Stikkord: The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Jeg sendte enda en e-post til PHSO

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Update/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: IOPC reference – 2021/162867
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> 9. februar 2024 kl. 00:25
Til: Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>
Kopi: Customer Services <Customer_Services2@lowellgroup.co.uk>, customer.complaints@ee.co.uk, “complaint.info” <complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>, enquiry@commsombudsman.org, customerwellness@three.co.uk, complaintsresolution@lowellgroup.co.uk, Lowell Norge AS <svc.no.nova@lowell.com>, bank.no@lowell.com, bank.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie, kundeservice@mail.efi.no, boligbistand@baerum.kommune.no, Lowell Norge AS <strom.no@lowell.com>, NorgesEnergi <kundeservice@norgesenergi.no>, Lowell Norge – kundesenter <kundesenter.no@lowell.com>, kundeservice@hafslundstrom.no, Bærum Kommune <post@baerum.kommune.no>, LOS Kundesenter <kundesenter@los.no>, Sfovpost <sfovpost@statsforvalteren.no>, “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” <post@sivilombudsmannen.no>, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, LbF Leieboerforeningen <lbf@lbf.no>, post <post@finkn.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, kom@nve.no, rme@nve.no, trl@nve.no, morten.schau@elvia.no, Abuse <abuse@telia.com>, “inger.lise.blyverket” <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Info <info@tpas.org.uk>, Postmottak ASD <postmottak@asd.dep.no>, Runcorn Office <runcornoffice@taroe.org>, Postkasse <postkasse@datatilsynet.no>, Lisa Eian <eian@eianadvokat.no>, strom.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie, post@arbeidstilsynet.no, corporationsecretary@ofcom.org.uk, post <post@finanstilsynet.no>, Post <post@brukerklagenemnda.no>, NKOM <firmapost@nkom.no>, Post <post@forbrukerradet.no>, newsroom@ee.co.uk, enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk, 3745@gmx.com
Hi,

I also want compensation because the mentioned arrests resulted in murder of justice-court-cases.

And a prosecutor (in Liverpool Magistrates Court or if it was Liverpool County Court) said I was a: ‘Fantasist’:

But then I replied that noone has called me something like that before.

I now wonder if they have mixed me up with my mothers fourt-cousin Erik J. C. Young, from Surrey.

He has been part of a funny state, called Ladonia, that is/was run by an artist from Sweden.

(He was their embassador in Thailand.

Something like that).

I have geneaology as a hobby, so I’ve quite recently found out about this relative.

(When I lived in the UK (from 2004 to 2014) I didn’t know about this relative.

It was last year that I found out about that my great-grandmother had a cousin named Vagn Aage Fog, that had a daugther, that married Merwin Sheffield Young, who I wonder if was a Surrey-police-man and also in the RAF like a jobcenter-staff in Huyton, around 2013).

Erik John Clive Young has written all over the internet about how his Norwegian/Danish mother inherited a property in Brunei from the Danish King (the one who died around 50 years ago) and that Shell Brunei has stolen this property from him/them, and that the property had a valuable oil-field on it.

I’ve tried to ask my relatives (on my mother side) about where she worked as an au-pair.

It could be that she lived with her mothers second-cousin Fredrikke Louise Young b. Fog, in Surrey).

So this is also a mix-up, it seems.

So I also want compensation due to that the upper-clas-prosecutor mocked me and called me a: ‘Fantasist’ etc, in court (around 2013) when it’s really my mothers third-cousin Erik J. C. Young that he meant (it could seem).

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

My nick is: ‘johncons’.

And that could be shortened to: ‘jc’.

And I also have the first name Erik.

So that could be the reason for this mix-up (I think one have to call it).

PS 2.

Here is more about this:

‘Dear Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

My name is Erik John Clive Young and I have written to The Supreme Court Judges many times over the past ten years.
My mother, Fredrikke Louise Young, who originated from Scandinavia was left land in Asia by the King of Denmark upon his death in 1972.
In 1973 my father, Mervyn Frank Sheffield Young, was in Hong Kong staying at The Londoner Hotel. He left two Samsonite brief cases full of title deeds in his hotel room it was 2.30p.m. on a Saturday afternoon so he went for a walk and a cup of tea.
Whilst he was away from his room three men came to the room, one kept watch for him at the end of the corridor whilst the other two entered his room and stole title deeds relating to land on the island of Borneo located in Brunei.
My father discovered the robbery two members of the hotel staff witnessed the robbery. He note the Borneo title deeds had been stolen but didn’t call the police because he assumed it was worthless jungle.
Around the same time three men turned up in Brunei offering title deeds for sale to Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei. I have chapter and verse of what happened because a daughter of the last British High Commissioner To Brunei witnessed everything from 20 feet away and came and reported everything to me years later. She told me “The Sultan’s father said”those men are criminals they are not their title deeds don’t have anything to do with them” the Sultan became angry with his father who said “It’s not our land why do you want it we have enough money already why do you want more?” the Sultan’s father obstructed the Sultan from dealing with these three men so the Sultan had his security seize his father and lock him in a room nearby. The Sultan then purchased these title deeds from these three men his father had labelled as criminals.
That is how The Sultan of Brunei got hold of the 10% commission royalty payments made by The Shell Oil Corporation to him in spite of the fact that the SOC did not believe it was his land his name wasn’t on title deeds he took five months to produce and I have chapter and verse minutes of all the meetings between the Sultan and the Directors of Shell because the P.A. to the Directors of Shell Boardroom was a personal friend of mine and she recited everything to me years later. She added that she didn’t believe it was the Sultan’s land and nor did the Directors of Shell who decided to “assume” it was his land so the could win the rights for the oil reserves. Monica the P.A. says they broke the law doing what they were doing but they thought nobody would find out so everything would be OK.
To cut a long story short the Shell Oil Corporation PLC owe my family the value of the oil reserves they have pumped out of the oil field over the last 48 years at today world market price for crude oil.
I want to sue the Shell Oil Corporation and want one Supreme Court Judge whom I will Subpoena to testify that as far as he or she is concerned the Judges of The Supreme Court are of the opinion that Erik JC Young is someone you can trust and any testimony he makes will be accurate and honest.
Can you find out if they read my 200 plus emails over ten years and if they think I am honest?

