johncons

Stikkord: Morecrofts Solicitors

  • Jeg sendte en klage på the Legal Services Ombudsman, til EU-kommisjonen i Sverige







    Gmail – Klage på the Legal Services Ombudsman, i Storbritannia/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)







    Gmail



    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Klage på the Legal Services Ombudsman, i Storbritannia/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)





    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>





    Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:58 PM





    To:

    pierre.schellekens@ec.europa.eu



    Hei,

    enda en ombudsman, (siden dere i Sverige er spesialister på ombudsmenn).
    Denne gangen the Legal Services Ombudsman, som lar the Law Society slippe unna, med å la to britiske advokatfirma, Moorecrofts og EAD, lyve og trakassere og ødelegge for en arbeidssak jeg har mot Bertelsmann Arvato Ltd's Microsoft Scandinavian Product Activation, (hvor det ble brukt 'reinforcement' som ledelsesmetode, og hvor jeg ble mobbet og trakassert og behandlet dårlig, og hvor mange nordiske damer ville gråte på jobb og etter, av ukjent grunn for meg):

    Håper dere kan se på denne klagen!
    Mvh.
    Erik Ribsskog

    PS.
    Sivilombudsmannen i Norge, tuller også mye med meg, men det kan jeg kanskje ikke sende om til dere, siden Norge ikke er i EU?
    (Bare fleiper.

    Det er litt sent her).

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

    Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
    Subject: Complaint/Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
    To: lso@olso.gsi.gov.uk

    Hi,

    I called your offices today, and got confirmed, that the e-mail

    address on your website, should

    be your right e-mail address, so I'm trying to send the complaint again.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: <postmaster@dca.local>

    Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:00 AM

    Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

    To: eribsskog@gmail.com

    This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

    Delivery to the following recipients failed.

    LSO@OLSO.GSI.GOV.UK

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ______________________________________________________________________

    This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

    For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email

    ______________________________________________________________________

    Final-Recipient: rfc822;LSO@OLSO.GSI.GOV.UK

    Action: failed

    Status: 5.2.2

    X-Display-Name: Legal Services Ombudsman

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: "Erik Ribsskog" <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    To: <lso@olso.gsi.gov.uk>

    Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:00:46 +0000

    Subject: Questions about the LSO complaint-procedure etc.

    Hi,

    I've also been contacting you earlier, about your complaint-procedure.

    I had a complaint against the Law Society, and how they dealt with

    complaints on two law-firms,

    Morecrofts and EAD with you.

    The two complaints were dealt with collected with the LSO.

    I've now read, on the internet, that there seem to be a fatwa against

    my, by the muslims.

    So now I'm sending you a new e-mail, due to this new information to me.

    I have two questions now, reagarding this:

    1.

    Like I wrote to you, when you freed the Law Society, I thought you

    must have been corrupted,

    at the LSO since you freed the Law Society, even if they hade several

    faults that were very

    obvious, I think.

    Now I wonder, because I think your case-worker could have been a

    muslim woman, from how

    I remeber the name.

    Should a muslim woman threat a compaint if there is a fatwa against me

    from the muslims?`

    2.

    Shouldn't the LSO have a complaints-procedure, in case problems like

    this appear?

    I hope you have the chance to answer about this, and thanks in advance

    for the answer!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the

    Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by

    Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate

    Number 2007/11/0032.) 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.

    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.

    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.






  • Jeg sendte en klage på advokatfirmaet Stephensons til LSC Liverpool







    Google Mail – Complaint about legal aid solicitiors/Fwd: To manger LSC Eve Clayton/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato







    Google Mail



    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Complaint about legal aid solicitiors/Fwd: To manger LSC Eve Clayton/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato





    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>





    Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:07 PM





    To:

    liverpool@legalservices.gov.uk



    Hi,

    I want to complain about Stephenson law-firm, that they don't do the legal aid procedures, like Mr. Thompson, at LSC Liverpool says.
    I've earlier complained about Morecrofts and EAD to you.

    I don't know why all these three law-firms are seemingly 'messing' with me, but could it be since my employment case is against the big companies Bertelsmann and Microsoft?
    Anyway, I'll just try to find a new legal aid solicitor in your database, for my employment-case, in the mean-time.

