To: bureau@liverpoolcab.org
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:50:39 +0000
Subject: Fwd: The Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.
Hi,
I can't see that I've received a reply to this e-mail yet, that's why I'm
trying to send it again.
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Oct 27, 2007 5:08 AM
Subject: The Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.
To: bureau@liverpoolcab.org
Hi,
I've been adviced that I could contact The Chair, Liverpool Centrat CAB, on
this e-mail
address, if I wasn't satisfied with the response on the complaint, that I
sent Complaint &
Policy Officer Saffron Follows, on 23/5.
I'm sorry that it has taken some time for me to send this complaint, but
I've been some
problems with that the e-mail address, which is to be found on the Dale Str.
CAB's
webisite (http://www.liverpoolcab.org/), is wrong.
It says that the email-address to your office, is
bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk, but if one
tries to send an e-mail to that e-mail address, then one only gets an e-mail
in return,
telling that it is an invalid e-mail address, or something similar.
But when I contacted your representative, Mr. Khan again, I got to know,
that the right
e-mail address, is in fact bureau@liverpoolcab.org.
So this delayed this e-mail a bit, and also, the CAB's dealing with my
complaint, took
around two or three months longer than scheduled, so I hope it's alright, if
I've also
used some weeks on getting to find out how to do regarding this complaint.
I've been asking for advice, on how to deal with this, so that's why it has
taken a bit
longer than it would have done otherwise, but I appologise for this, and
hope that
this is alright.
The way I've written this complaint, is that I have written inbetween the
CAB-representative,
Mr. Khans answers to my original complaint.
It's a bit down in this e-mail, and I've marked the new complaints, like
this: '*New complaint:'*.
I hope that it's alright that I've written the complaint like this.
And I also think, like I've written a bit down in the document, that these
lies and suspected
'set ups', are very serious, so due to this, I expect that these things are
dealt with in a
professional matter, and I will, like I write in one of the new complaints,
bring these serious
issues up with the police, in an already scheduled meeting, at the beginning
of next month,
with The Merseyside Police.
So hope that this is investigated in a thorough and professional manner,
since I think these
are very serious issues, that I think should be dealt with responsible.
So I'm a bit expecting to receiving the results of your investigation,
explaining what you intend
to do regarding these issues.
I hope that this is alright!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 10/22/07, Kristian Khan
> Mr Ribsskog
>
> Please acept my apologies for the dealy in replying to you - I have been
> out of the office for 2 weeks.
>
> Should you wish to contact the Chair then you would need to send you email
> to: bureau@liverpoolcab.org
>
> Regards
>
> KRISTIAN KHAN
> GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 08 October 2007 01:01
> *To:* Kristian Khan
> *Subject:* Re:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I tryed to send your organisation an e-mail, to the e-mail address, that
> is on your website (http://www.liverpoolcab.org/ ),
> but the e-mail wasn't working, that's why I'm sending e-mail.
>
> I was just wondering, to which e-mail address, I should send to, if I
> wanted to contact the Chair, Liverpool Central CAB.
>
> Thanks in advance for the reply!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/07, Kristian Khan
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog.
> >
> > I am contacting you with regard to the complaint that you submitted to
> > Saffron Follows, Citizens Advice complaints and policy officer, on 23rd
> > May 2007. I have now been able to undertake an investigation into the
> > issues that you raised and my finding are detailed below.
