Stikkord: The Charity Commisson

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commisson

Erik Ribsskog

RE: 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP CRM:0149928

Erik Ribsskog

23. februar 2017 kl. 15:30

Til: “PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)”

Kopi: PGREY@acas.org.uk, Politikk Høyre , Akademikerforbundet , “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” , “sande.vgs” , Phso Enquiries

Hi,

thank you for your e-mail!

I can’t see that your writings, mean the same, as the your collegues.

(You don’t mention the trustees at all.

Like your collegue wanted me to contact.

Whoever they are).

So I want to please escalate this to the Managing Director, of your organisation, please.

Thanks in advance for the help with this!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

2017-02-23 13:06 GMT+01:00 PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

Thank you for your further email.

I have considered your complaint fully and I am sorry to have to advise you that the Commission cannot offer you any help or support in resolving your concerns with the Charity.  This is quite simply because our role does not extend to dispute resolution or to issues involving the quality of service provided by charities.

It may assist if I further explain that our statutory powers of intervention are limited and trustees have a broad discretion to manage their charity as they see fit, within charity law and the charity’s own governing document. We are by law not permitted to interfere in the administration of a charity or become involved in its internal affairs, when trustees have acted within their legal powers.

We have explained fully why we cannot become involved we will not therefore enter into further correspondence with you regarding these issues.

Yours sincerely

Ann Marie Grayling

Permissions and Compliance Team

W: https://www.gov.uk/charity-commission

Follow us on Twitter | @ChtyCommission

——————- Original Message ——————-
From: Erik Ribsskog
Received:
To: PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)
Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk; PHSO; politikk@hoyre.no; post@akademikerforbundet.no; post@sivilombudsmannen.no; Roshni Beekharry; sande.vgs@vfk.no
Subject: 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] – To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293943

Hi,

thank you for your reply!

I think you probably know, that the Citizens Advice Bureau, is mainly founded, by the British Goverment.

(If I remember right, they provide something like 95 percent of the founding).

And the British government, has tried, to get me killed, (I have to say, by stopping my jobseekers allowance and by the Merseyside police harassing me and kidnapping me, at all times, for months).

And I’ve even complained, about this, to the UN.

So I think I’ve taken this, as far as I can, really.

So if you could please escalate this, to your line-manager, for a second opinion.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

2017-02-02 17:36 GMT+01:00 PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

Thank you for your email dated 9 January 2017 about the above named charity.

Unfortunately, we are still unable to consider your complaint as it does not involve charity law.  It is not within our regulatory role to consider complaints about the service provided by the charity.  We cannot substitute our judgement for that of properly appointed trustees and our role as charity regulator is not one where we decide on personal, social or cultural issues that arise between individuals or groups. Our regulatory focus is on whether the trustees of the charity are acting within their powers and complying with their legal duties.

This means that you will need to resolve this matter with the trustees of the charity.  We expect those involved in the dispute to follow the approach as set out in the guidanceOG565 Disputes in Charities. Essentially we will not become involved unless we have evidence that clearly shows that:

·         There are no validly appointed trustees; and

·         All other methods of resolving the dispute have failed.

If you remain unhappy with the charity’s response then we recommend you seek mediation or seek your own professional advice from an appropriate provider.

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

——————- Original Message ——————-
From: Erik Ribsskog
Received:
To: PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)
Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk
Subject: *Re: MD – 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] – To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293907

Hi,

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

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

I had to call them.

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

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

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

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

Or else I would have sent about this earlier.

You write that you haven recieved enough information.

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

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

Thanks for the reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Here is more about this:

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

Hi,

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

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

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

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

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

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

5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I didn’t leave the employment.

I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.

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

9.

You write that the area was poorly lit.

It was in fact very poorly lit.

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

(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).

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

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

11.

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

Miss Pool said this.

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

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

16.

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

This isn’t right at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51.

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

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

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

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

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk

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

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

52.

You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.

But I don’t agree with this.

Due to these reasons:

1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is very fair.

