From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Michael.Rimer@legalservices.gov.uk Michael Rimer
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:15:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Your e-mail (complaint about a duty solicitor)

Hi,

I'm not sure if you have read the complaints thorowly enought then,
because it has a been a problem with lying and breaching of agreements.

And giving wrong advice over the phone.

This is unprofessional conduct, and it has been examples of this in both
complaints.

So I was wondering if you please could tell me how I should go forward,
if I wanted to complain about legal firm in regarding unprofessional conduct
in conection with the duty solicitior programme.

Thank you very much for your help in advance!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog


On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> Thank you for the further information. Your complaints are of a lack of
> what you perceive as being acceptable customer service from each (not
> being told who was dealing with your case, having meetings cancelled and
> not rescheduled, being passed from one person to the next and having to
> explain your case to each one, all of which can be frustrating when you
> have your own legal issues as a primary concern).
>
> May I suggest that you raise your concerns with the firms directly. It
> may assist if you shorten your accounts by summarising the main points
> of complaint, in order to get the text onto a one page letter.
>
> It might be that the person who dealt with your complaint at the Legal
> Complaints Service thought, as I did at first, that you were concerned
> by the behaviour of a criminal duty solicitor. However, it seems as
> though it relates to an employment dispute. In any event, I think that
> you ought to be referring your concerns to the firms, as it is they who
> ought to be listening to the points you make and considering whether
> they need to take a fresh look at their customer service.
>
> Your sincerely
>
> Michael
>
> >>> "Erik Ribsskog" 08 November 2007 11:20 >>>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your answer!
>
> Well, in April, I called the Law Society about the problems, and they
> adviced me
> to bring the complaints through their complaint-procedure.
>
> Now, about six months later, the Law Society tells me that it is the
> LSC,
> who
> should have dealt with these complaints.
>
> The complaints are regarding poor service and unprofessional conduct,
> from
> law-firms,
> in conection with duty solicitor meetings, being set up by the CAB.
>
> I'm going to enclose a copy of the two complaints that I sent the Law
> Society.
>
> One complaint regarding the Morecrofts Solicitors firm, and one
> complaint
> regarding
> the EAD solicitors firm.
>
> So I'm looking forward to hearing more from you, regarding how I should
> go
> forward
> with these complaints.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
> On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> >
> > Your email has been referred to me as you appear to have had some
> > difficulties in finding out where to make a complaint about a duty
> > solicitor who assisted you recently. I am a lawyer in the LSC's
> head
> > office legal department.
> >
> > I am not clear from your email what it is exactly that you were
> unhappy
> > about the duty solicitor who assisted you. Did the duty solicitor
> see
> > you at a police station? Or did the duty solicitor see you at the
> > magistrates' court? If you outlined very briefly the nature of your
> > complaint about the solicitor, i.e., what he did that you thought
> was
> > wrong, or what he didn't do that you think he ought to have done,
> that
> > would be helpful.
> >
> > I am mindful to suggest that you make a complaint to the firm
> directly.
> > Usually, a complaint against a solicitor is best made to the senior
> or
> > managing partner at the solicitor's firm. Otherwise, the solicitor
> whom
> > you are unhappy about wont know what it is he has done wrong, in
> your
> > view. Depending on the firm's response, the Customer Service Team
> > (whom you originally emailed about this) will be in a better position
> to
> > say whether your complaint should be referred to the firm's account
> > manager at the Legal Services Commission, or whether it should be
> dealt
> > with by the Law Society's Legal Complaint Service.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Rimer
> > Legal Adviser
> > Corporate Legal Team
> > Legal Services Commission
> > 85 Gray's Inn Road,
> > London WC1X 8TX
> >
> > DX 328 Chancery Lane
> >
> > Note: The email may contain confidential legal advice which is
> likely
> > to be subject to legal professional privilege and which may be
> exempt
> > from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact
> the
> > author or the Commission's Legal Director to seek authorisation
> before
> > disclosing this email outside the Commission."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> "Erik Ribsskog" 06 November 2007 02:25 >>>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, thats
> > why I'm
> > trying to send it again.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Erik Ribsskog
> > Date: Oct 19, 2007 4:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Your e-mail
> > To: Legal LSC
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank you very much for your answer.
> >
> > I will now try to summarise the corespondce I've been having with
> you
> > and
> > Simon Williams from the Legal Complaints Service.
> >
> > Simon Williams (The Legal Complaints Service) says that I should
> > contact the
> > LSC to complain about
> > a duty solicitor.
> >
> > And you (The LSC) are saying that I should contact The Legal
> > Complaints
> > Service to complain about
> > a duty solicitor.
> >
> > So I'm not sure how to conclude this summary.
> >
> > Could you please confirm again who I should contact if I want to
> > formally
> > complain about poor service
> > and uprofessional conduct from a law-firm in connection with the
> duty
> > solicitors scheme.
> >
> > Because Simon Williams from The Legal Complaints Service is writing
> > this in
> > a letter from 26/9:
> >
> > 'Here, a meeting under the duty solicitors programme is unlikely to
> be
> > something done under a retainer
> > (that is, a relationship between solicitor and client), as duty
> > solicitors
> > are those who provide assistance
> > to those who are without representation
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > As you are not a client of EAD, this office is unable to consider
> your
> > complaint. I will, therefore, take
> > steps to close this file'.
> >
> > So it's obvious that the Legal Complaints Service aren't looking at
> > complaints against law-firms in
> > connection to the duty solicitors scheme.
> >
> > Williams, write in an e-mail from 2/10:
> >
> > ' *Q2: If not, then who is it one are supposed to complain to, about
> > poor
> > service/unprofessional* *conduct, by law-firms, in connection with
> the
> > Dury
> > Solicitors scheme?*
> >
> > I have looked into this matter and would suggest that you refer to
> > this
> > website:
> >
> >
> http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/liverpool_information.asp
>
> >
> >
> > It contains information and contact details of the Merseyside Duty
> > Solicitors scheme and I hope that you will find it useful.
> >
> > I should also note that the Legal Services Commission is an
> > organisation
> > wholly separate from the Law Society and, if you have any specific
> > questions
> > in relation to the procedures, you should direct them to the LSC,
> > rather
> > than our Office.'.
> >
> > So he's saying that the LCS should deal with the complaint.
> >
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > Who could I ask for advice/help regarding this, since I'm being in a
> > way
> > 'thrown around' here, from one organisation to the
> > other.
> >
> >
> > Also, you are writing that:
> >
> > 'In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
> > there
> > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
> > colleague
> > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
> the
> > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.'.
> >
> >
> > So you are writing that since you have an online directory, then it
> > can't be
> > something wrong
> > in regards to your customer-helpline's advice.
> >
> > I can't see that it's an excuse for giving wrong advice (giving me
> the
> > phone-numbers to law-firms
> > in Wales), I can't see that this can be excused by you also having
> an
> > online
> > directory.
> >
> > What is the point of having a customer-helpline, if one can't trust
> > the
> > advice?
> >
> > Since like you are writing, you also have an online directory, so
> this
> > fact
> > means that any mistakes
> > the helpline makes, must be misunderstandings.
> >
> > I don't see the logic in this.
> >
> > I think you must be mistaking.
> >
> > Even if you have an online directory, I don't see how this explains
> > mistakes
> > from your helpline.
> >
> > It's not a valid excuse I mean.
> >
> > If I go to Tesco and say I got the wrong change back.
> >
> > Then Tesco can't say that, of it must be a misunderstanding because
> you
> > have
> > paid by debit-card.
> >
> > Thats the same reasoning to me.
> >
> > So it would be very fine, if you could please confirm that I've
> > understood
> > your excuse right.
> >
> > Because in that case, I don't think it's a valid excuse, and I would
> > please
> > like to complain about it.
> >
> > I hope that this is alright!
> >
> > Thank you very much for your answer again!
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/19/07, Legal LSC wrote:
> > >
> > > Our ref: KPL/MISC/07/07/70 (5)
> > > Date: 19 October 2007
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribbskog,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your e-mail on 16 October 2007.
> > >
> > > You are always welcome to put forward an informal complaint
> regarding
> > a
> > > duty solicitor's poor service and/or misconduct, in connection
> with
> > > the Local Duty Solicitors Scheme, to the Account Manager of our
> > relevant
> > > regional office. They will be happy to investigate your complaint
> > and
> > > will communicate with the duty solicitor involved to clarify the
> > areas
> > > of your complaint and endeavor to resolve the issue.
> > >
> > > However, it is not within our capacity or powers to enforce any
> > actions
> > > upon the relevant duty solicitor in regards to their poor service
> > and/or
> > > misconduct.
> > >
> > > For complaints on the poor service and/or misconduct of any
> > solicitor
> > > to be dealt with formally and with enforceable actions, you must
> > direct
> > > your complaints to the Law Society's Legal Complaints Service
> (LCS),
> > > who are an independent complaints handling body that deals with
> all
> > > formal complaints against solicitors. Even though they are part of
> > the
> > > Law Society, they operate independently.
> > >
> > > Further details on the LCS are available at the following website:
> > >
> > > http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/home.page
> > >
> > > Both the above options are available to you and it is your
> decision
> > on
> > > where you want to direct your complaint and how it is resolved.
> > >
> > > In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
> > there
> > > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
> > colleague
> > > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
> > the
> > > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.
> > >
> > > I hope the above is of assistance to you.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > >
> > > Ka Poh Ling
> > > Central Customer Services Unit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> > > Disclaimer
> > >
> > > This email (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely
> for
> > the
> > > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
> > > unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
> > If you
> > > are not the intended recipient please destroy all copies and
> inform
> > the
> > > sender by return e-mail.
> > >
> > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
> > intercepted and
> > > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding
> whether
> > to
> > > send information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal
> Services
> > > Commission are available from
> > > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/regions.asp
> > >
> > > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor,
> record
> > and
> > > retain any incoming and outgoing emails for security reasons and
> for
> > > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
> > policy on
> > > staff use. Email monitoring and/or blocking software may be used
> and
> > email
> > > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
> > not
> > > broken when writing or forwarding emails and their contents. No
> > contracts
> > > can be entered into on our behalf by email.
> > >
> > > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and
> do
> > not
> > > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
> > >
> > > The Legal Services Commission checks all mails and attachments for
> > known
> > > viruses; however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
> > your own
> > > risk.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ************************************************************************************
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely
> for the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
> unauthorised
> > use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not
> the
> > intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
> return
> > e-mail.
> >
> > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
> intercepted and
> > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether
> to send
> > information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services
> Commission
> > are available from
> http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions.asp
> >
> > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record
> and
> > retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and
> for
> > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
> policy on
> > staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and
> e-mail
> > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
> broken
> > when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts
> can be
> > entered into on our behalf by e-mail.
> >
> > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
> not
> > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
> >
> > The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for
> known
> > viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
> your own
> > risk.
> >
> >
>
> ************************************************************************************
> >
> >
>