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand that you attended the Bureau on 27th February 2007 and saw
> > our Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool on a free first interview basis about a
> > harassment at work issue. Ms Pool completed a B ureau Legal Information
> > Service sheet in which she advised you that you possibly may have a
> > claim for harassment but there was insufficient time to obtain full details
> > and you would benefit from speaking to someone who could advise on
> > criminal aspect as well. Ms Pool took the case back to her firm,
> > Morecrofts. You state that on 28th February you received a letter from
> > Eleanor Pool informing you that they could take on the case at a cost
> > of £140 per hour. I take the the view that any action taken by a
> > solicitor after we have facilitated a free first 1/2 hour interview is
> > not our concern - these concerns would need to be addressed to the solicitor
> > directly and therefore I do not concede that the Bureau is responsible for
> > this
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5th April 2007 you had an appointment to see an Employment Duty
> > Solicitor from EAD at 1.30pm. EAD rang shortly before your appointment
> > to say that unfortunately no one from the firm was available to attend. As
> > this phonecall was received very close to 1.30pm you arrived minutes
> > later. (From my recollection the preceding client/s had failed to attend
> > anyway).
> >
> >
> >
> > As is common practice I apologized to you explaining that it was not our
> > fault and provided you with the phone number of EAD so that you could
> > contact them yourself to arrange an appointment with them to replace the
> > cancelled on of 5th April 2007.
> >
> >
> >
> > You state in your complaint that you rang EAD and spoke to Michael
> > Reiner who took details of the case and advised you that you wereoutside of
> > the 3-month time limit to commence employment tribunal proceedings and
> > that only in very limited circumstances could this time limit be extended.
> > You further state that you enquired about Legal Aid over the phone but
> > Mr Reiner advised that he could not provide advice on this over the phone.
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as I am concerned you did received a free initial interview from
> > EAD, ableit in telephone form, so as such I do not feel that the Bureau
> > was at fault.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Below I have taken each of the individual points that you made *(in
> > bold)* and offered my response to each. I have copied and pasted the
> > complainant's points from the actual email complaint made by you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *1. I think the CAB should have set up a new meeting between the duty*
> >
> > *solicitor and myself, when the duty solicitor canceled the scheduled*
> >
> > *meeting there on 05/04/07.*
> >
> > **
> >
> > I did not set up a new meeting because the next employment duty
> > solicitor slot was not until 24th April and that was fully booked.
> > Therefore the next appt. would have been at some point in May and I was
> > reluctant to leave things this long as I was aware (without knowing the
> > details of the case) that time limits may have been evident. Furthermore,
> > when Duty Sols. cancel they invariable see/speak to those clients at our
> > request who were booked either on the same day or shortly after.
> >
>
*New complaint*: I think that the CAB-representative, regardless of the when
the next employment duty solicitor slot was, should have offered to set up a
new meeting, when the dury solicitor canceled.
>
> >
> > *2. I think they should have informed me about the name of the duty *
> >
> > *solicitor that canceled the meeting. They didnt do this even if I asked
> > *
> >
> > *them about this twice.*
> >
> >
> >
> > We did not know the name; indeed we do not habitually know the names -
> > the firms send different people and it was the firm who rang to cancel
> > saying that no one from the firm was available to attend.
> >
> >
> >
> *New complaint:* If the CAB didn't know the name of the duty solicitor,
then I don't think the CAB should have adviced me to contact the EAD
law-firm.
I think they at least should have given me a contact-name or a
reference-number then, I don't think it was a professional way to sort this,
by just giving me the phonenumber (or rather fax-number first), and ask me
to call the company, without giving me any form of contact person name or
reference-number.
> *3. I dont think the CAB should have adivised me to contact the duty*
> >
> > *solicitors firm EAD on the phone on 5/4, since one needs to go through*
> >
> > *the documents of the case in detail, to see if one are eligable for
> > legal*
> >
> > *aid. Which was what the scheduled meeting was supposed to be about.*
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see response to Question 1 - furthermore we do not take
> > responsibility for advising clients on their legal aid entitlements at the
> > Reception desk at the time of booking a Duty Solicitor appt - this is why
> > people are referred to the solicitor if they require specialist advice .
> >
> > **
> >
>
*New complaint:*
Well, I think it should have been obvious that when one are unemployed (like
I was at the time), then one shouldn't be set up to meet with a duty
solicitor who don't accept founding from the 'legal aid programme', without
the issue of the costs of the advice should have been brought up.