Yours faithfully,
Erik JC Young
9 Lake Close
Byfleet Surrey
Tel:07528319568’

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_supreme_court_judges_opinion

———- Forwarded message ———
Fra: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: tor. 8. feb. 2024 kl. 23:43
Subject: Complaint/Fwd: IOPC reference – 2021/162867
To: Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>
Cc: Customer Services <Customer_Services2@lowellgroup.co.uk>, <customer.complaints@ee.co.uk>, complaint.info <complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>, <enquiry@commsombudsman.org>, <customerwellness@three.co.uk>, <complaintsresolution@lowellgroup.co.uk>, Lowell Norge AS <svc.no.nova@lowell.com>, <bank.no@lowell.com>, <bank.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie>, <kundeservice@mail.efi.no>, <boligbistand@baerum.kommune.no>, Lowell Norge AS <strom.no@lowell.com>, NorgesEnergi <kundeservice@norgesenergi.no>, Lowell Norge – kundesenter <kundesenter.no@lowell.com>, <kundeservice@hafslundstrom.no>, Bærum Kommune <post@baerum.kommune.no>, LOS Kundesenter <kundesenter@los.no>, Sfovpost <sfovpost@statsforvalteren.no>, post@sivilombudsmannen.no <post@sivilombudsmannen.no>, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, LbF Leieboerforeningen <lbf@lbf.no>, post <post@finkn.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, <kom@nve.no>, <rme@nve.no>, <trl@nve.no>, <morten.schau@elvia.no>, Abuse <abuse@telia.com>, inger.lise.blyverket <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Info <info@tpas.org.uk>, Postmottak ASD <postmottak@asd.dep.no>, Runcorn Office <runcornoffice@taroe.org>, Postkasse <postkasse@datatilsynet.no>, Lisa Eian <eian@eianadvokat.no>, <strom.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie>, <post@arbeidstilsynet.no>, <corporationsecretary@ofcom.org.uk>, post <post@finanstilsynet.no>, Post <post@brukerklagenemnda.no>, NKOM <firmapost@nkom.no>, Post <post@forbrukerradet.no>, <newsroom@ee.co.uk>, <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>

Hi,

I see on Wikipedia that the old British police-complaint-organisation (IPCC) has been closed down.

And that wasn’t a bad idea, I think.

Because in 2011, the IPCC told me, that they didn’t want my emails.

And the emails where copies of police-complaints, to do with internet-troll-activitiy (possibly Russian internet-trolls or something).

And the Police refused to serve me.

(Someone tried to kill me on an uncles farm in Norway, in the summer of 2005.

I fled to the UK, for the second time (the first time was in the automn of 2004, when I went to study at the University of Sunderland, and also went to London (to get air like, since I worked in a clammy part of Oslo named Bjørndal, where it’s like in Blackburn or Staines or Rotherham perhaps, with lots of immigrants) in the summer of 2003).

I contacted the Merseyside-police many times about this (and I also called the Norwegian police a lot of times about this) in the summer/automn of 2005, but the British police (and the Norwegian police) refused to serve me/do their job/investigate.

So I want compansation due to that the IPCC refused to serve me/do their job.

And also your new police-complaint-organisation (IOPC) are even worse, it seems.

They also refuse to read me emails (these are updates to do with an earlier email where I explained about the harassment from the Merseyside-police around 2013, when they knocked on my door around a hundred times (sometimes several times a day) they arrested me between five and ten times, and they also smashed my door a number of times (so it couldn’t almost be called a door in the end) and they also stole my computers all the time.

This was due to that internet-trolls (Russian?) tricked the Merseyside-police into swatting me, all time, by sending a lot of false emails in my name, to a jobcentre-staff, that was a single mum (she told me) named Sarah Bamber, from Aintree Jobcenter.

So this is like Putins wet dream I think, when your police-complaint-organisations are like this (that they refuse to do their job).

So this I wanted to complain/warn about.

Why do they call me Liying Yang?

What the hell is this crap supposed to mean.

Have Putin told them to call me a funny/Chinese name?

This I want to complain about.

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———
Fra: !enquiries <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>
Date: tor. 8. feb. 2024 kl. 14:52
Subject: IOPC reference – 2021/162867
To: eribsskog@gmail.com <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Dear Liying Yang

We are writing further to your recent emails which you have sent to the IOPC.

It is noted that many of the emails you copy to the IOPC are regarding matters that do not fall under our remit. We sent you an email, dated 10 November 2023, advising you of the remit of the IOPC. To clarify, the IOPC is solely responsible for overseeing the formal Police Complaints process in England and Wales. We have no remit over issues that lie outside of this process, including criminal matters or housing.

Since this email, you have continued to copy us into emails which do not fall under our remit. We consider the level of correspondence excessive; you have sent at least 11 emails of this nature since the start of December.