Resolution form

Part 1:

Mr. Nick Laird

EAD Solicitors

Prospect House

Colombus Quay

Liverpool

L3 4DB

Solicitors reference: I called your office last week (4/7), and was informed that you

were the person in the company that dealt with complaints.

My name:

Mr. Erik Ribsskog

Flat 3

5 Leather Lane

Liverpool

L2 2AE

Phone-number: 0151 236 3298.

Mobile: 0775 834 9954.

Part 2:

The person dealing with my case is or was:

I wasn't given the name of the Duty Solicitor that was supposed to meet me at the

Citizens Advice Bureau.

The person from your company that I spoke with on the phone was Mr. Michael Reiner.

My complaint is:

1. I think that the EAD, when they cancelled the Duty Solicitors meeting at the

CAB (Dale Street, Liverpool), on 5/4/07, should have taken the initative to set

up a new meeting with me, to replace the meeting that had been canceled.

They didn't want to set up a new meeting, even if I asked them about the

possiblity of them doing this, when I called their office, explained the matter,

and got to speak with their representativ Michael Reiner on 5/4.

I think that the usual thing to do when one have to cancel a meeting,

like this duty solicitor meeting, would be to set up a new meeting

to replace the meeting that was canceled.

And I think that it's unacceptable that this wasn't even offered.

Complaint 1: I would like to complain about the EAD refusing to set up

a new duty solicitor meeting after the inital meeting was canceled (by

themselves).

2. Michael Reiner informed me on the phone when I called the EAD

company on 5/4, that EAD didn't help members of the public with

calculating if they are eligable for legal aid in (non union) employment-

cases.

I don't think that the EAD should have agreed with the CAB to meet

me in a duty solicitor meeting, to help me calculate if I was eligable

for recieveing legal-aid, if this is a work-task that EAD doesn't do.

It makes no sence that they should agree with the CAB to help me

calculate if I'm eligable for legal-aid, and then when I call them after

they have canceled the meeting, then they tell me that they don't

do this type of work-task at all.

It makes no sense that they should agree with the CAB to do a work-

task they dont do.

I don't think it's acceptable for a solicotors firm to act like this.

Complaint 2 A.: I would like to complain about the EAD solicitors

firm first agreeing to help me, and then refusing this.

Complaint 2 B: I would like to complain about the EAD agreeing

to to do a work-task they don't do (Like Reiner explained, that

they didn't help people with calculating if they are eligable for

recieving legal-aid in individual employment-cases).

3. I think the EAD should have informed me on why they canceled

the meeting.

This was not informed to me by eighter the CAB or the EAD when I

called the EAD later.

I don't remember if I asked them a direct question about this, but I

think it's a natural thing to do when one cancel a scheduled meeting

like this.

Complaint 3: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn't

inform me of the reason for why they canceled the duty solicitor

meeting on the CAB 5/4.

4. I think the EAD should have informed me about the name of the

duty solicitor that was supposed to meet me.

I asked the CAB twice about the name of the solicitor (because I

reckoned that this was my contact with EAD, so it would be very

usefull for me to know this). But the CAB couldn't tell me who

it was, even if I asked them twice. (First when I was there for

the meeting that was canceled, and secondly when I called the

CAB a bit later that day, to get the right phonenumber for the EAD).