I was sent to the CAB by the Police, and told to ask to see a solicitor
regarding an employement-case (like the Police were calling it).
And then I think that I shouldn't have been set up to meet with a solicitor
who didn't accept founding from the legal aid program, unless this had been
agreed on between me and the CAB, before the meeting.
I don't see any sense, in setting up a meeting (to discuss an empoyement
case, like the Police said it was), between a person who is unemployed and
out of founds, with a law-company who are only accepting founding from
private founds, and not from the legal aid programme.
I think that to set up a meeting like that, is a bit waste of time, and I
think it would have been much better to set up a meeting with a company who
was accepting founding from the legal aid programme.
I think this is really just common sense, and I can't see it differently,
than that I think that the CAB, if they wanted to to their work-tasks, in a
meaningful way, should brought up, and made clear, about the issues
surrounding the founding, and the legal aid programme, before the meeting
with the duty solicitor was set up.
> *4. I dont think the CAB, like they for the meeting on 5/4, should set
> > *
> >
> > *me up for a meeting with a Solicitors firms (EAD), that aren't based *
> >
> > *in Liverpool. The Solicitor-firms that they set up to do task of Duty
> > Solicitor *
> >
> > *representaton, should be based in Liverpool, for practical reasons, *
> >
> > *if someone wants to go to the Solicitors office to speak with *
> >
> > *someone there etc.*
> >
> > **
> >
> > EAD are based in Liverpool. Their address is: Prospect House, Columbus
> > Quay, Riverside Drive, Liverpool, L3 4DB.
> >
>
*New complaint: *(Even if I think this point, must mostly be said to be my
fault).
Yes, I saw that later when I sent the Law Society resolution form by e-mail
to the EAD law-firm.
It was my mistake, since they hadn't got any offices in the centre of
city, they only had offices in the outskirts, so to speak,
so I wasn't aware of that there was a place in Liverpool called Colombus
Quay, like the EAD answered, when I asked them
if they were situated in Liverpool, because their number wasn't to be found
in the 'Mersey 2005/06 Yellow Pages'.
So when I asked the EAD-company, on the phone, if they were situated in
Liverpool, they (the receptionist, Stephanie, it says
on my note).
They only answered that they were situated in the Colombus Quay area. But
they didn't answer directly, yes or no, to my
question, regarding if they were based in Liverpool.
So it was a misunderstanding between the EAD and me.
But maybe I should have been set up to meet a company from the centre of the
city then, but that's a bit to much to ask,
because I'm not really sure how many law-firms there are in the city centre
of Liverpool, who are dealing with cases like
this, and who are participating in the duty solicitor programme.
So if there arn't that easy to find centraly placed law-companies, then I
understand that I was set up to meet with a company
that are a bit outside of the L2 area of Liverpool, in which both the Dale
St. CAB's address, and my own address is situated in.
So I think, must be said to be my mistake, and not the CAB's, if the
situation is like it's described above, with the addresses for the
law-firms.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > *5. I dont think the CAB should have given me the wrong number*
> >
> > *to the EAD solicitiors firm. *
> >
> >
> >
> > Upheld - I accidentally gave you the fax number (708-0606) and for this I
> > apologize.
> >
>
*New Complaint:*
I understand that's things like this can happen, that one maybe give the
wrong phone-number sometimes.
But, together with the other points in the complaint, it contributed, to
giving an unprofessional
impression of the CAB.
So, if it had only been the problem with the phone-number, then I wouldn't
have been making any fuzz/
complaints, but like it was on the meeting this day, it was several things
that could seem to be
unprofessional/peculiar.
It was the issue with the lights being turned off, I had to press twice
before someone would let me in,
the duty solictor had canceled the meeting, I wasn't offered a new duty
solicitors meeting, I wasn't given
the name of the duty solicitor or a contact-person, by the CAB this day, but
was only told to call
the EAD company, without being given any contact-person name, or other
spesific reference to say to
the receptionist answering my phone-call.