If you continue to copy us into emails which do not require any action from the IOPC, we will consider restricting your email contact with us. This is not something we want to do but it is now taking a significant amount of time to file your correspondence which does not require a response from the IOPC.

Please consider this email as your first formal warning regarding your excessive correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Lucas Crossley
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Website: www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Twitter: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
The IOPC is proud to have achieved Customer Service Excellence accreditation

We welcome correspondence in Welsh. If you contact us in Welsh, we will respond in Welsh and this will not delay our reply.

Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Os cysylltwch â ni yn Gymraeg, fe gewch ymateb yn Gymraeg, heb arwain at oedi.

How satisfied were you with your experience with the IOPC’s Customer Contact Centre? Let us know by taking this short survey

We welcome correspondence in Welsh. We will respond to you in Welsh and this will not lead to delay.
Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg. Byddwn yn ymateb i chi yn y Gymraeg ac ni fydd hyn yn arwain at oedi.
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Gall y neges hon a’i chynnwys gynnwys gwybodaeth gyfrinachol, freintiedig neu hawlfraint. Fe’u bwriedir at ddefnydd y derbynnydd arfaethedig yn unig. Os derbynioch y neges hon mewn camgymeriad, mae’n rhaid i chi beidio â datgelu, copïo, dosbarthu na chymryd unrhyw gamau sy’n dibynnu ar y cynnwys. Yn hytrach, rhowch wybod i’r anfonwr ac yna dilëwch ef yn barhaol. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwyntiau a fynegir yn y cyfathrebiad hwn yn eiddo i’r awdur yn unig ac nid ydynt o reidrwydd yn cynrychioli barn yr IOPC. Dim ond staff penodedig sydd wedi’u hawdurdodi i wneud cytundebau rhwymol ar ran yr IOPC trwy e-bost. Nid yw’r IOPC yn derbyn unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am gytundebau anawdurdodedig y daethpwyd iddynt â gweithwyr neu asiantau eraill. Ni all yr IOPC warantu diogelwch yr e-bost hwn nac unrhyw atodiadau. Tra bod negeseuon e-bost yn cael eu sganio’n rheolaidd, ni all yr IOPC gymryd unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am unrhyw firws y gellir ei drosglwyddo â’r rhyngrwyd. Mae systemau cyfathrebu’r IOPC yn cael eu monitro i’r graddau a ganiateir gan y gyfraith. O ganlyniad, gall unrhyw e-bost a/neu atodiadau gael eu darllen gan staff monitro.

8. februar 2024
Jeg sendte en e-post til PHSO

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Complaint/Fwd: IOPC reference – 2021/162867
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> 8. februar 2024 kl. 23:43
Til: Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>
Kopi: Customer Services <Customer_Services2@lowellgroup.co.uk>, customer.complaints@ee.co.uk, “complaint.info” <complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>, enquiry@commsombudsman.org, customerwellness@three.co.uk, complaintsresolution@lowellgroup.co.uk, Lowell Norge AS <svc.no.nova@lowell.com>, bank.no@lowell.com, bank.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie, kundeservice@mail.efi.no, boligbistand@baerum.kommune.no, Lowell Norge AS <strom.no@lowell.com>, NorgesEnergi <kundeservice@norgesenergi.no>, Lowell Norge – kundesenter <kundesenter.no@lowell.com>, kundeservice@hafslundstrom.no, Bærum Kommune <post@baerum.kommune.no>, LOS Kundesenter <kundesenter@los.no>, Sfovpost <sfovpost@statsforvalteren.no>, “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” <post@sivilombudsmannen.no>, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, LbF Leieboerforeningen <lbf@lbf.no>, post <post@finkn.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, kom@nve.no, rme@nve.no, trl@nve.no, morten.schau@elvia.no, Abuse <abuse@telia.com>, “inger.lise.blyverket” <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>, Info <info@tpas.org.uk>, Postmottak ASD <postmottak@asd.dep.no>, Runcorn Office <runcornoffice@taroe.org>, Postkasse <postkasse@datatilsynet.no>, Lisa Eian <eian@eianadvokat.no>, strom.no@lowell.mypurecloud.ie, post@arbeidstilsynet.no, corporationsecretary@ofcom.org.uk, post <post@finanstilsynet.no>, Post <post@brukerklagenemnda.no>, NKOM <firmapost@nkom.no>, Post <post@forbrukerradet.no>, newsroom@ee.co.uk, enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Hi,

I see on Wikipedia that the old British police-complaint-organisation (IPCC) has been closed down.

And that wasn’t a bad idea, I think.

Because in 2011, the IPCC told me, that they didn’t want my emails.

And the emails where copies of police-complaints, to do with internet-troll-activitiy (possibly Russian internet-trolls or something).

And the Police refused to serve me.

(Someone tried to kill me on an uncles farm in Norway, in the summer of 2005.

I fled to the UK, for the second time (the first time was in the automn of 2004, when I went to study at the University of Sunderland, and also went to London (to get air like, since I worked in a clammy part of Oslo named Bjørndal, where it’s like in Blackburn or Staines or Rotherham perhaps, with lots of immigrants) in the summer of 2003).

I contacted the Merseyside-police many times about this (and I also called the Norwegian police a lot of times about this) in the summer/automn of 2005, but the British police (and the Norwegian police) refused to serve me/do their job/investigate.

So I want compansation due to that the IPCC refused to serve me/do their job.

And also your new police-complaint-organisation (IOPC) are even worse, it seems.