When I called EAD later the same day, and got to speak with Reiner,

I again asked who the dury solicitor that I was supposed to meet

at the CAB was, but Reiner didn't give me the duty solicitors name.

I think that if the duty solicitor cancels the meeting, and agrees with

the CAB that I could instead call the EAD and get advice from them

over the phone, then he should leave his name with the CAB, and

tell them to give me the his name when I show up for the meeting,

so that I know who to ask for when I call the EAD.

When I called the EAD I got transfered a bit around from person

to person, before I got to speak with Reiner. I think I was speaking

with eighter two or three other people before I got to speak with

Reiner.

That one don't know who to ask for, and that one have to explain

about the case several times to several people, could maybe lead

to that one gets a bit stressed, and maybe loses a bit of the focus

that one normally would have had on the case, if one had been

transfered directly to the right person.

So I think that this also added to the general level of unproffesionalism

that it seemed to me was quite characteristic to the way the EAD (and

the CAB) handled the meeting on 5/4. So even if it sounds a bit stupid

maybe, I think I'll also add a complaint about that I wasn't given the

duty solicitors name by the EAD (eighter directly or through the CAB).

Complaint 4: I would like to complain about that the EAD didn't

inform me about the name of the duty solicitor that was supposed

to meet me, even if I asked both the EAD (Reiner) and the CAB

about this.

5. I think that the EAD shouldn't have adviced me on such a complicated

case over the phone.

The EAD only wanted to help me over the phone, and therefore a

misunderstanding happened regard what type of case it was.

Since we only discussed it over the phone, and the EAD didnt get to see

the documents that belonged to the case, and I answered that it was an

employement-case when Reiner asked me, because this was what the

police had told me that it was.

If the EAD had agreed to meet me, they would have seen that it was,

(like the Morecroft solicitor told me on 11/4), that it also was an

harassment-case.

So, because of this misunderstanding, Reiner on the phone, told me that

the case had only got a three month 'time-limit', and that since it had

passed more than three months since the last incident in the case,

Reiner said that the three month 'time-limit' for the case had 'expired',

and that there really wasn't much hope regarding getting a case like

this through the justice-system, due to the three month 'time-limit' having

expired.

But, when I told this to the solicitor from Morecrofts on 11/4, the solicitor

told me that the case was also an harassment-case, and that it therefore

had a longer 'time-limit' than three months.

I think that, if EAD had done their job properly, then they would have

read through the cases documents, and also come to the same

conclusion.

Therefore I think that it was a bit irresponsible to give advice about this

over the phone. The way Reiner explaned it, was that it wasn't really much

hope for me to get any progress on the case due to the time-limit problem,

so it sounded on him like that it wasn't really worth the bother for me to

be using more time on trying to get help with the case.

So, if they do their advice-job in this way, I think it could lead to members

of the public being given wrong information (in the same way I was given

by Reiner on 5/4), which could lead to perfectly good cases being

given up by the person contacting them for advice.

And one could also think of many other types of misunderstandings that

could happen due to them doing their duty soliciting work and

legal-advice over the phone instead of in meetings, like one would think

would be more practical when it comes to legal-cases, that I reckon often

can be quite complicated.

Complaint 5A: I would like to complain about that the EAD gave me wrong

advice on the phone on 5/4 about the 'time-limit' for the case I had agreed

to meet them about in a duty solicitor meeting at the CAB (To get help

from them to see if I was eligable to recieve legal-aid for the case).

Complaint 5B: I would like to complain about the EAD giving advice on

the phone about cases that they have initialy agreed on to advice about

in meetings. Reiner from EAD said in the phone-call on 5/4 that one

needs to know the details of the case to see if someone are eligable for

legal-aid.

I think that if he didn't know the details of the case, then he shouldn't

advice on how long 'time-limit' there is for the case eighter.

I think this was an unaceptable way for them to do their duty solicitor

job. (Which I think this must be called, since they had canceled

the duty solicitor meeting, and I think the EAD and the CAB must

have agreed on that it was ok for me to call them for advice instead,

since the CAB adviced me to do this.)

And even if one can't call it a duty solicitor job, for some reason that

I'm not aware of, then I still think it's unaceptable of them to give advice

on how long 'time-limit' there is for a case, without knowing the details

of the case.

6. If one goes to the EAD web-page on the internet, on the url:

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/employment/, it says that 'EAD advices

on all aspects of employement law work for trade unions, union members

and individual workers'.

I don't think the EAD should put it on their web-site that they advice on

all aspects of employement law for individual workers, when they don't

individual workers at all, like Reiner said in the phone-call on 5/4.

He said that they only dealt with employment-cases that were trade-

union cases, and that this was the reason that they couldn't help me

with calculating if I was eligable for legal aid.

Also, the fact that they agreed with the CAB to meet me on 5/4, to

help me calculate if I was eligable for recieving legal-aid, fits with what

they write on the web-page, that they really help individual workers

with things like this.

So it's a bit unclear to me if the information on their web-page is wrong,

or if the information I was given by Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 was

wrong.

So I think I'll complain about that I have recieved contradicting information,

and then someone who are more experts on this can hopefully have a

look at it, and try to find out what these, to me, seemingly contradicting

statements are due to.

Complaint 6: I'd like to complain about that the information on the EAD

webpage says that the EAD advices individual workers in employement

cases, whereas Mr. Reiner in the phone-call on 5/4 informed me that

EAD only gave advice about employement-cases when these cases

were trade-union cases.

Part 3

I am happy for you to deal with my complaint in writing.

I would like the following to sort out my complaint:

The most important thing to me, is to try to find a solution on how to get some

progress on the case, so that it is brought through the justice-system in an

appropriate way.

I think the complaint should be dealt with by you appropriately.

I've lost a bit of confidence in your company due to what happened on 5/4, so

I would like to see how your company deals with this complaint, before I decide

how I should go further with this.

Resolution form

Part 1:

Alison Lobb

Morecrofts Solcitors

Ground Floor, Tithebarn House, 1-5 Tithebarn Street, Liverpool, L2 2NZ.

Solicitors reference: I called your office last week, and I was at your office today,

agreeing that I would send this resolution form to your companies e-mail address.

My name:

Erik Ribsskog

Flat 3

5 Leather Lane

Liverpool

L2 2AE

Phone-number: 0151 236 3298.

Mobile: 0775 834 9954.

Part 2:

The person dealing with my case is or was:

First it was Eleanor Pool who dealt with the case as a duty solicitor from Morecrofts

on the meeting in the CAB on 27/2.

Then, after I agreed with Pool on that I would pay for the case with a payment-plan

type of founding, then the case was dealt with by Mr. Milletts secretary Samantha,

on behalf of Mr. Millett.

My complaint is:

1. Pool told me on 11/4 that it would be ok for me to pay for the case with a payment-

plan type of founding.

Yet, when Samantha called me on 24/4, (after I had called Pool earlier that day to

ask why noone had called me about a meeting, like we had agreed on when I went

to Morecrofts on 11/4), she said that I first had to pay Morecrofts £250, before I could

get to speak with Mr. Millett about the case.