So, all in all, I thought it was very unprofessional meeting.
With the lights off, and giving the wrong phone-number, and the other
things, I though the general impression
of the CAB from the meeting, was so poor, that I thought it was a below the
standard, I think one should
be able to expect from a respectable organisation like the CAB.
(I also remember that I thought the fax number for the company was a bit
strange, I work with company research
and I thought it was a bit strange, that the phone number to EAD was 0151
735 1000, (ending on 1000), while
the fax-number was 0151 708 0606, (ending on 0606). I didn't see any
logic/system in the numbering of the
phone/fax-numbers, but this might be that I'm a bit caught up in my work.
And of course I know that this has nothing to do with the CAB, I just
thought I'd write it down, while I was
writing, so to speak.
Because I think that the fax-number was maybe a bit odd.
And if the phone/fax-numbers are a bit odd, like it doesn't look like
a phone-number for a big law-company,
since companies phone-numbers, oftern end on like 1000, and other
even numbers, so to me it really
looks a bit strange, that the CAB-representative, didn't notive that it was
an uneven number he was
reading to me, because I would imagine that most law-firms phone numbers are
even, or at least not
as odd as I think the EAD fax-number, could be said to be.
So I think this makes it a bit more strange that the CAB representative gave
me wrong phone-number that day.
But this could also be me being a bit caught up in my work.
It isn't easy for me to know how often the CAB represenatives are
calling/reading the law-firm phone-numbers.
But the representative didn't seem stressed at all, so one
could maybe suspect that there was something wrong
at the CAB since there were so many errors and strange incidents, especially
with having the lights turned on,
I thing was really strange, for an organisation that are recieving members
of the public, like the CAB is.)
*6. I think the CAB should have the lights on in the parts of their
> > offices*
> >
> > *where members of the public are recieved, and in their other public*
> >
> > *areas, during their opening hours. This to insure that contacts
> > between representatives from the CAB and *
> >
> > *members of the public are kept in an atmosphare that one would expect *
> >
> > *from a public place. (And not in an atmosphare that one would think*
> >
> > *belonged more to a privat place/situation.) I think they should have
> > the lights on during the opening hours, and that*
> >
> > *they should not arrange meetings with members of the public to be held
> > *
> >
> > *with the lights off. (Like they did when I went there for the Duty
> > Solicitors meeting, and ended *
> >
> > *up first sitting waiting for several minutes in the dark, and then
> > speaking with *
> >
> > *the CAB representative for several minutes in the dark, on 5/4).*
> >
> >
> >
> > The lights were *partially* switched off as we were closed for lunch. I
> > switched them on again when I began speaking to you and I admit that
> > they perhaps should have been left on fully in order to create a
> > professional atmosphere.
> >
>
*New complaint:*
The representative says that the lights were partially switched off.
But when I was 'buzzed' inside, after ringing the button by the CAB
entrance-door twice, I grabbed a folder on the
reception-desk, which was unpopulated.
There also was a young girl, like eleven or twelve years old maybe, sitting
in the stair-case, alone, for no appearent
reason, right outside the the hall where the CAB enterance-door is.
So this also added to the surreal experience of the meeting at the CAB, that
day, since the State House, is an office-
building I thought.
And then the lights were off at the CAB.
And there were no people present there.
I buzzed in by a man, who I don't think presented himself, and it must have
been from an office at CAB then, I reackon.
Because there no people at all there, no members of the puplic, and no
representatives from the CAB.
And it was dark.
I grabbed a folder ('A Merseyside Empolyement Law'-folder), from a
folder-display on the reception-desk.
I sat down in the chairs around the TV-set. In the waiting area. (I don't
think the TV was on).
Then I tried to read the folder, but it was to dark, it was like twilight so
to speak, so it was to exhausting
for the eyes to focus enough to read the folder, so I just had to give it
up, and wait for someone to appear.