They also refuse to read me emails (these are updates to do with an earlier email where I explained about the harassment from the Merseyside-police around 2013, when they knocked on my door around a hundred times (sometimes several times a day) they arrested me between five and ten times, and they also smashed my door a number of times (so it couldn’t almost be called a door in the end) and they also stole my computers all the time.

This was due to that internet-trolls (Russian?) tricked the Merseyside-police into swatting me, all time, by sending a lot of false emails in my name, to a jobcentre-staff, that was a single mum (she told me) named Sarah Bamber, from Aintree Jobcenter.

So this is like Putins wet dream I think, when your police-complaint-organisations are like this (that they refuse to do their job).

So this I wanted to complain/warn about.

Why do they call me Liying Yang?

What the hell is this crap supposed to mean.

Have Putin told them to call me a funny/Chinese name?

This I want to complain about.

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———
Fra: !enquiries <enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk>
Date: tor. 8. feb. 2024 kl. 14:52
Subject: IOPC reference – 2021/162867
To: eribsskog@gmail.com <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Dear Liying Yang

We are writing further to your recent emails which you have sent to the IOPC.

It is noted that many of the emails you copy to the IOPC are regarding matters that do not fall under our remit. We sent you an email, dated 10 November 2023, advising you of the remit of the IOPC. To clarify, the IOPC is solely responsible for overseeing the formal Police Complaints process in England and Wales. We have no remit over issues that lie outside of this process, including criminal matters or housing.

Since this email, you have continued to copy us into emails which do not fall under our remit. We consider the level of correspondence excessive; you have sent at least 11 emails of this nature since the start of December.

If you continue to copy us into emails which do not require any action from the IOPC, we will consider restricting your email contact with us. This is not something we want to do but it is now taking a significant amount of time to file your correspondence which does not require a response from the IOPC.

Please consider this email as your first formal warning regarding your excessive correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Lucas Crossley
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk
Website: www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Twitter: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
The IOPC is proud to have achieved Customer Service Excellence accreditation

We welcome correspondence in Welsh. If you contact us in Welsh, we will respond in Welsh and this will not delay our reply.

Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Os cysylltwch â ni yn Gymraeg, fe gewch ymateb yn Gymraeg, heb arwain at oedi.

How satisfied were you with your experience with the IOPC’s Customer Contact Centre? Let us know by taking this short survey

We welcome correspondence in Welsh. We will respond to you in Welsh and this will not lead to delay.
Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg. Byddwn yn ymateb i chi yn y Gymraeg ac ni fydd hyn yn arwain at oedi.
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Gall y neges hon a’i chynnwys gynnwys gwybodaeth gyfrinachol, freintiedig neu hawlfraint. Fe’u bwriedir at ddefnydd y derbynnydd arfaethedig yn unig. Os derbynioch y neges hon mewn camgymeriad, mae’n rhaid i chi beidio â datgelu, copïo, dosbarthu na chymryd unrhyw gamau sy’n dibynnu ar y cynnwys. Yn hytrach, rhowch wybod i’r anfonwr ac yna dilëwch ef yn barhaol. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwyntiau a fynegir yn y cyfathrebiad hwn yn eiddo i’r awdur yn unig ac nid ydynt o reidrwydd yn cynrychioli barn yr IOPC. Dim ond staff penodedig sydd wedi’u hawdurdodi i wneud cytundebau rhwymol ar ran yr IOPC trwy e-bost. Nid yw’r IOPC yn derbyn unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am gytundebau anawdurdodedig y daethpwyd iddynt â gweithwyr neu asiantau eraill. Ni all yr IOPC warantu diogelwch yr e-bost hwn nac unrhyw atodiadau. Tra bod negeseuon e-bost yn cael eu sganio’n rheolaidd, ni all yr IOPC gymryd unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am unrhyw firws y gellir ei drosglwyddo â’r rhyngrwyd. Mae systemau cyfathrebu’r IOPC yn cael eu monitro i’r graddau a ganiateir gan y gyfraith. O ganlyniad, gall unrhyw e-bost a/neu atodiadau gael eu darllen gan staff monitro.

8. februar 2024
Jeg sendte en e-post til PHSO

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Your emails to the Parliamentary and Health service Ombudsman (Our ref: C-2099931)
Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> 31. januar 2024 kl. 03:16
Til: Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>
Kopi: Gullbrev <kundeservice@gullbrev.no>, post@karasmussen.com, contact@kpmg.no, Postkasse <postkasse@datatilsynet.no>, ““inger.lise.blyverket”” <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, post <post@finkn.no>, Sfovpost <sfovpost@statsforvalteren.no>, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, Lisa Eian <eian@eianadvokat.no>, reception@countyroaddental.co.uk, ““emb.london”” <emb.london@mfa.no>, newsdesk@dwp.gov.uk, kundtjanst@guldbrev.se, Politikk Høyre <politikk@hoyre.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, Post <post@forbrukerradet.no>, post <post@forbrukertilsynet.no>
Hi,

this gold-tooth was given to me by the British government, around 2009.

I was unemployed (due to the finance-crises) and went to the dentist in Walton, that I had started going to, while I worked for Arvato Liverpool (where I worked from 2005 to 2006).

The tooth fell out last year (possibly due to a dentist in Norway (Galleri Oslo Klinikken) putting a hard crown, that’s a bit pointed almost, on the tooth above the gold-tooth (around the start of the pandemic).

And I sent the tooth/crown to a company named Gullbrev.

And they told me that the tooth was worthless, even if the Walton-dentist told me it was gold (but not the most precious type, like a woman there said).