I told Samantha, on the phone on 24/4, that this was not what I had agreed with Pool.

I told Samantha that Pool had said it would be ok with a payment-plan type of founding,

but Samantha said that it wouldn't be possible with a payment-plan.

I said that I needed some more time to think about this, and after this phone-call, I

have been in contact with the Law Society and others, to get advice on how to deal with

this situation.

I've also been in regular contact with Samantha after this, to update her about what I've

been doing to try to sort with the founding, and more, regarding the case.

I took some weeks for it to get clear to me exactly how I should go forward to complain

about this approperatly, but last week, I recieved a Resolution form from the Law Society,

and I called your reseption on 18/5, asking for the name of the solicitor who deals with

complaints, and also informing on that I would go to your office this week with the

resolution form.

I asked the reseptionist to inform Samantha about this, and also asked her if she could

inform the other persons in the company that she thought needed to be informed about

this.

Complaint 1A: I would like to complain about that I was promised by Pool on 11/4 that the

case could be payed for with a payment-plan founding solution, but that Samantha

later told me that the case couldn't be payed for with a payment-plan founding solution.

I think that when Pool tells me that this is ok on 11/4, then what she says as a

representative of Morecrofts is binding for the company, and then it shouldn't

be changed later by the company.

Complaint 1B: I would also like to complain about that even if I told Samantha that

I had agreed with Pool on 11/4 to pay for the case with a payment-plan founding

solution, Samantha still insisted on that this wasn't possible.

I think Samantha shouldn't have ignored what I was saying. And if she didn't trust me,

she could have checked this with Pool, and got it confirmed that we had already

agreed on that I could pay for the case with a payment-plan solution.

2. When Samantha called me on 24/4, she said told me that she had been trying to

call me on my mobile three times since 11/4. (To set up a meeting for me with Mr.

Millett, must have been the reason for her to call me. I agreed with Pool on 11/4,

that someone from your company would call me to set up a meeting with Mr.

Millett about the case.)

Since I was in contact with the police in January, (and also started applying for new jobs

etc. in January), I have been carefull with having the ring-tone level on my two mobile-

phones on a high level, so that I shouldn't miss calles from new employers, the police

etc.

(And I try to use my newest mobile for buisness-calls, but I might have given Pool the

number to my old mobile on the meeting at the CAB on 27/2, since it got a bit stressful

in the meeting that day, since the meeting was only scheduled to last thirty minutes,

and I wasnt aware of that untill the thirthy minutes had passed, so it could be that I

gave her the number to my old mobile, from old habit, when Pool asked me for my

contact-information).

But because I had taken care to have both the phones switched on, and also have

the ring-tone volume-level on loud on both mobiles, then I found it very unlikely that

I would manage to miss three phone-calls from Morecrofts between 11/4 and 24/4.

So I asked Samantha if she had been calling from the number that are on your

letters, and first she didn't answer, she just asked me why I was asking so many

questions.

I answered that I was really only asking one question, and then she answered that she

had been calling from that number.

After the call, I checked the call-registry on both my mobiles, just to be 100% certain,

but I couldn't find any calls from Morecrofts on any of the call-registries.

Complaint 2A: I would like to complain about that noone called me from Morcrofts to

set up a meeting about the case, even if Pool on 11/4 said that someone would.

Complaint 2B: I would like to complain about that Samantha said that she had tryed

to call me three times between 11/4 and 24/4, on my mobile, but this can't be right,

since on my there haven't been any calls from Morecrofts to any of my mobiles, in

this periode.

3. On the meeting with Pool on the CAB on 27/2, I wasn't informed on that the meeting

only lasted thirty minutes, untill Pool informed me about this when the thirty minutes

had passed.

Complaint 3: I think Pool should have informed me on that the meeting only lasted

thirthy minutes, before the meeting started, then it would have been possible for

me to plan which things I wanted to bring up in the meeting, in a way so that

I could get the most imortant things brought up before the meeting had ended.

4. In the meeting on 27/2, Pool adviced me on telling the details of the case to

the jobcentre, who then would have given it on to my old employer.

(This was regarding a question-form that the jobcentre had sent me, and which

they only gave me a week to reply on).

Since I wasn't aware on that the meeting only lasted thirty minutes, untill the

thirty minutes had passed, the meeting got a bit stressful at the end.

I only had a couple of days left to deliver the answer to the jobcentre-form or

else I could have lost my allowance, since I was unemployed at that time.

So I reckoned that this was about the only chance I would get to get advice

on how to answer the form, since I reckoned that it would take more than

a couple of days to arrange a new similar meeting.

So I asked if Pool could have a look at the form before we ended the meeting.

Then Pool advised me to answer the questions to the job-centre.

Complaint 4A: I'm not sure if Pool should have adviced me to answer the

questions to the job-centre, since those questions were about the same

things that were covered about the case.

So, I think that, since that I from November last year, have been in contact

with the police, the CAB, and your company about this case in which

these questions are dealt with, then I think that these questions shouldnt

been dealt with at the jobcentre, or other places, untill the legal-process

that I started by contacting the police in Novemeber had ended.

Complaint 4B: I'm not an expert on this, but this is how I see this after thinking

more about this. I reckon that Pool should maybe have set up a new meeting

to disuss the rest of issues that we didn't have time to disuss on the first

meeting. (I'm not an expert on how duty solicitor meetings should be

arranged, but I reckon that if I want to find out if this was done right, I should

write it in this form now.)

5. I didn't know anything about legal-aid and how the other different founding

alternatives (payment plan etc.), for cases that was sent from the police,

via the CAB, to a duty solicitor, untill the weeks after the meeting on

the CAB on 27/2.

Complaint 5: I think that I should have been informed on in the meeting

at the CAB on 27/2 that Morecrofts only accepted founding from private

founds (and not from legal-aid).

I didnt get aware of this untill Pool told me this when I went to your office

on 19/3.

I think that since this was an employement case, I should have been

informed on that it wasn't possible to pay for the case by legal-aid.

6. When Samantha called me on 24/4, I remember that she kept

interupting me all the time while we were speaking about the case

and the things regarding the case.

At the end of the call I explained to her that I fould it difficult to comunicate

with her, when she kept interupting me all the time.

I got her to agree on that we should try to speak only one at the time

for the rest of the call, and we managed to do that for the remainding

one or two minutes of the call.

Complaint 6: I think that it shouldn't be necessary to make special

agreements about that one should interrupt eachother during a call.

I think people working for legal firms, and that are used to dealing

with members of the puplic regarding legal cases, should know this

from before.

So I would like to complain about this anyway, even if it went fine with

the call for the last one or two minutes.

7. When I called Samantha on 11/5, I explained that I had tryed to call

her earler that week, and that I had left her a voice-mail etc.

Samantha said that I could have called her the day before, that she

was in then.

But I had try to call her the day before, and the reseptionist had told

me that Samantha wasn't in that day.

Also Samantha told me that I should have left her a voice-message,

even if I did this when I tryed to call her on 9/5.

I had also told the reseptionist to tell Samantha that I had been trying

to call her on 10/5.