And then the CAB representative appeared, maybe after five minutes, or
something like that.
And then he started appologising, since he hadn't called me to inform about
the cancelation of the meeting.
And then we were discussing why the meeting was canceled, what he would
advice me to do, that was
to call the EAD company the same day.
And I think that this could have been why I was given the wrong
telephone-number perhaps, because I
don't think the representative turned on the lights before reading the
phone-number.
Because I remember, that it wasn't untill the meeting was almost finished,
that the representative,
went to get me another folder from the folder-display at the reception-desk.
But I declined, since I had already grabbed the folder on my way in.
And the representative turned on the lights, which were on the way to the
folder-display.
It seemed a bit sureal and peculiar, to have the meeting in the dark.
I think the representative should have turned the lights on before the
meeting.
In fact, I think the CAB, should have turned the lights on, before leting me
in to their reception
area.
I've been working myself, as a food store manager, and other positions, in
one of Norways
biggest food-store chain, and also a few years in other food stores before
that.
So I've been working for close to fifteen years as a the food-store
business, and it would never
had crossed my mind, to not turn on the lights in the shop, before leting
the customers in.
If I had let the customers walk aroung in the shop with the trolleys,
started to scan the goods
in the check out, and then, right before I was going to tell them how much
the customer had
to pay, then I would get up from the check-out, and to the entrance of the
shop, and then
turn on the light.
If I had done something like that as a food-shop manager, I don't think I
would kept my job
for a very long time, and it would have seemed totally out of line, and very
unprofessional,
or I think I would even have to say extremely unproffesional.
It's just one of those things one don't do.
So for a thing like this to happen, like it did that day at the CAB, I would
have to say, that
something must have been wrong.
And now, when I'm writing this, I'm beginning to think, that the reason,
that the representative,
read me the fax-number, and not the phone-number to the EAD-company, must
have been,
that the lights were still turned off, causing that it was to dark to be
possible to read clearly,
resulting in the representative reading me the wrong phone-number.
And also remeber it clearly, that the representative, didn't turn on the
lights at the beginning
of the meeting, like the representative claims in the e-mail I'm answering
to now, but the
representative turned the lights on, at the end of the meeting, as I remeber
it, and also like
I wrote in the explanation-file, that I sent with as an enclosure together
with the orginal
complaint to Complaint & Policy Officer Saffron Follows on 23/5.
So it's clear to me that the CAB representative, General Unit Coordinator
Kristian Khan, is
lying when he says that he 'switched them [the lights] on again when I began
speaking to you',
like he is claiming in the e-mail I'm answering to now.
This is clear to me from three reasons, I remember that he switched the
lights on at the end
of the meeting, I've also written this in the explanation I sent Saffron
Follows on 23/5, and
also it seems to me that the problem with the CAB-representative, reading me
the fax-number
to the EAD, instead of their phone-number, must be due to the problems with
the lights being
turned off, in a way that made it impossible to read clearly, in the
reception, waiting and
main public meeting (that is where the CAB-solicitor usually sits, to give
advice to the
members of the public, when their turn to get advice is due) area.
I'd like to clearify when the lights were switched on, they switched on in
the last half of the
meeting, like a bit after half of the meeting had passed.
So that one can say that it was about one third, left of the meeting, when
the representative
turned the lights on.
So he did it in while the meeting was being held, and at some time in the
last half of the meeting.
I hope it's possible to understand what I mean.
It was under no circomstance, at the beginning of the meeting, that the
representative turned on
the lights.
And I also think's unacceptable to let people in to the CAB, at all, without
turning no the lights first.
They shouldn't let people wait in the waiting area, while the lights are off
at the CAB. (So that it's not
possible to read).
(And from a customer-support perspective, I also think someone should
receive the people that
are being buzzed in, and not let them wait for five to ten minuttes first (I
think it must have been),
like they did on this day.)