2:

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

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

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

3:

And what about the problems with the automated reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I explain what happened around this in detail.

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

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

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

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

This isn’t taken seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I think this is very poor.

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

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

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

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

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

Just to explain about this.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerly,

Erik Ribsskog

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

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

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

On track to meet your filing deadline? Charities have ten months from their financial year end to file their Annual Return and Accounts. Find out more at www.charitycommission.gov.uk. Remember to file on time and use our online services.

Consider the environment. Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

On track to meet your filing deadline? Charities have ten months from their financial year end to file their Annual Return and Accounts. Find out more at www.charitycommission.gov.uk. Remember to file on time and use our online services.

Consider the environment. Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to.

23. februar 2017

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

MD – 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] – To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293943

Erik Ribsskog

2. februar 2017 kl. 18:11

Til: “PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)”

Kopi: Phso Enquiries , “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” , Politikk Høyre , Akademikerforbundet , “sande.vgs” , PGREY@acas.org.uk

Hi,

thank you for your reply!

I think you probably know, that the Citizens Advice Bureau, is mainly founded, by the British Goverment.

(If I remember right, they provide something like 95 percent of the founding).

And the British government, has tried, to get me killed, (I have to say, by stopping my jobseekers allowance and by the Merseyside police harassing me and kidnapping me, at all times, for months).

And I’ve even complained, about this, to the UN.

So I think I’ve taken this, as far as I can, really.

So if you could please escalate this, to your line-manager, for a second opinion.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

2017-02-02 17:36 GMT+01:00 PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

Thank you for your email dated 9 January 2017 about the above named charity.

Unfortunately, we are still unable to consider your complaint as it does not involve charity law.  It is not within our regulatory role to consider complaints about the service provided by the charity.  We cannot substitute our judgement for that of properly appointed trustees and our role as charity regulator is not one where we decide on personal, social or cultural issues that arise between individuals or groups. Our regulatory focus is on whether the trustees of the charity are acting within their powers and complying with their legal duties.

This means that you will need to resolve this matter with the trustees of the charity.  We expect those involved in the dispute to follow the approach as set out in the guidance OG565 Disputes in Charities. Essentially we will not become involved unless we have evidence that clearly shows that:

·         There are no validly appointed trustees; and

·         All other methods of resolving the dispute have failed.

If you remain unhappy with the charity’s response then we recommend you seek mediation or seek your own professional advice from an appropriate provider.

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

——————- Original Message ——————-
From: Erik Ribsskog
Received:
To: PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)
Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk
Subject: *Re: MD – 1076396 – LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] – To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293907

Hi,

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

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

I had to call them.

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

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

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

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

Or else I would have sent about this earlier.

You write that you haven recieved enough information.

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

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

Thanks for the reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Here is more about this:

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

Hi,

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

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

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

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

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

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

5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I didn’t leave the employment.

I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.

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

9.

You write that the area was poorly lit.

It was in fact very poorly lit.

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

(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).

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

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

11.

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

Miss Pool said this.

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

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

16.

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

This isn’t right at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51.

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

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

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

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

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk

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

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

52.

You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.

But I don’t agree with this.

Due to these reasons:

1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is very fair.

2:

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

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

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

3:

And what about the problems with the automated reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I explain what happened around this in detail.

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

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

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

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

This isn’t taken seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I think this is very poor.

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

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

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

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

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

Just to explain about this.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerly,

Erik Ribsskog

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

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

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

On track to meet your filing deadline? Charities have ten months from their financial year end to file their Annual Return and Accounts. Find out more at www.charitycommission.gov.uk. Remember to file on time and use our online services.

Consider the environment. Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to.

2. februar 2017

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

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

Erik Ribsskog

Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:24 PM

To: “PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)”

Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk

Hi,

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

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

I had to call them.

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

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

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

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

Or else I would have sent about this earlier.

You write that you haven recieved enough information.

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

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

Thanks for the reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Here is more about this:

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

Hi,

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

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

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

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I didn’t leave the employment.