On 8/5 I also tryed to call Morecrofts on the number that is on their

letters, at around 3.30 pm. (I tryed to call at least twice around that

time on your main phone-number, 0151 236 8871).

Complaint 7A: So I'd like to complain about your company not answering

the phone on 8/5, and on Samantha saying that I should have left a

voice-mail when I had done it, and on Samantha saying that she was

in on 10/5, when the reseptionist had told me that she was not in.

I think one incident like this could be accepted, but when there are

three incidents like this, just to get in contact with a person in your

company, than I think isn't really acceptable.

Also in the conversation with Samantha on 11/5, I had to keep telling

her to please slow down the speed when she was speaking.

She was speaking very fast (and with an accent), so it wasn't possible

for me to understand what she was saying, much of the time.

And even if I repeatedly asked her to please remember that I wasn't

British, and to therefore please speak a bit slower, she kept ignoring

me and kept on talking very fast.

(When I studied at the University of Sunderland, I took a test that for a

large part was about understanding spoken English. And I got a good

result on the test, so I didn't need to take English classes to follow

the lectures at the universityl. But when I spoke with Samantha on

11/5, I didn't have a chance of understanding large parts of what she

was saying. I usually don't have this problem at all when speaking

with English people).

Complaint 7B: I think a person working with customer in a legal firm,

should try to make an effort to speak in a way that is easy to understand,

especially if one are asked to please speak slower many times by

the customer calling.

Part 3

I am happy for you to deal with my complaint in writing.

I would like the following to sort out my complaint:

I am seeking further advice on how to get the case out of the situation it is

in now (regarding the finance), and this is the most important thing for me,

to get the case progressing in an appropriate way, including with the founding.

I think that I would please like to have another contact in your company if

thats possible, due to the comunication-problems explained in complaint

number 1, 6 and 7.

I also think that the other issues should be dealt with approperatly.

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Michael.Rimer@legalservices.gov.uk Michael Rimer
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:20:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Your e-mail (complaint about a duty solicitor)

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

Well, in April, I called the Law Society about the problems, and they
adviced me
to bring the complaints through their complaint-procedure.

Now, about six months later, the Law Society tells me that it is the LSC,
who
should have dealt with these complaints.

The complaints are regarding poor service and unprofessional conduct, from
law-firms,
in conection with duty solicitor meetings, being set up by the CAB.

I'm going to enclose a copy of the two complaints that I sent the Law
Society.

One complaint regarding the Morecrofts Solicitors firm, and one complaint
regarding
the EAD solicitors firm.

So I'm looking forward to hearing more from you, regarding how I should go
forward
with these complaints.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog


On 11/8/07, Michael Rimer wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> Your email has been referred to me as you appear to have had some
> difficulties in finding out where to make a complaint about a duty
> solicitor who assisted you recently. I am a lawyer in the LSC's head
> office legal department.
>
> I am not clear from your email what it is exactly that you were unhappy
> about the duty solicitor who assisted you. Did the duty solicitor see
> you at a police station? Or did the duty solicitor see you at the
> magistrates' court? If you outlined very briefly the nature of your
> complaint about the solicitor, i.e., what he did that you thought was
> wrong, or what he didn't do that you think he ought to have done, that
> would be helpful.
>
> I am mindful to suggest that you make a complaint to the firm directly.
> Usually, a complaint against a solicitor is best made to the senior or
> managing partner at the solicitor's firm. Otherwise, the solicitor whom
> you are unhappy about wont know what it is he has done wrong, in your
> view. Depending on the firm's response, the Customer Service Team
> (whom you originally emailed about this) will be in a better position to
> say whether your complaint should be referred to the firm's account
> manager at the Legal Services Commission, or whether it should be dealt
> with by the Law Society's Legal Complaint Service.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Michael Rimer
> Legal Adviser
> Corporate Legal Team
> Legal Services Commission
> 85 Gray's Inn Road,
> London WC1X 8TX
>
> DX 328 Chancery Lane
>
> Note: The email may contain confidential legal advice which is likely
> to be subject to legal professional privilege and which may be exempt
> from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact the
> author or the Commission's Legal Director to seek authorisation before
> disclosing this email outside the Commission."
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Erik Ribsskog" 06 November 2007 02:25 >>>
> Hi,
>
> I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, thats
> why I'm
> trying to send it again.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Erik Ribsskog
> Date: Oct 19, 2007 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Your e-mail
> To: Legal LSC
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your answer.
>
> I will now try to summarise the corespondce I've been having with you
> and
> Simon Williams from the Legal Complaints Service.
>
> Simon Williams (The Legal Complaints Service) says that I should
> contact the
> LSC to complain about
> a duty solicitor.
>
> And you (The LSC) are saying that I should contact The Legal
> Complaints
> Service to complain about
> a duty solicitor.
>
> So I'm not sure how to conclude this summary.
>
> Could you please confirm again who I should contact if I want to
> formally
> complain about poor service
> and uprofessional conduct from a law-firm in connection with the duty
> solicitors scheme.
>
> Because Simon Williams from The Legal Complaints Service is writing
> this in
> a letter from 26/9:
>
> 'Here, a meeting under the duty solicitors programme is unlikely to be
> something done under a retainer
> (that is, a relationship between solicitor and client), as duty
> solicitors
> are those who provide assistance
> to those who are without representation
>
> [...]
>
> As you are not a client of EAD, this office is unable to consider your
> complaint. I will, therefore, take
> steps to close this file'.
>
> So it's obvious that the Legal Complaints Service aren't looking at
> complaints against law-firms in
> connection to the duty solicitors scheme.
>
> Williams, write in an e-mail from 2/10:
>
> ' *Q2: If not, then who is it one are supposed to complain to, about
> poor
> service/unprofessional* *conduct, by law-firms, in connection with the
> Dury
> Solicitors scheme?*
>
> I have looked into this matter and would suggest that you refer to
> this
> website:
>
> http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/liverpool_information.asp
>
>
> It contains information and contact details of the Merseyside Duty
> Solicitors scheme and I hope that you will find it useful.
>
> I should also note that the Legal Services Commission is an
> organisation
> wholly separate from the Law Society and, if you have any specific
> questions
> in relation to the procedures, you should direct them to the LSC,
> rather
> than our Office.'.
>
> So he's saying that the LCS should deal with the complaint.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> Who could I ask for advice/help regarding this, since I'm being in a
> way
> 'thrown around' here, from one organisation to the
> other.
>
>
> Also, you are writing that:
>
> 'In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
> there
> was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
> colleague
> as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on the
> CLS Legal Adviser Directory.'.
>
>
> So you are writing that since you have an online directory, then it
> can't be
> something wrong
> in regards to your customer-helpline's advice.
>
> I can't see that it's an excuse for giving wrong advice (giving me the
> phone-numbers to law-firms
> in Wales), I can't see that this can be excused by you also having an
> online
> directory.
>
> What is the point of having a customer-helpline, if one can't trust
> the
> advice?
>
> Since like you are writing, you also have an online directory, so this
> fact
> means that any mistakes
> the helpline makes, must be misunderstandings.
>
> I don't see the logic in this.
>
> I think you must be mistaking.
>
> Even if you have an online directory, I don't see how this explains
> mistakes
> from your helpline.
>
> It's not a valid excuse I mean.
>
> If I go to Tesco and say I got the wrong change back.
>
> Then Tesco can't say that, of it must be a misunderstanding because you
> have
> paid by debit-card.
>
> Thats the same reasoning to me.
>
> So it would be very fine, if you could please confirm that I've
> understood
> your excuse right.
>
> Because in that case, I don't think it's a valid excuse, and I would
> please
> like to complain about it.
>
> I hope that this is alright!
>
> Thank you very much for your answer again!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
> On 10/19/07, Legal LSC wrote:
> >
> > Our ref: KPL/MISC/07/07/70 (5)
> > Date: 19 October 2007
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribbskog,
> >
> > Thank you for your e-mail on 16 October 2007.
> >
> > You are always welcome to put forward an informal complaint regarding
> a
> > duty solicitor's poor service and/or misconduct, in connection with
> > the Local Duty Solicitors Scheme, to the Account Manager of our
> relevant
> > regional office. They will be happy to investigate your complaint
> and
> > will communicate with the duty solicitor involved to clarify the
> areas
> > of your complaint and endeavor to resolve the issue.
> >
> > However, it is not within our capacity or powers to enforce any
> actions
> > upon the relevant duty solicitor in regards to their poor service
> and/or
> > misconduct.
> >
> > For complaints on the poor service and/or misconduct of any
> solicitor
> > to be dealt with formally and with enforceable actions, you must
> direct
> > your complaints to the Law Society's Legal Complaints Service (LCS),
> > who are an independent complaints handling body that deals with all
> > formal complaints against solicitors. Even though they are part of
> the
> > Law Society, they operate independently.
> >
> > Further details on the LCS are available at the following website:
> >
> > http://www.legalcomplaints.org.uk/home.page
> >
> > Both the above options are available to you and it is your decision
> on
> > where you want to direct your complaint and how it is resolved.
> >
> > In regards to our customer-helpline, it is more than likely that
> there
> > was a miscommunication or misunderstanding between you and my
> colleague
> > as a list of law firms can be accessed easily through a search on
> the
> > CLS Legal Adviser Directory.
> >
> > I hope the above is of assistance to you.
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> >
> >
> > Ka Poh Ling
> > Central Customer Services Unit
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This email (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for
> the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its
> > unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
> If you
> > are not the intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform
> the
> > sender by return e-mail.
> >
> > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be
> intercepted and
> > read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether
> to
> > send information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services
> > Commission are available from
> > http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions/regions.asp
> >
> > The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record
> and
> > retain any incoming and outgoing emails for security reasons and for
> > monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission
> policy on
> > staff use. Email monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and
> email
> > content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
> not
> > broken when writing or forwarding emails and their contents. No
> contracts
> > can be entered into on our behalf by email.
> >
> > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
> not
> > necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
> >
> > The Legal Services Commission checks all mails and attachments for
> known
> > viruses; however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
> your own
> > risk.
> >
> >
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> >
>
>
> ************************************************************************************
> Disclaimer
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment(s)) is private and intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Its unauthorised
> use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the
> intended recipient please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return
> e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium, as messages can be intercepted and
> read by someone else. Please bear this in mind when deciding whether to send
> information by e-mail. Postal addresses for the Legal Services Commission
> are available from http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/regions.asp
>
> The Legal Services Commission reserves the right to monitor, record and
> retain any incoming and outgoing e-mails for security reasons and for
> monitoring internal compliance with the Legal Services Commission policy on
> staff use. E-mail monitoring and/or blocking software may be used and e-mail
> content may be read. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken
> when writing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. No contracts can be
> entered into on our behalf by e-mail.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of the Legal Services Commission.
>
> The Legal Services Commission checks all e-mails and attachments for known
> viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at your own
> risk.
>
> ************************************************************************************
>
>