    Please give me feedback regarding what to do, if I think legal aid law firms, don't stick to LSC procedures even if they are in the LSC database for legal aid solicitors.
    Thanks in advance for your help!

    Yours sincerely,
    Erik Ribsskog

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

    Date: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM
    Subject: To manger LSC Eve Clayton/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato
    To: liverpool@legalservices.gov.uk

    Cc: tmo@stephensons.co.uk

    Hi,

    I called Maureen today, at Liverpool LSC, and got the name of the LSC manager.
    I'm getting different directions, you see, from you representative Stuart Thompson, and the law firm.

    So I was just wondering if you could tell me one thing.
    I've checked that I'm eligable for legal aid, on your calculator, and I was, since I'm unemployed.
    And now, I need a reference-number, for legal-aid.

    And Mr. Thompson, in LSC, says that the law-firm should get this number.
    And the law firm says I should get this number by contacting the LSC.
    So we aren't getting anywhere.

    So I hope you can clear this a bit up, what the procedure is, regarding for me to obtain a reference number, for legal aid, from where the case is now, it's at where I've checked that I'm eligable for legal aid, on the calculator on your website.

    I'm also sending a copy of this e-mail to the solicitors firm.
    Hope this is alright!
    Yours sincerely,
    Erik Ribsskog
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Date: Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM

    Subject: Re: FW: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato
    To: Tom Mooney <tmo@stephensons.co.uk>

    Hi,

    thank you very much for your e-mail!
    What I thought I'll do, is that I'll try to contact Stuarts manager, and then I'll get back to you, sooner rather than lather, I hope.

    Hope this is alright!
    Yours sincerely,
    Erik Ribsskog
    On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Tom Mooney <tmo@stephensons.co.uk> wrote:


    Erik,

    I refer to my previous email.

    It is not possible to commence any investigations into the merits of your claim until you have received a reference number from the LSC.

    It is essential that you contact the LSC, on 0845 345 4345, so they can verbally confirm your eligibility and

    provide you with a reference number.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Tom Mooney

    Trainee Solicitor

    Employment Department

    For and on behalf of Stephensons Solicitors LLP

    Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA

    Direct Dial: 01942 774170

    Direct Fax: 01942 774525


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

    Sent: 07 December 2009 15:08

    To: Tom Mooney

    Subject: Re: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    Hi,

    I called LSC Liverpool now, on 0151 242 5200, and spoke with Stuart.

    He told me that you should just send it to the LSC, that this was the usual procedure, in cases like this, since you are a registered Legal Aid-programme solicitor-firm.

    So it should just be for you to send an application to the LSC, as I understood from Stuart there, today, since I've already checked that I'm eligable for legal aid, using the calculator on their website.

    Hope this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Tom Mooney

    <tmo@stephensons.co.uk>
    wrote:


    Erik,

    I appreciate that you have assessed your financial merits online and have been informed that your are eligible for legal aid.

    Please note that it is essential that you also contact the Legal Services Commission (LSC), on 0845 345 4345, so they can verbally confirm your eligibility and provide you with a

    reference number.

    Once you have this reference number a member of our team will then be able to provide you with advice.

    Kind regards

    Tom Mooney

    Trainee Solicitor

    Employment Department

    For and on behalf of Stephensons Solicitors LLP

    Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA

    Direct Dial: 01942 774170

    Direct Fax: 01942 774525



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

    Sent: 27 November 2009 13:12

    To: Tom Mooney

    Subject: Reminder/Fwd: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    Hi,

    I can't see that I've received an answer to this e-mail yet, so I'm sending a reminder about this.

    Hope this is alright!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Date: Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM

    Subject: Re: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    To: Tom Mooney <tmo@stephensons.co.uk>

    Hi,

    thanks very much for the phone-number!

    I called LSC now, and they explained me how to log on, to their website, and answering some questions, that would determine, if I was eligible for legal aid, or not.