So I was wondering if you could please contribute to solve this fraud-case (from Gullbrev).

So if you could inform me about which metals the tooth/crown contains.

And the value of these metals.

Erik Ribsskog

ons. 15. mars 2023 kl. 16:57 skrev Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>:
Dear Mr Ribskog

Thank you for your recent emails relating to Gullbrev and their valuation of a gold crown.

As we have explained to you in the past, we deal with complaints about the NHS in England and certain other UK public organisations. We do not deal with complaints about organisations based outside of the UK.

Further emails related to Gullbrev will be logged but will not be replied to.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen

Stephen Reilly

Intake Caseworker

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0345 015 4033

W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

31. januar 2024
Jeg sendte en e-post til The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (UK)

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> 21. februar 2022 kl. 13:56

Til: Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>

Kopi: Helpdesk Bitpro <helpdesk@bitpro.no>, NextGenTel Abuse Response Team <abuse@nextgentel.com>, firmapost@nkom.no, “inger.lise.blyverket” <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, Telio kundeservice <kundeservice@telio.no>, noss@deloitte.no, post <post@finkn.no>, postmottak@sd.dep.no, salg@bitpro.no, abuse@telia.com, fmovpost <fmovpost@fylkesmannen.no>, info@kistefos.no, Christen.Sveaas@kistefos.no, js@kistefos-tre.no, Kundeservice Proximo <kundeservice@proximo.no>, innfordring <innfordring@nextgentel.com>, juridisk <juridisk@datatilsynet.no>, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, kredittsjekk@nextgentel.no, tr@forbrukertilsynet.no, “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” <post@sivilombudsmannen.no>, Terje Meyer <terje@aspelund.no>, polboard <POLBoard@postoffice.co.uk>, Club Creo <info@clubcreo.com>, Politikk Høyre <politikk@hoyre.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, post <post@finanstilsynet.no>, “post@inkassoklagenemnda.no” <post@inkassoklagenemnda.no>, “postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no” <postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no>, polcustomercare@royalmail.com, EK Kristiansand kundeservice <kristiansand.kundeservice@posten.no>, CustomerCare <customercare@postoffice.co.uk>, Finn.Kinserdal@nhh.no, nhh.postmottak@nhh.no, Faktura RB <Faktura.RB@posten.no>, “information.rights” <information.rights@postoffice.co.uk>, Rebecca Redmond <rebecca.redmond@royalmail.com>, paula.vennells@postoffice.co.uk, information.requests@ofcom.org.uk, OCCtelecoms <OCCtelecoms@ofcom.org.uk>, Phso Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>

Hi,

my complaint is about the UK postal-service, (like I informed about earlier, on 18/10-21 etc.).

Also, I’ve contacted the Sivilombudsmannen many times.

When I first started contacting them, (Amnesty advised me to contact them around fifteen years ago).

Then the Sivilombudsman’s name was Arne Fliflet.

And now it’s Hanne Harlem, (earlier Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland’s sister, and possibly a friend of my half-brother Axel’s steph-mother Mette Holter, who went to school with Gro Harlem Brundtland etc).

And I think there’s also been another one between Arne Fliflet and Hanne Harlem.

But none of them ever do anything.

I’ve sent them tens of complaints about corrupt bureaucrats, through the years.

But they never do their job.

So this I have to complain about.

Please escalate this to a superior for a second opinion.

Erik Ribsskog

fre. 22. okt. 2021 kl. 10:06 skrev Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog,

Please find attach a letter which tells you the next step that needs to be taken.

Yours sincerely

Sue Ellis

Intake Caseworker

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Tel: 0345 015 4033 Email: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk

Web: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Please note that my working hours are 8:30am to 5:00pm Monday to Thursday

PS.

Her er e-brevet fra The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman:

21. februar 2022
Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Regarding your complaint at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman – C-2040064

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> 3. november 2021 kl. 02:58

Til: Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>

Kopi: Rebecca Redmond <rebecca.redmond@royalmail.com>, Information Rights Team <information.rights@postoffice.co.uk>, Terje Meyer <Terje@aspelund.no>, “inger.lise.blyverket” <inger.lise.blyverket@forbrukerradet.no>, fmovpost <fmovpost@fylkesmannen.no>, post <post@finkn.no>, abuse@telia.com, polboard <polboard@postoffice.co.uk>, Club Creo <info@clubcreo.com>, firmapost@nkom.no, Politikk Høyre <politikk@hoyre.no>, Akademikerforbundet <post@akademikerforbundet.no>, post <post@finanstilsynet.no>, “post@inkassoklagenemnda.no” <post@inkassoklagenemnda.no>, “postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no” <postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no>, “sande.vgs” <sande.vgs@vfk.no>, polcustomercare@royalmail.com, amnestyis <amnestyis@amnesty.org>, HRW UK <hrwuk@hrw.org>, EK Kristiansand kundeservice <kristiansand.kundeservice@posten.no>, postmottak@sd.dep.no, CustomerCare <CustomerCare@postoffice.co.uk>, Finn.Kinserdal@nhh.no, nhh.postmottak@nhh.no, juridisk <juridisk@datatilsynet.no>, Faktura RB <Faktura.RB@posten.no>, tr@forbrukertilsynet.no, postkasse@datatilsynet.no

Hi,

this complaint is really about The Post Office, (like I’ve explained in my complaint), and not about Royal Mail.

So this I have to complain about.

I wonder if a superior could have a look at this.

For a second opinion.