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: Gunnar.Stavrum@tv2.no
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 04:03:31 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Nov 3, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
To: Veggavisen Admin

Hei,

takk for svar!

Jeg fortstår hva du skriver, om innleggene, at bare noen veldig få av
innleggene jeg har
sendt deg, er fra folk som jeg har på ignore.

Hovedparten av innleggene, er i kategorien, innlegg som er trakasserende i
seg selv,
og ikke fordi de er sendt av brukere jeg har på ignore.

Så jeg vet ikke helt om hvordan vi skal gjøre det med de innleggene jeg
nevnte nå,
altså de som er trakasserende i seg selv.

Det var jo også en del spørsmål i den forrige e-posten jeg sendte, nå for en
times tid
siden, som jeg ikke kan se å ha fått svar på, det var altså om hvordan dere
pleide
å gjøre det, hvis det var uenighet mellom Admin og bruker, om en tråd stod
på riktig
forum eller ikke.

Og også, om hvordan dere pleier å gjøre det, hvis det var uenighet, mellom
Admin og
bruker, om et innlegg var trakasserende eller ikke.

Så jeg prøver å ta med dette en gang til, bare for alle tilfellers skyld.

Så får jeg håpe dere har tid til å se på dette etterhvert.

Så på forhånd takk for hjelp!

Mvh.