    And here's what the website said:


    As you or your partner are receiving one of the following:

    • Income Support
    • Income Based Job Seeker's Allowance
    • Income-based Employment and Support Allowance
    • Guarantee Credit

    you are automatically financially eligible for the following levels of service:

    Legal Help

    Help at Court

    Immigration cases: Legal Representation before the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal; and the High Court

    Asylum cases: Legal Representation before the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal; and the High Court

    Family Mediation

    Help with Mediation

    Other Legal Representation

    General Family Help

    So it shouldn't be a problem with the legal aid!

    That's good news!

    I also have a website, where I've published about the empoyment-case.

    It's on this link:

    And in this link, I explain about some of the problems that were going on, but there where also a lot more problems, that I was constructivly dismissed as well, and more:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/4661735/7

    I post the links, since it was so much problems there, so it isn't easy for me, to summarise it, since there were so many problems going on there, in the one year and three months I worked there.

    Hope it's alright that I just refer to the website, but if it's anything I should answer, then please just tell me, and I'll explain it properly!

    Thanks again for you help so far!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog


    On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Tom Mooney

    <tmo@stephensons.co.uk>
    wrote:




    Erik,

    My apologies, the LSC's telephone contact is 0845 345 4345.

    Kind regards

    Tom Mooney

    Trainee Solicitor

    Employment Department

    For and on behalf of Stephensons Solicitors LLP

    Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA

    Direct Dial: 01942 774170

    Direct Fax: 01942 774525


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

    Sent: 23 October 2009 14:19

    To: Tom Mooney

    Subject: Re: FW: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    Hi,

    thank you very much for your e-mail!

    I was just wondering, shouldn't it be one more number in the phone-number you gave, to call to check if I'm eligible for receiving legal aid?

    Is this number to the LSC?

    I think I'm eligible because I'm unemployed at the moment, due to the finance-crises, etc., unfourtuntly, even if I have a lot to do, with working on the employment-case and writing a blog etc.

    Thanks again for your e-mail!

    Best regards,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Tom Mooney

    <tmo@stephensons.co.uk>
    wrote:




    Eric,

    To qualify for legal aid you must be financially eligible and your claim must also have sufficient prospects of success.

    In relation to the first requirement I would invite you to call 0845 345 434 to enable an advisor to ask you several questions to determine whether you are financially eligible to receive legal aid.

    If you are eligible, you will receive a reference number and you claim can then be assessed.

    Kind regards

    Tom Mooney

    Trainee Solicitor

    Employment Department

    For and on behalf of Stephensons Solicitors LLP

    Wigan Investment Centre, Waterside Drive, Wigan WN3 5BA

    Direct Dial: 01942 774170

    Direct Fax: 01942 774525


    From:

    eribsskog@gmail.com [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]

    Sent: 09 October 2009 06:19

    To: Enquiries

    Subject: Reminder/Fwd: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    Hi,

    I can't see that I've received an answer to this e-mail, so I'm sending a reminder about this.

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    ———- Forwarded message ———-

    From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

    Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM

    Subject: Employment-case against Bertelsmann Arvato

    To: enquiries@stephensons.co..uk

    Hi,

    I've been trying regularly, since 2006, to find some advice, within the legal aid-programme, regarding an employment-case I have, against Bertelsmann Arvato.

    There were problems with constructed dismissal, a lot of bullying and harassment from managers, illegal management-methods, etc.

    I've published about the employment-case, on this url:

    Hope you can help with giving advice regarding this case!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog


    Debt Recovery Special Offer…

    If you have 5 or more debts to recover, instruct us to act now for only £5 plus VAT per Letter Before Action.

    This offer is valid until 30th September 2009. You must instruct us to send 5 or more Letter Before Actions to be eligible for this offer.


    Save energy, money and the environment – do you need to print this message?

    The information in this e-mail (which includes any files transmitted with it) is confidential and may also be legally privileged.

    It is intended for the addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.

    Unauthorized recipients are required to maintain confidentiality.

    If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately, destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system.

    Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Copyright in this e-mail and any document created by us and sent as an attachment to this e-mail will be and remain vested in us and will not be

    transferred to you.
    All messages are scanned for viruses by McAfee VirusScan but please carry out such virus and other checks as you consider appropriate.