(Because I think this must be a mistake, from in-experienced case-workers, or something like that.

And that’s not something people should accept, I think).

Erik Ribsskog

fre. 9. jul. 2021 kl. 17:40 skrev Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint about the Royal Mail

Thank you for giving us information on your concerns about the Royal Mail.

Our role

We make final decisions on complaints that the NHS in England, UK government departments and other UK public organisations have not resolved.

Based on the information you have given us, we have decided that your complaint is not one that can look at so we will not be taking any further action.

Why are you unable to look at my complaint?

We only have the legal power to investigate complaints about certain organisations. We can investigate complaints about the NHS in England and certain government departments and other public organisations in the UK. As your complaint is not about an organisation that we can investigate, we are unable to help you.

You can make a complaint about the Royal Mail by following their complaints procedure where you can find the details for the online form at https://www.royalmailgroup.com/en/about-us/customer-support/online-complaints.

Once you have followed step 1 and 2 of their complaints procedure, you can take your complaint to Postal Redress Service (POSTRS). You can contact them at: https://www.cedr.com/

If your complaint relates to a data breach that occurred in the UK, You may find it helpful to contact to the Information Commissioner’s Office here https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/your-personal-information-concerns/.

I am sorry that we could not look at your complaint. I hope you find the details in this email helpful. If you have any questions about our decision then please contact us using the details in this email.

Please note there are some important details about how we use your information at the bottom of this email.

Yours sincerely

Samaira Ali

Intake Caseworker

T: 0345 015 4033

Important details about how we use your information

We want to make sure that we provide a good service. We might use your complaint for training, monitoring and evaluation purposes or invite you to meetings where we explain more about the Ombudsman’s roles and responsibilities, and ask for your feedback. We will only share any information you provide with our staff or people acting on our behalf.

Your responses will only be shared in an anonymous format, unless you tell us otherwise.

The law allows us to use your contact details in this way. This is known as legitimate interest. If you do not want to take part please tell your caseworker, call us on 0300 061 4222, or email customersurvey@ombudsman.org.uk.

You can change your mind at any time and this will not have any impact on how we handle your complaint.

You can read more about this in our privacy policy. The policy explains how we use and look after information about you, or that could identify you, and how long we keep it. It also explains your rights and how to request your information. You can find the privacy policy online at www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like a copy in a printed or other format, please contact informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk or call 0345 015 4033.

3. november 2021

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog

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

Erik Ribsskog

9. september 2019 kl. 15:47

Til: Phso Enquiries

Kopi: Politikk Høyre , Akademikerforbundet , “sande.vgs”

Hi,

I’ve told this guy to stop sending me e-mails.

Which he ignores.

It’s some type of Arabic/Muslim name, (it seems).

And the muslims are known for assasin-attacks on editors from before, in Norway.

(Nygård, who publish Salman Rushdies book ‘Sataniske vers’).

So this I wanted to complain about.

This is harrasment, (from your citizen), it seems.

(And when its a Muslim/Arabic name then they aren’t that
western/democratic often.

So you should perhaps this guy back to Asia/Middle East again).

Erik Ribsskog

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “A. Abu-Aleid” <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:53:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Update/Fwd: Complaint/Fwd: Independent Adjudication
Review Report – 15 November 2016
To: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

Hi Erik Ribsskog,

I again write to you to request effective deletion of my emails shared with
you, including the blog.

I professionally cc’d you in my email to the CAB providing I related to
your posted story experience but I did not give you the permission to
publish such sensitive email online as it includes personal information
about me.

Thanks for your consideration. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Abu-Aleid

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, 11:33 A. Abu-Aleid, <a.abualeid@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Erik Ribsskog,
>
> Hope you are doing fine.
>
> I guess you may misunderstood my previous communication with you. That
> said, I did not give permission for you to publish my private email
> communication but I just felt to share similar experience with you.
>
> https://johncons-mirror.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mer-fra-g-mail_23.html?m=1
>
> I would be most grateful if you can effectively delete above blog.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Abu-Aleid
>
>
> On Friday, 23 December 2016, Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > there’s something called, to be ‘casely’.
> >
> > And this seems a bit ‘clammy’ now, I think.
> >
> > So please stop sending me e-mails.
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:20 PM, A. Abu-Aleid <a.abualeid@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Mr William Shawcross,
> >> I write to you as the Chairman for Charity Commission to review our
> complain to CAB Chief Executive about inconvinience encountered at the
> Kirklees region, West Yorkshire and others.
> >> I am hear trying to folow the best available legal practices to resolve
> this case as the CEO of CAB apparently not willing to respond, which
> supports her team choice to close our complain.
> >> I beleive Mr Erik Ribsskog has similar concerns to mind, which I would
> be grateful if can be fairely reviewed along.
> >> Looking forward to hearing from you.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Abdalmonem Abu-Aleid
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016, Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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 Team
> >>>> Citizens 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
> >>>>
> >>>> ᐧ
> >>>
> >>> ᐧ
> >>>
> >
> >

9. september 2019

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog
Reference; C2021696 PHSO:0623000070
Erik Ribsskog 13. februar 2018 kl. 21:35
Til: PHSO Enquiries Kopi: “postmottak@sivilombudsmannen.no” Hi,

could you please send this in a less ‘Russian’ way.

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

2017-08-01 13:48 GMT+02:00 PHSO Enquiries :
Switch logo

This message has been sent to you by phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has sent you this email. We use Egress Switch, a secure email service, to keep your information safe when we send it electronically.

Click to read this secure email online.