Erik Ribsskog


On 11/3/07, Veggavisen Admin wrote:
>
> Hei igjen.
>
> Skal forsøke å forklare dette en gang til.
>
> De meldingene du sender til meg, er IKKE fra de brukere du har satt på
> ignore.
> Meldingene du får, og som du har sendt videre til meg, er beskjeder fra
> forumsystemet om at det .... finnes ett innlegg skrevet av X....
>
> Dette hender uansett om du har satt brukeren på ignore eller ikke.
>
> mvh
> Admin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog
> *To:* Veggavisen Admin
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
>
>
> Hei,
>
> takk for svar!
>
> Da er vi nok litt uenige om det har foregått trakassering eller ikke.
>
> I følge de definisjonene jeg har lest, om hva trakassering er, dvs.
> nedlatende og uønskede utsagn/kommentarer,
> så vil nok jeg si at mer eller mindre alle, av de vel over 40 postene jeg
> har rapportert til dere, de siste månedene,
> må være snakk om trakassering.
>
> Du skriver at det ikke er person-angrep i postene, men jeg mener at de
> postene jeg har sendt er personangrep,
> eller trakassering da.
>
> Av forskjellige grunner, noen synes jeg var trakasserende fordi brukerne
> fortsatte å sende meg meldinger,
> enda jeg hadde satt de på 'ignore', og ikke svarte de på de forrige
> meldingene.
>
> Men det er kanskje uenighet mellom oss, om hva trakassering er.
>
> Jeg har forstått det sånn, at det er utsagn, som er nedlatende og
> uønskede.
>
> Jeg tar det for gitt at jeg selv bestemmer hva som er ønsket eller ikke.
>
> Og da blir det vel bare igjen å avgjøre om utsagnet er nedlatende eller
> ikke da.
>
> Men det er mulig at vi er uenige om hva nedlatende betyr.
>
> Sånn som jeg har skjønt det, er et utsagn nedlatende, hvis det setter en
> person, på et nivå under de
> andre.
>
> Så hvis noen sier du skrive jammen meg masse sprøe innlegg må jeg si.
>
> Da mener jeg dette er nedlatende, fordi da er man jo sprø, hvis man
> skriver 'sprø' innlegg.
>
> Og å være sprø, er jo ikke like bra som å være 'normal'.
>
> Så da er det nedlatende, mot den som blir kalt sprø, fordi da er pesonen
> på et lavere nivå
> enn de som er normale.
>
> Så sånn er det jeg forstår dette med trakassering og hva begrepet
> nedlatende betyr.
>
> Og det er vanskelig for meg å tilbakevise det du skriver, om at postene
> ikke er pesonangrep.
>
> Det er enklere hvis vi tar en og en post, men jeg rapportert poster til
> dere fortløpende, ca. de
> siste en og en halv, eller to månendene, og så drøyer det lenge med å få
> svar, så det er jo
> ikke så lett å ta for seg et innlegg av gangen da.
>
> Men hvis du har noen konkrete eksempler på hvorfor alle disse over 40
> rapporterte postene,
> ikke er trakassering, så hadde det også vært fint.
>
> For da er det enkelere for meg å skjønne hvordan dere tolker reglene, enn
> hvis dere bare
> skriver at det ikke er trakassering, uten å forklare hvordan dette
> defineres, og f.eks. bruke
> eksempler da.
>
> For da hadde jeg skjønt mere hvordan dere avgjør om noe er trakassering
> eller ikke.
>
> For hva dere mener er trakassering, det er litt uklart for meg nå.
>
> Så hvis dere har tid, så kan dere jo se om dere har eventuelt tid til å
> forklare om dette, det
> hadde vært veldig bra i såfall.
>
> Du svarte forresten ikke på det jeg spurte om i den e-posten jeg
> 'forwarded' sammen med den forrige e-posten,
> altså hvordan dere pleide å gå frem, hvis det var uenighet, mellom Admin
> og bruker, om på hvilket forum en
> tråd hører hjemme.
>
> I tillegg lurer jeg også på om hvordan dere pleier å gå frem, dersom det
> er uenighet mellom Admin og bruker,
> om innlegg som er rapportert, er trakasserende eller ikke.
>
> Jeg er i en prosess med å ta kontakt med advokat i Norge, angående andre
> spørsmål, så jeg kan jo høre
> med de om dette, hvis jeg får noen svar av det, om hva som regnes som
> trakassering innefor lovverket i
> Norge.
>
> For jeg regner vel med, at man i tillegg til forum-reglene, også er
> beskyttet av Norges Lover, når det gjelder
> ting som mobbing og trakassering, så hvis jeg får ordnet med advokat osv.
> som planlagt, så skal jeg også
> prøve å finne ut litt mer om dette.
>
> Men samme det.
>
> Dere får se om dere har tid til å forklare litt bedre, hvordan dere mener
> trakassering osv.
>
> Hvis ikke så kan jeg også prøve å ta det med advokat osv., og høre hvordan
> de definerer det, for det er vel
> ikke umulig at dette også går under Norges Lover.
>
> Det er sikkert verdt å sjekke ut mer om i allefall.
>
> For jeg mener at jeg har blitt trakassert i alle disse tilfellene, og det
> mener jeg er uakseptabelt, så det synes
> jeg ikke er riktig at man bare skal finne seg i, og få høre at det ikke er
> trakassering, for da skjønner i hvertfall
> ikke jeg hva trakassering er.
>
> Så det er fint hvis dere har mulighet til å klargjøre litt mer om dette.
>
> Så på forhånd takk for hjelp i forbindelse med det, og igjen takk for det
> forrige svaret!
>
> Mvh.
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
> On 11/3/07, Veggavisen Admin wrote:
> >
> > Heisann
> >
> > Nå har jeg vært igjennom de e-postene du har sendt. Det generelle
> > inntrykket er at det ikke har foregått noe trakassering av deg. Noen snedige
> > kommentarer finnes riktig nok, men bruker man ett debattforum, er man nødt
> > til å kunne akseptere at det kommer meninger om en selv. Mange av de
> > e-postene du sendte inneholdt overhodet ingen angrep eller i det hele tatt
> > forsøk på angrep på din person.
> >
> > mvh
> > Admin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Erik Ribsskog
> > *To:* veggavisen@tv2.no
> > *Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2007 12:01 AM
> > *Subject:* Fwd: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
> >
> >
> >
> > Hei,
> >
> >
> >
> > nå er jeg tilbake med en oppsummering her.
> >
> >
> >
> > Det ble til sammen 37 e-poster jeg sendte, angående e-poster som jeg
> > mener
> >
> > faller inn under kategoriene personangrep/trakassering.
> >
> >
> >
> > (Et par av e-postene inneholdt også innlegg som ble sendt meg, etter at
> > jeg hadde
> >
> > satt personen på 'ignore', og at personen burde ha vist at jeg ignorerte
> > personen,
> >
> > siden jeg ikke svarte på de forrige postene.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Og jeg husker også at det var en del personangrep/trakassering i tråden
> > 'Norge er
> >
> > ikke som du tror'.
> >
> >
> >
> > Men dette var før jeg fikk satt på varslingsfunksjonen, så fra de
> > postene har jeg
> >
> > dessverre ikke noen e-poster.
> >
> >
> >
> > Og hvis det er noen poster du/dere er i tvil om hvorfor jeg sendte, så
> > bare kontakt
> >
> > meg tilbake angående de, og jeg vil forklare dette nærmere.
> >
> >
> >
> > Så jeg gjentar spørsmålet fra tidligere e-post, altså hva dere har
> > gjort/har tenkt å
> >
> > gjøre, i forbindelse med de postene jeg har rapportert om tidligere, og
> > om de
> >
> > e-postene jeg har sendt i dag.
> >
> >
> >
> > Så jeg ser frem til å motta nærmere svar fra dere angående dette!
> >
> >
> >
> > Håper dette er i orden!
> >
> >
> >
> > Mvh.
> >
> >
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Erik Ribsskog
> > Date: Oct 28, 2007 9:54 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
> > To: veggavisen@tv2.no
> >
> > Hei,
> >
> > nå skriver jeg tilbake angående tråder og poster med
> > personangrep/trakassering osv.