    No responsibility is accepted by us in this regard.
    Stephensons Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership.

    Registered in England and Wales, registered number OC322962, registered office is 24 Lord Street, Leigh,

    WN7 1AB. Telephone: 01942 777777.

    A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office.

    Members of Stephensons Solicitors LLP will be referred to as partners.

    Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. For the SRA rules click

    www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct.page
    .
    Service of Documents by e-mail not accepted.






    CHRISTMAS CLOSE DOWN

    Please note that this office will be closed from 1pm on Thursday 24th December 2009 and re-open at 9am on Monday 4th January 2010.

    24 hour Crime call out-7 days a week including Christmas and New Year 07836 574607.

    Please do not take offence if you do not receive a Christmas card from us as this year we are making a contribution to our selected Charity of the year, Wigan & Leigh Hospice.






  • Jeg tulla litt med skiltet til advokatfirmaet som løy om meg i 2007, og fikk feministene hos the Law Society og LSO, til å tulle med Bertelsmann-saken

    Photo 0522

    Photo 0523

    Photo 0524

    Photo 0525

    Photo 0526

    Photo 0527

    Photo 0528

    Photo 0529

    Photo 0530

    Photo 0531

    Photo 0532

    Photo 0533

    Photo 0534

    Photo 0535

    Photo 0536

    Photo 0537

    Photo 0538

    Photo 0539

    Photo 0540

    Photo 0541

    Photo 0542

    Photo 0543

    Photo 0544

    Photo 0545

    Photo 0546

    Photo 0547

    Photo 0548

    Photo 0549

    PS.

    Her kan man se brevet fra Morecrofts, til the Law Society, hvor Morecrofts skriver at jeg gikk til kontoret deres hele tida, som for å plage hun advokat-dama.

    Men det er løgn og det som værre er, jeg gikk dit bare for å finne ut hvordan vi skulle gjøre med betalingen av saken, altså om saken kunne bli dekket av fri rettshjelp, som i Storbritannia, blir kalt ‘Legal Aid’.

    Som Morecrofts ikke godtar som betaling.

    Jeg var arbeidsledig, også skulle jeg liksom betale tusenvis av kroner, i advokathonorar.

    Hvorfor tar Morecrofts oppdrag gjennom ‘Duty Solicitor’-ordningen, hvis de ikke godtar betaling gjennom Legal Aid?

    Nei, dette var et plott, som Morecrofts var med på, sånn som jeg ser det.

    Så jeg vil advare mot dette firmaet.

    En gang, så la de på, da jeg ringte de.

    (Altså, de la på midt i samtalen, sånn at samtalen da selvfølgelig ble brutt da).

    Så da syntes jeg nesten at jeg måtte være høflig, (siden jeg ba om deres hjelp, gjennom noe fri rettshjelp ordning, trodde jeg på dette tidspunktet, for jeg hadde ikke fått noen informasjon, av de eller andre, om slikt), å gå til kontoret deres, for det er mindre enn 200 meter fra her jeg bor vel.

    Men så skriver Morecrofts, til Law Society, at jeg gikk dit for å plage den unge advokat-frøkna deres.

    De lar ihvertfall det skinne igjennom i brevet til the Law Society.

    Men det var Morecrofts som brøt samtalen.

    Her var det nok noe frimureri-plott, e.l., for at jeg skulle miste kontrollen, på Bertelsmann-saken.

    Så brøt nok Morecrofts samtalen med meg, med vilje.

    For de regnet vel med, at da ville jeg dukke opp hos dem.

    Så spekulerte de nok i, at de da senere kunne klage på at jeg gikk til kontoret deres hele tida, for å plage advokat-frøkna deres.

    Og annet dritt som de skreiv om meg, enda jeg ikke oppførte meg dårlig i det hele tatt, jeg prøvde bare å komme videre med Bertelsmann-saken.

    Som Morecrofts saboterte, siden de først lot som om de ville ta saken min.

    Så, siden, etter et par måneder vel, så forteller de at de ikke godtar fri rettshjelp som betaling.

    Enda de møter klienter, under en ordning som heter ‘duty solicitor’, på Citizens Advice Bureau, som er en veldedig organisasjon.

