LZ). It contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply to this e-mail (other than for the reason stated above).
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.
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.
please consider the environment – do you really need to print this email?
The Citizens Advice service helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice is an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Information and Advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
Volunteer hotline 08451-264-264 (local rate Mon-Fri)
NOTICE: this e-mail originates from Citizens Advice, an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (Charity Registration Number 279057, VAT number 726 0202 76, Company limited by guarantee, Registered Number 1436945 England, Registered office Myddelton House, 115-123 Pentonville Road, London N1 9LZ). It contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply to this e-mail (other than for the reason stated above).
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.