> >
> > Jeg gjør det på den måten, at jeg går gjennom e-poster jeg har fått
> > gjennom varsling for nye
> > poster metoden på forumet.
> >
> > Også sender jeg de, som jeg synes faller inn under definisjonen
> > personangrep/trakassering.
> >
> > (De fleste av disse er nok rapportert før, men det skulle bli enklere å
> > kikke på det samlet nå,
> > ettersom jeg sender e-postene etter hverandre, så da burde det være
> > enklere å få en samlet
> > oversikt).
> >
> > Jeg sender e-postene fra to e-post adresser da, siden jeg byttet fra
> > eribsskog@gmail.com,
> > til erik.ribsskog@btinternet.com, siden jeg ikke bruker den siste e-post
> > adressen så mye,
> > så da slapp jeg å få så mange trakasserende innlegg fra folk jeg hadde
> > på ignore på den
> > 'vanlige' e-post adressen.
> >
> > Grunnen til at jeg ikke fjernet varsling fra de aktuelle trådene på
> > forumet, var at jeg synes
> > det er oversiktelig å se på 'mitt forum' siden, når varsling er på, for
> > da ser man tid og dato
> > for når de siste postene er skrevet i hver tråd.
> >
> > Og jeg bruker mest bare BT e-post adressen, som en slags reserve e-post
> > adresse, fordi
> > jeg har startet å bruke gmail, og BT klarte å stave navnet mitt feil i
> > BT epost-adressen,
> > når jeg begynte å abonnere på fasttelefon og internett fra de, så jeg
> > begynte aldri å
> > bruke den BT adressen så mye.
> >
> > Så da har det bare blitt til at jeg bruker gmail e-postadressen.
> >
> > I tilfelle det var noen som lurte på det der.
> >
> > Men samme det.
> >
> > Jeg sender kopier av de aktuelle e-postene nå, også når jeg gått gjennom
> > alle e-postene,
> > så sender en vanlig e-post til slutt, for å oppsumere hvor mange
> > e-poster jeg har sendt,
> > og om hvordan vi skal gjøre det fremover i forbindelse med dette osv.
> >
> > Håper dette er i orden!
> >
> > Mvh.
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Erik Ribsskog < eribsskog@gmail.com>
> > Date: Oct 28, 2007 5:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
> > To: Veggavisen Admin
> >
> >
> > Hei,
> >
> > takk for svar!
> >
> > Ja, de kan vel se gjennom det hvis de har tid osv. da.
> >
> > Men det er ikke sånn jeg mente det, at dere behøvde å lage noen nye
> > rutiner osv. for min del, så
> > det skal jeg egentlig ikke blande meg i.
> >
> > Kanskje det er jeg som er kranglete, og at det aldri har vært noe
> > uenighet om hvilket forum
> > trådene passer best på før?
> >
> > Sånn jeg tenkte meg det, var at dere løste det sånn som dere pleide å
> > løse det med lignende
> > problemer.
> >
> > Jeg hadde ikke tenk å legge meg opp i hvordan rutinene skal være da, for
> > å si det sånn.
> >
> > Men jeg skal prøve å få sett igjennom de trådene på nytt i løpet av
> > dagen.
> >
> > Så da sender jeg en ny oppdatering angående de innleggene jeg mente var
> > trakasserende osv.,
> > senere i dag.
> >
> > Håper dette er i orden, og igjen takk for svar!
> >
> > Mvh.
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> > On 10/28/07, Veggavisen Admin wrote:
> > >
> > > Heisann.
> > >
> > > Det virker som vi er litt uenige der ja.
> > > Kan sende saken til VApanelet, som hjelper meg med fokustrådene blant
> > > annet. Dette er nøytrale personer, som ikke skriver noe særlig på forumet
> > > lenger, og om tør å være ærlige. Ikke en offisiell klageinstans, men kanskje
> > > de vil se på saken?
> > >
> > > Når det gjelder trakassering. Har sett en del mailer, men har til nå
> > > ikke funnet noe spesielt som jeg vil slå ned på. Ettersom jeg får en god del
> > > mailer pr dag, så er jeg ikke i stand til å huske konkret hvor denne
> > > trakasseringen skulle ha foregått. Jeg vil gjerne at du skriver til meg
> > > hvilke tråder det er, så kan jeg ta en ekstra kikk på det.
> > >
> > > mvh
> > > Admin
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Erik Ribsskog
> > > *To:* Veggavisen Admin
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:47 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
> > >
> > >
> > > Hei,
> > >
> > > da er vi nok uenige.
> > >
> > > For da ser dere ikke helheten i posten.
> > >
> > > Og det er om dette er ledd i et mønster, som det står i
> > > temasamendraget, for å tulle med Carl og Eli Hagen,
> > > (og andre Frp-topper).
> > >
> > > Altså om det er en politisk motivert kampanje for å trakassere
> > > politikere som tilhører en hvis politisk blokk.
> > >
> > > For å på den måten skade en politisk blokk, og dermed styrke en annen.
> > >
> > > Så da tror jeg at man legger for mye vekt på enkeltdetaljer i
> > > innlegget, istedet for å se på helheten.
> > >
> > > Så da er vi nok uenige ja.
> > >
> > > Men jeg klarer ikke helt å fortså hvordan det er mulig å unngå å se
> > > helheten i innlegget.
> > >
> > > I allefall hvis man leder et debattforum, så burde man vel være vant
> > > til å se helheten for et innlegg, og ikke
> > > henge seg opp i detaljene.
> > >
> > > Så dette synes jeg var snodig, hvis jeg skal si min mening.
> > >
> > > Men dere har kanskje noen klageinstans?
> > >
> > > Jeg har også vært plaget med trakassering på forumet deres, og jeg har
> > > rapportert en del innlegg, og sent
> > > en del e-poster i forbindelse med dette.
> > >
> > > Så jeg sendte dere en e-post 18/10, hvor jeg spurte om dere hadde
> > > gjort noe i forbindelse med dette.
> > >
> > > Men jeg kan ikke se at jeg har fått noe svar på den e-posten ennå,
> > > enda det er godt over en uke siden
> > > jeg sendte den.
> > >
> > > Men jeg skal sende den på nytt nå, sammen med denne eposten, så det
> > > blir spennede å se om det
> > > dukker opp noe svar.
> > >
> > > Så får jeg håpe at dere blir flinkere til å ta hensyn til helheten i
> > > innleggene i framtiden.
> > >
> > > Mvh.
> > >
> > > Erik Ribsskog
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/27/07, Veggavisen Admin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hei
> > > >
> > > > Med tanke på tematittelen, og mye av postens innhold, da spesielt
> > > > fokuset på Eli Hagens frisyre, og hennes utforkjøring, kan vi desverre ikke
> > > > se at dette er av nok politisk relevans for å la det bli stående på
> > > > politikkforumet.
> > > >
> > > > mvh
> > > > Veggavisen
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > *From:* Erik Ribsskog
> > > > *To:* veggavisen@tv2.no
> > > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:56 AM
> > > > *Subject:* Re: Veggavisen - Tema flyttet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hei,
> > > >
> > > > nå tror jeg dere har glemt å tørke søvnen ut av øynene her.
> > > >
> > > > For det er i høyeste grad politikk.
> > > >
> > > > Det går på problemstillinger rundt skitne og uærlige triks, for å
> > > > påvirke styrkeforholdet
> > > > mellom de politiske blokkene.
> > > >
> > > > Så dette må dere se på en gang til synes jeg.
> > > >
> > > > På forhånd takk for hjelp!
> > > >
> > > > Mvh.
> > > >
> > > > Erik Ribsskog
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/27/07, veggavisen@tv2.no < veggavisen@tv2.no> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Temaet kalt Eli Hagens frisør - Spøkefugl eller faglig dyktig?,
> > > > > har blitt flyttet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Du kan nå se det på: http://forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=130&threadid=38368&forumid=1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>