Please be aware that this link only remains active for 45 days – to keep a copy of the email please download an unencrypted copy of the email for your records. This is possible once you are in the email by clicking on the ‘download’ button in the bottom right hand corner.

If you have Switch installed, simply open the attachment.

Regular user? Download our free desktop or mobile apps.

Having problems accessing the email? Click Here

Confidentiality Notice: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.

© Copyright 2007-2015 Egress Software Technologies Ltd.

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

13. februar 2018

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog

PHSO:0579000379

Erik Ribsskog

10. november 2017 kl. 07:36

Til: PHSO Enquiries

Kopi: admin , post@finkn.no, post , “complaint.info” , “Ashmore, Dean” , “post@sivilombudsmannen.no”

Hi,

thank you for your e-mail!

I’ve sent cases to ombudsmen many times now, and they’ve never done anything.

(Escpecially the Sivilombudsmannen in Norway, never do anything).

My grandfater once told me, before he died, that he didn’t understand the point with a new ombudsman, (like the IPCC), in Norway.

So it isn’t easy, with the ombudsmen.

That’s why I copied my e-mail to a lot organisations.

But that was merely a copy for your information, (like they say).

Thanks again for the reply!

Best regards,

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Do you mean that these, (the Financial Ombudsman), aren’t part of the government then, since you don’t want to investigate them?

Are they a charity like the Citizens Advice Bureux?

(This in the PS isn’t that important, I can check that up myself, on the Financial Ombudsman’s webpages).

PS 2.

You advice me to send this to the Financial Ombudsman as a service-complaint, I see now.

So I send a copy of this e-mail to them as a service-complaint then.

Thanks for the advice!

2017-11-09 16:04 GMT+00:00 PHSO Enquiries <phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>:

In Confidence

Mr Erik Ribsskog

9 November 2017

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint about the Financial Ombudsman

Unfortunately we cannot look at your complaint, which means we will not be taking any further action.

Why are you unable to look at my complaint?

We only have the legal power to investigate complaints about certain organisations. We can investigate complaints about the NHS in England and certain government departments and other public organisations in the UK. As your complaint is not about an organisation that we can investigate, we are unable to help you.

What can I do next?

You should contact the Financial Ombudsman Service and make a service complaint.

Can I get help with my complaint?

You can ask your local Citizens Advice Bureau for help with making your complaint. If you are not sure about what you can do next, please call us on 0345 015 4033 and we will do our best to help you.

I am sorry that we could not help you this time. If you have any questions about our decision then please contact me using the details given in this letter.

How we handle your information

Please note that we will keep all information about you and your complaint for one year after we have taken our last action on your case. At that point, we will delete most of your information, except for your name, your address, the name of the organisations you complained about, what you complained about, and the outcome.

To find out more about what happens to the information you give us, please visit www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like us to send you further details, please let us know.

Help us improve our service

You can also give us feedback on our service or decision by talking to our Customer Care Team. Please contact the Team on 0345 015 4033 and select option 3 or email us at feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk.

Our independent research company may also invite you to take part in a survey to help us improve our services. We survey people at different points throughout our process. Any feedback you give within these surveys will remain completely confidential, and your responses would only be shared in an anonymous format, unless you tell us otherwise.

If you would prefer not to take part please call us on 0300 061 4222, or email customersurvey@ombudsman.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Adrian K. Butterworth

Intake caseworker

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

10. november 2017

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog

Regarding your Complaint to The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Our Ref:- C2013179) PHSO:0578000138

Erik Ribsskog

2. juni 2017 kl. 22:44

Til: Armstrong Stephen

Kopi: Angela , Rosemary , Andre , post@finkn.no, “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” , Phso Enquiries

Hei,

jeg har ikke bedt om å diskutere dette, på telefon.

Jeg har vært aktiv, på debattforum, som VGD, så jeg vet, hva et tema er.

Og her har dere bare vært usaklige, og begynte å avspore dette, ved å ‘bable’, om mitt telefonnummer, osv.

Jeg har også bedt dere, om å eskalere dette, til en overordnet.

Det ‘driter’ dere i, og durer videre, med tullet deres.

Dette må jeg klage på.

Er det for mye forlangt, å be om, at en overordnet ser på dette.

Det synes jeg isåfall, at høres rart ut.

Erik Ribsskog

PS.

Det gir ikke noe mening, at dette, er noe, med the Legal Ombudsman.

Financial Ombudsman ble opprettet av det britiske parlamentet, (har jeg lest, på deres nettsted), og at man da sender om dette, til det samme parlamentet sin ombudsmann, (the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman).

Det er vel da, som noe normalt, vil jeg si, (at det virker som).

Så dette vil jeg også ha en kommentar om, fra den nevnte overordnede.

PS 2.

Det ser kanskje dumt ut, at jeg skriver til dere, i England, på norsk.

Men det var the Financial Ombudsbudman Service, som bare begynte, å skrive til meg, på norsk, (som svar på en e-post på engelsk, som jeg sendte de), forleden dag.

Så dere savner visst vikingtida, ‘borti der’, som jeg skrev til de.

Lykke til videre med norsk-kurs, osv.

2017-06-02 12:23 GMT+02:00 Armstrong Stephen <Stephen.Armstrong@ombudsman.org.uk>:

Good Morning,

Please accept my apology for any confusion. We are happy to discuss this matter through email. We do not require a telephone number, simply that we would be happy to discuss this with you in any way you prefer.