    Så de regner altså med at folk som de vet er arbeidsledige, og som kontakter en veldedig organisasjon, har råd til å betale skyhøye advokatregninger.

    Dette er selvfølgelig et plott fra Merseyside-politiet, CAB og Morecrofts, og siden the Law Society og the Legal Services Ombudsman.

    Så hele samfunnet omtrent, eller mye av det, med politiet og advokatstanden osv., er korrupte i Storbritannia, sånn som jeg ser det.

    Så sånn er det.

    Med vennlig hilsen

    Erik Ribsskog

    PS 2.

    I denne linken så kan man lese både Morecrofts brev, til the Law Society, som jeg kommenterte i PS-et ovenfor, og min klage på Morecrofts, til the Law Society.

    Egentlig så skulle jeg ha kommentert Morecrofts brev også.

    Men jeg ringte the Law Society, og da sa dama der, at jeg bare skulle sende min klage og Morecrofts brev, uten kommentarer.

    Så da fikk jeg ikke forklart om løgnene fra Morecrofts.

    Så da har de løgnene gått gjennom hele rettsvesen-mølla, med the Law Society og Legal Services Ombudsman, uten å bli kommentert av meg, sånn som de egentlig skulle ha vært.

    Og det var Law Societys feil, som ikke ville ha mine kommentarer.

    Så de er også involvert, og the Legal Services Ombudsman, de lot the Law Society slippe unna, med mye galt som de hadde gjort i forbindelse med denne saken.

    Så LSO er også involvert, helt klart, sånn som jeg ser det.

    Så det er ikke bare Norge som er korrupt.

    Så sånn er det.

    Her er den nevnte linken, hvor både Morecrofts og mitt brev til the Law Society, eventuelt kan leses:

    https://johncons-blogg.net/2008/10/resolution-form.html

  • The Law Society never asked me to explain about the lies from Morecrofts in this file. They must have bought them. I didn’t behave out of line at all.

    The Law Society never asked me to explain about the lies from Morecrofts in this file. They must have bought them. I didn’t behave out of line at all.






    Resolution form

    Part 1:

    Alison Lobb

    Morecrofts
    Solcitors

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

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

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

    My name:

    Erik Ribsskog

    Flat 3

    5 Leather
    Lane

    Liverpool

    L2 2AE

    Phone-number:
    0151 236 3298.

    Mobile: 0775
    834 9954.

    Part 2:

    The person
    dealing with my case is or was:

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

    on the
    meeting in the CAB on 27/2.

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

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

    on behalf of
    Mr. Millett.

    My complaint is:

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

    plan type of founding.

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

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

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

    get to speak with Mr.
    Millett about the case.

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

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

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

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

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

    this situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    resolution form.

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

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

    this.

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

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

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

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

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

    be changed later by the
    company.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Millett about the case.)

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

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

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

    etc.

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

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

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

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

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

    contact-information).

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

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

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

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

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

    questions.

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

    had been calling from that
    number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    this periode.

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

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

    had passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    they only gave me a week
    to reply on).

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

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

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

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


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

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

    a couple of days to
    arrange a new similar meeting.


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


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

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

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

    things that were covered
    about the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    write it in this form
    now.)

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

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

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

    the CAB on 27/2.

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

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

    founds (and not from
    legal-aid).


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

    on 19/3.

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

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

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

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

    and the things regarding
    the case.

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

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

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

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

    one or two minutes of the
    call.

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

    agreements about that one
    should interrupt eachother during a call.

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

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

    from before.

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

    the call for the last one
    or two minutes.

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

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

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

    was in then.


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

    me that Samantha wasn’t in
    that day.

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

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

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

    to call her on 10/5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    company, than I think
    isn’t really acceptable.

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

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


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

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

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

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

    me and kept on talking
    very fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    with English people).

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

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

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

    the customer calling.

    Part 3

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

    I would like the following
    to sort out my complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

    number 1, 6 and 7.

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

    PS.

    Like it says in the letter above, Morecrofts, don’t accept founding, from the Legal Aid programme.