And this, that the CAB-representative, is lying, I think is very serious,
and I think it should
be dealt with in a formal way.
I also think that this, not having turned on the lights, might have been
conected with the
litle girl, just sitting, for no reason, in the stair-case, outside of the
CAB, and then
with the lights off at the CAB, I think this could have been some kind of
set-up in
connection with mob/mafia, that I have been having some problems with in
Norway
and Britain, and which is connected with the work-case, that I was
contacting the
CAB and the EAD, to get advice on, regarding the founding of (if I was
eligable
for legal aid or not).
So I think that also the Police should be brought into this, and I will do
that myself, in
a meeting that is already scheduled, that I'm having regarding these cases,
with
the Merseyside Police, in the beginning of next month.
So, I must really say, that I think you should investigate the lying and
also the other
strange situations that occured, with the 'set-up', with the girl in the
stair-case, and
the lights being turned off.
And also with the canceled meeting, and the other points mentioned in this
e-mail.
Also the fact that the solcitior, I think she is, the woman with the dark
hair, in her
fourties I think, that is working at the Dale St., CAB.
I thought it was peculiar, that she would appear, right before I went out of
the offices,
to just stand in the reception-area, by the chair there (I guess it must
have been
a chair there). And then just look out in the air, and not doing any
work-tasks,
but just looking out in the air, in the hight of my face/eyes, as like to
monitor
the expression on my face or something like that.
It was very surreal and peculiar, it was like she 'scanned' almost, the
expression
on face, how I looked, when I went passed her, and out of the CAB-offices,
when
the meeting was finished.
I don't think she returned my salutaion, I seem to remember that I noded to
her
at least, but she just stood there like carved in stone, I think one could
say.
(This should be more thoroghly explained, in the explanation, that I sent
Saffron Follows on 23/5, regarding if I saluted or not, like I seem to
remember
that I did now.)
*7. I think that the CAB should have informed before the meeting with the
> > *
> >
> > *Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts on 27/2, that the Morecrofts Solicitors
> > firm*
> >
> > *only accepted payment from private founds. And that Morecrofts didn't
> > accept founding founded by the legal aid-*
> >
> > *programme, like the Duty Solicitor from Morecrofts, Eleanor Pool,
> > informed*
> >
> > *me of on 22/3.*
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see response to Question 3.
> >
> >
> >
> > *8. I think that the CAB should have informed me before the meeting with
> > *
> >
> > *Duty Solicitor Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2, that the *
> >
> > *meeting only was scheduled to last for thirty minutes. I wasnt made
> > aware of this, untill Eleanor Pool first informed me of this when *
> >
> > *the thirty minutes had passed.*
> >
> >
> >
> > As far as I am aware, clients are advised that the Duty Solicitor
> > service is a "free first 1/2. I can confirm that both Reception staff and
> > myself make clients aware of this at the time of booking the
> > appointment.
> >
>
*New complaint:*
I wasn't made aware of this, that the meeting was only sheduled to last for
30 minutes, at all, before the meeting.
> >
> > *9. I think the CAB should have explained to me about the legal aid
> > system, *
> >
> > *and how it works, before they set me up for the meeting with Duty
> > Solicitor*
> >
> > *Eleanor Pool from Morecrofts there on 27/2. Especially since this was
> > an employment-case (like I told them that the *
> >
> > *police had told me to tell them that it was). *
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see response to Question 3.