Our response was in relation to your email regarding The Financial Ombudsman, which is not covered by our remit, this would be a matter for the Legal Ombudsman, who can be contacted at enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk

Should you wish to raise an issue with my decision, or our contact please email us at feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk.

Should you require any further advice, I would be happy to provide this by email.

Regards

Stephen Armstrong

Customer Service Officers

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 4555

E: stephen.armstrong@ombudsman.org.uk

W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Follow us on



From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 June 2017 13:57
To: Armstrong Stephen <Stephen.Armstrong@ombudsman.org.uk>
Cc: Wallis, Angela <Angela.Wallis@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>; Cox, Rosemary <Rosemary.Cox@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>; Reyneke, Andre <Andre.Reyneke@financial-ombudsman.org.uk>;post@finkn.no; post@sivilombudsmannen.no; Phso Enquiries <Phso.Enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Regarding your Complaint to The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Our Ref:- C2013179) PHSO:0578000138

Hei,

dette er en avsporing, å hive inn, en telefonsamtale, i dette, mener jeg.

Det blir også som noe klamt.

Jeg mener at det er mitt privilegium, som borger, å velge, kommunikasjons-form.

Jeg har også lært, på handel og kontor, at om en borger skriver til staten, så skal staten svare borgeren, på samme vis, (altså om borgeren ringer så skal staten ringe, osv.).

Så dette blir som noe irriterende avsporing, synes jeg.

Vennligst eskaler til en linjeleder.

Erik Ribsskog

2017-06-01 12:28 GMT+02:00 Stephen Armstrong <Stephen.armstrong@ombudsman.org.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint about The Financial Ombudsman

Thank you for your complaint about Financial Ombudsman

I would have liked to have been able to discuss this with you. However, we currently have no telephone number for you.

Unfortunately we cannot look at your complaint, which means we will not be taking any further action.

Why are you unable to look at my complaint?

We only have the legal power to investigate complaints about certain organisations. We can investigate complaints about the NHS in England and certain government departments and other public organisations in the UK. As your complaint is not about an organisation that we can investigate, we are unable to help you.

What can I do next?

I am sorry that we could not help you this time. If you have any questions about our decision then please contact me using the details given in this letter.

How we handle your information

Please note that we will keep all information about you and your complaint for one year after we have taken our last action on your case. At that point, we will delete most of your information, except for your name, your address, the name of the organisations you complained about, what you complained about, and the outcome.

To find out more about what happens to the information you give us, please visit www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like us to send you further details, please let us know.

Help us improve our service

You can also give us feedback on our service or decision by talking to our Customer Care Team. Please contact the Team on 0345 015 4033 and select option 3 or email us at feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk.

Our independent research company may also invite you to take part in a survey to help us improve our services. We survey people at different points throughout our process. Any feedback you give within these surveys will remain completely confidential, and your responses would only be shared in an anonymous format, unless you tell us otherwise.

If you would prefer not to take part please call us on 0300 061 4222, or email customersurvey@ombudsman.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Armstrong

Customer Service Officer

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

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

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

2. juni 2017

Jeg sendte en e-post til the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Erik Ribsskog

Regarding your Complaint to The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Our Ref:- C2013179) PHSO:0578000138

Erik Ribsskog

1. juni 2017 kl. 14:57

Til: Stephen Armstrong

Kopi: “Wallis, Angela” , “Cox, Rosemary” , “Reyneke, Andre” , post@finkn.no, “post@sivilombudsmannen.no” , Phso Enquiries

Hei,

dette er en avsporing, å hive inn, en telefonsamtale, i dette, mener jeg.

Det blir også som noe klamt.

Jeg mener at det er mitt privilegium, som borger, å velge, kommunikasjons-form.

Jeg har også lært, på handel og kontor, at om en borger skriver til staten, så skal staten svare borgeren, på samme vis, (altså om borgeren ringer så skal staten ringe, osv.).

Så dette blir som noe irriterende avsporing, synes jeg.

Vennligst eskaler til en linjeleder.

Erik Ribsskog

2017-06-01 12:28 GMT+02:00 Stephen Armstrong <Stephen.armstrong@ombudsman.org.uk>:

Dear Mr Ribsskog

Your complaint about The Financial Ombudsman

Thank you for your complaint about Financial Ombudsman

I would have liked to have been able to discuss this with you. However, we currently have no telephone number for you.

Unfortunately we cannot look at your complaint, which means we will not be taking any further action.

Why are you unable to look at my complaint?

We only have the legal power to investigate complaints about certain organisations. We can investigate complaints about the NHS in England and certain government departments and other public organisations in the UK. As your complaint is not about an organisation that we can investigate, we are unable to help you.

What can I do next?

I am sorry that we could not help you this time. If you have any questions about our decision then please contact me using the details given in this letter.

How we handle your information

Please note that we will keep all information about you and your complaint for one year after we have taken our last action on your case. At that point, we will delete most of your information, except for your name, your address, the name of the organisations you complained about, what you complained about, and the outcome.

To find out more about what happens to the information you give us, please visit www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like us to send you further details, please let us know.

Help us improve our service

You can also give us feedback on our service or decision by talking to our Customer Care Team. Please contact the Team on 0345 015 4033 and select option 3 or email us at feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk.

Our independent research company may also invite you to take part in a survey to help us improve our services. We survey people at different points throughout our process. Any feedback you give within these surveys will remain completely confidential, and your responses would only be shared in an anonymous format, unless you tell us otherwise.

If you would prefer not to take part please call us on 0300 061 4222, or email customersurvey@ombudsman.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Armstrong

Customer Service Officer

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

1. juni 2017