    Yet, the CAB, set me up, with a meeting with Morecrofts.

    Why would I go to the CAB, to speak with a law-firm, that don’t accept founding, from the Legal Aid Programme?

    It makes no sense to me, at least.

    The Police sent me to the CAB, to speak with a Duty Soclicitor, to get help with the employment-case, against Arvato.

    I told the Police, that I had to register as unemployed, since I was constructivly dismissed, by Arvato.

    I went to the CAB, and they set me up with a meeting, with a Solicitor-firm, that don’t accept founding from the Legal-aid programme, but only accept that the customer pays themselves.

    This makes no sense to me.

    If I had a lot of money, then I wouldn’t have had to go to the Law Society, then I could have checked the yellow pages, and contacted a law firm there.

    The Police, just told me to go to the CAB.

    And that the CAB was ‘government’.

    I hadn’t even heard of the CAB, and had no knowledge of the British legal-system.

    So I’ve been just fooled, by everyone, the Police, the CAB and Morecrofts, and the Law Society, I have to say.

    So that’s how this is.

    We’ll see what happens.

  • E-mail to the LSC, 7/7/08.







    Google Mail – Complaint







    Google Mail



    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>




    Complaint





    Erik Ribsskog

    <eribsskog@gmail.com>





    Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM





    To:

    Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk>



    Hi,

     

    that's right, I did not recieve legal aid, since Morecrofts, said that they didn't participate, in the legal aid

    programme.

    (They said this about a month after the initial meeting, like explained in the complaint).

     

    However, the Law Society, if I remember right, told me, that if I wanted to complain, about unprofessional

    conduct, from law-firms, in connection with the Duty Solicitor programme, then I should contact the LSC,

    I was told.

     

    So that was why I was contacting your offices, earlier this year, I think it was.

     

    So the complaint wasn't really in regards to the Legal Aid Programme, it was to do with law-firms, and 

    unproffesional conduct etc., from them (Morecrofts and EAD), in connection with the Duty Solicitor Programme.

    Yours sincerely,

     


    Erik Ribsskog

     


    On 7/7/08, Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk> wrote:

    Dear Mr Ribsskog

    Mrs Dillon forwarded your complaint to me as I am the Account Manager
    for Morecrofts. I have investigated your complaint and find that you did

    not received Legal Aid and did not become a client of Morecrofts.
    Therefore, I am unable to take your complaint any further.

    Kind regards

    Sarah Thompson

    Account Manager

    >>> "Erik Ribsskog" <eribsskog@gmail.com> 02/07/2008 20:04 >>>

    Hi,

    there has been a lot going on regarding this case.

    I was wondering, is this e-mail to do with the e-mail I sent to Fiona
    Dillon
    at the LSC,
    earlier this week?

    Thanks in advance for the reply!

    Yours sincerely,

    Erik Ribsskog

    On 7/2/08, Sarah Thompson <Sarah.Thompson@legalservices.gov.uk> wrote:
    >
    > Dear Mr Ribsskog

    >
    > I have investigated your complaint and found that you did not
    receive
    > advice funded by the Legal Services Commission. Therefore, I am
    unable
    > to to investigate the matter further as it is not a Legal Services

    > Commission matter. It also seems from the correspondence that this
    > matter is also outside the Law Society's jurisdiction. Therefore,  I
    > cannot see how you can progress this complaint further.
    >

    > Kind regards
    >
    > Sarah Thompson
    >
    > Account Manager
    >
    >
    >
    ************************************************************************************
    > Disclaimer
    >

    > This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely
    for the
    > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
    unauthorised
    > use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not

    the
    > intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
    return
    > e-mail.
    >
    > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
    intercepted and
    > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether

    to send
    > information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services
    Commission
    > are available from
    > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/our_regional_network.asp

    >
    > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record
    and
    > retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and
    for
    > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission

    policy on
    > staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and
    e-mail
    > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
    broken
    > when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts

    can be
    > entered into on our behalf by e-mail.
    >
    > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
    not
    > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
    >

    > The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for
    known
    > viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
    your own
    > risk.
    >
    >
    ************************************************************************************

    >
    >