Ingeborg Ribsskog - Baron Adeler Malteserordenen E-post til slottet om Mette-Marit videoen Er noe galt i Martine-saken? Problemer med Grandiosa? johncons-MUSIKK johncons-REISE johncons-FOTBALL

Monday, 16 January 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)"


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


Here is more about this:

From: Erik Ribsskog 
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:27:17 +0100 
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Citizens Advice 


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


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


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
dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.


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.


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

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.


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

and not the right e-mail address (, like you write
in your report.

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


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

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) <> wrote:

Dear Mr Ribsskog


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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Policy for kommentarer

Anonyme kommentarer, blir slettet, (etter en del problemer, med nettmobbing osv.).

Hvis du har et vanlig navn, så skriv gjerne noe, som skiller deg, fra andre, med samme navn, (sånn at det er klart, hvem som skriver).

Kommentarer som inneholder trakassering, (og som ikke holder seg, til temaet, i blogg-posten), blir bare slettet, (og ikke publisert).


Erik Ribsskog


For å eventuelt legge inn kommentar, så trykk på linken, til blogg-posten, (så kommer det opp et felt, hvor man kan kommentere).

Blog Archive