I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.

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

You write that the area was poorly lit.

It was in fact very poorly lit.

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

(At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).

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

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

11.

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

Miss Pool said this.

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

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

16.

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

This isn’t right at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51.

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

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

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

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

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk

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

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

52.

You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.

But I don’t agree with this.

Due to these reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is very fair.

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

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

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

And what about the problems with the automated reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I explain what happened around this in detail.

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

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

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

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

This isn’t taken seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think this is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I think this is very poor.

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

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

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

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

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

Just to explain about this.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerly,

Erik Ribsskog

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

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

Dear Mr Ribsskog

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP – 1076396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Delaney

Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team

16. januar 2017

Jeg sendte enda en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

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

Erik Ribsskog

Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:44 PM

To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk

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

Hi again,

also, the IPCC have ‘periode’.

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

For some reason).

Or else I would have updated them as well.

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

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

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

Hi,

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

(Or else I would have complained earlier).

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

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

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

And there were also a number of other problems.

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

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

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

(Something like that).

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

Then they shouldn’t use e-mails.

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

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

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

(If I remember it right.

Because this is some years ago).

So this I wanted to complain about.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

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

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

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

Best regards,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

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

Dear Mr Abu-Aleid,

Thank you for your email.

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

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

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

Regards,

Kimberley

The Client Services TeamCitizens Advice
Tel: 03000 231 900

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

*** REMINDER ***

ᐧ

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

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

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

1. CITIZENS ADVICE

1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES

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

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

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

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

1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

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

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

2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE

2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE

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

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

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

2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016

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

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

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

2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016

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

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

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

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

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

2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:

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

2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:

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

# POINT 59:

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

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

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

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

# POINT 61:

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

# POINT 63:

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

# POINT 67:

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

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

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

# POINT 68 to 74:

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

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

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

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

# POINT 74:

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

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

# POINT 75 & 76:

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

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

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

# POINT 77 & 78:

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

# POINT 80:

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

# POINT 82:

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

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

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

# POINT 84:

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

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

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

# POINT 94:

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

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

# POINT 96:

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

CONCLUSION:

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

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

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

21. desember 2016

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

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

Erik Ribsskog

Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM

To: rsi@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk

Hi,

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

(Or else I would have complained earlier).

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

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

And there were also a number of other problems.

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

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

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

(Something like that).

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

Then they shouldn’t use e-mails.

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

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

(If I remember it right.

Because this is some years ago).

So this I wanted to complain about.

Regards,

Erik Ribsskog

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

Best regards,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

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

Dear Mr Abu-Aleid,

Thank you for your email.

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

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

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

Regards,

Kimberley

The Client Services TeamCitizens Advice
Tel: 03000 231 900

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

*** REMINDER ***

ᐧ

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

Dear Ms Gillian Guy,

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

1. CITIZENS ADVICE

1.1. NHS ADVOCACY SERVICES

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

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

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

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

1.2. THE OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

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

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

2. COMPLAINT TO CITIZENS ADVICE AND LAW CENTRE

2.1. COMPLAINT SCOPE

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

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

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

2.1.1. SCOPE FOCAL EMAILS

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. FORMAL COMPLAINT – 25 MAY 2016

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

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

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

2.3. FURTHER REVIEW – 03 June 2016

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

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

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

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

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

2.4. INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION REVIEW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.1. SCOPE OF WORK BY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR:

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

2.4.2. THE REVIEW REPORT FOCAL POINTS:

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

# POINT 59:

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

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

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

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

# POINT 61:

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

# POINT 63:

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

# POINT 67:

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

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

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

# POINT 68 to 74:

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

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

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

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

# POINT 74:

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

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

# POINT 75 & 76:

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

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

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

# POINT 77 & 78:

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

# POINT 80:

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

# POINT 82:

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

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

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

# POINT 84:

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

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

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

# POINT 94:

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

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

# POINT 96:

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

CONCLUSION:

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

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

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid

21. desember 2016