> >
> > **
> >
> > *10. I also think that the solicitor I got to speak with on the phone
> > (about when*
> >
> > *one would need a criminal solicitor), when I was at the CAB on 20/3,
> > should*
> >
> > *have explained to me what her name was, and which solicitors firm she
> > was *
> >
> > *calling from. I was put in a room at the CAB, and told to wait untill
> > the solicitor called me.*
> >
> > *But when I answered, I picked up the phone and said 'yes hello this is
> > Erik*
> >
> > *Ribsskog speaking', but the solicitor didnt say eighter what her name
> > was*
> >
> > *or the name of her company was, she just asked what my questions were.*
> >
> > * Also, when I had finished speaking with the solicitor on the phone,
> > then *
> >
> > *the CAB advisor had starting speaking with another member of the public
> > *
> >
> > *there, without informing me that our meeting was finished, and without*
> >
> > *me being alowed to finish explaining why I had gone there.*
> >
> > *I had gone there to ask about two things. *
> >
> > *1. About when one needs a criminal advisor, and 2. how the legal aid
> > system works. *
> >
> > **
> >
> > *But I only got to tell about the first point, before I was put in the
> > room to *
> >
> > *wait for the phone from the solicitor. Without me first being informed
> > that *
> >
> > *my meeting with the CAB advisor had finished.*
> >
> >
> >
> > If the solicitor failed to give her name then I am afraid that I do not
> > see how the Bureau was to blame for that. We cannot be held responsible
> > for what a solicitor does or does not do. You state that you attended
> > CAB on 20th March 2007 and spoke to a criminal solicitor by phone, and
> > then asked us about Legal Aid and was advised to check the CLS
> > Eligibility calculator. If the Bureau was fully booked on that day then
> > you may well have been advised to check this calculator as we like to offer
> > some "signposting" advice that will enable the client to undertake some
> > work/research on this case prior to their appointment at the Bureau. The
> > CLS calculator advised that it could not assist you as you wereself-employed and so
> > you returned to the CAB and was given the appt. 5th April 2007.
> >
>
*New complaint:*
I didn't ask to speak with a criminal solicitor, but I asked advice on when
one needed a criminal solicitor, since Moorecrofts had said
I'd might need one, in the letter, enclosure X, that I sent Follows.
My complaint was, that the solicitor, working with you, the woman with the
dark hair in her forties I think, didn't tell me
that our meeting was finished, before she left to start helping another
member of the public.
So, she didn't give me the oppertunity, to explain, that I had more
questions, which I would have made clear, if she had told
me, that the meeting was finished.
And I also think, that the solicitor, that the CAB got to call me, while I
was there, should have interduced herself, when she
called. (And also said which company she representated).
Because then I would know which person it was that gave me the advice, and
this could be useful to know, eg. if there were
some problems with someone being given wrong advice etc.
Thats why I think the solicitors calling to the CAB to give advice to a
member of the public, should interduce themselves, and
say which company they are working for.
> >
> > *11. So I think that the CAB advisor should have told me that the
> > meeting*
> >
> > *there on 20/3 was finished, before ending the meeting.*
> >
> > *Since this would have given me the chance to explain that there were
> > more *
> >
> > *things that I wanted to bring up in the meeting.*
> >
> >
> >
> > It would seem that there was no availabilty for you to see an adviser on
> > 20th March 2007 and this may explain why you were only given "signposting"
> > advice i.e. be allowed to talk to a solicitor on the phone and then be
> > given the CLS calculator website.
> >
>
*New complaint:*
Yes, I was let to speak with an advisor, but the advisor ended the meeting,
without informing me that the meeting had
finished, causing, that I didn't get to bring up both of the issues I had
intented to bring up in the meeting.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In conclusion I have investigated your concerns and I hope that you are
> > satisfied with this response, however you should remain dissatisfied then
> > you can contact the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > THE CHAIR
> >
> > LIVERPOOL CENTRAL CAB
> >
> > 1ST FLOOR
> >
> > STATE HOUSE
> >
> > 22 DALE STREET
> >
> > LIVERPOOL
> >
> > L2 4TR
> >
> >
> >
> > Yours Sincerley
> >
> >
> >
> > *KRISTIAN KHAN*
> >
> > *GENERAL UNIT COORDINATOR. *
> > **
> >
>
>
>
Innlegg
