 |
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
Reminder/Fwd: New Complaint
|
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> |
Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM | |
|
To: saffron.follows@citizensadvice.org.uk | ||
| ||
Stikkord: Saffron Follows (CAB)
-
Reminder to the Citizens Advice Bureau
Google Mail – Reminder/Fwd: New Complaint
-
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.
>
>
-
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 beenany incidents like you have mentioned, in the same way, that you on the Citizens AdviceBureaux, have failed to comment on, the phoney business, at your Liverpool-office, andat 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 RibsskogPS.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 +0100Subject: 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 AdviceP 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.
-