To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:50:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I see that you have conluded your involvement.
But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he turned
the lights on there, at the beginning of the
meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect on,
that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the
CAB premisses.
I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if it's
calles Street Theater.
6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website, for
years, like it seems from the website design?
7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was
being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to
something that was sinister.
I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to
know what it was due to.
What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained, in
the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow
>
> Dear Mr Ribbskog
>
> Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached a
> screenshot.
>
> I attach my letter in reply.
>
> Barbara Stow
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Ribsskog
> To: Barbara Stow
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your answer!
>
> I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on it.
>
> I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
>
> 5.
>
> Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
>
> What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay,
> since he wouldn't let
> me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
>
> Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about what
> went on in the company.
>
> They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to
> the building I live in, which was
> written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing
> Director, had put in charge of
> the investigation of the problems I had reported.
>
> And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
>
> I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment,
> which is the way I saw it.
>
> Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called
> 'constructed dismissal'.
>
> So I didn't leave the employment.
>
> I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
>
> I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your
> report.
>
> 9.
>
> You write that the area was poorly lit.
>
> It was in fact very poorly lit.
>
> One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
>
> (At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
>
> And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
>
> This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was held in
> the
> dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
>
> 11.
>
> Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case, on
> a payment plan type
> of payment-solution.
>
> Miss Pool said this.
>
> So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment plan
> type of payment-solution,
> then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
>
> I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's
> reflected in your report.
>
> 16.
>
> You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David
> Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
> the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
>
> This isn't right at all.
>
> My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
>
> And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
>
> I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is remarkable.
>
> Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many days
> later.
>
> Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
>
> Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
>
> So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I
> sent the Chief Executive,
> was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
>
> 51.
>
> You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address, listed
> on
>
> www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
>
> But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the
> e-mail-button.
>
> Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
>
> bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
>
> and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you write
> in your report.
>
> I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from
> today, that shows this.
>
> 52.
>
> You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
>
> But I don't agree with this.
>
> Due to these reasons:
>
> 1:
>
> The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was
> held with the lights on.
>
> But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
>
> Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he switched
> the lights on.
>
> And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
>
> The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone
> list, instead of the
> phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
>
> But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the
> Chair there, thats Chairman of
> the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
>
> I don't think this is very fair.
>
> 2:
>
> Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
>
> But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there,
> Follows, weren't answered at all.
>
> This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
>
> 3:
>
> And what about the problems with the automated reply.
>
> Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of the
> nature of this reply.
>
> Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it found
> it right to send itself.
>
> Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with
> seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
>
> Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
>
> Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
>
> So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
>
> And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on,
> at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
> since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the
> Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
>
> These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
>
> So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the obvious
> errors you've made, with the Liverpool
> Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you
> have checked, and you say it's now
> the right address, which it isn't.
>
> And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief
> Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
> ('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in
> fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
> like you write in your report).
>
> So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think
> this can be disputed.
>
> The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative,
> isn't reflected on.
>
> That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't
> acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
> answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
>
> Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
>
> That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the
> EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
>
> So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was
> held in the dark or not.
>
> I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street Theather',
> arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
>
> That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set up
> there, in connection with my meeting there
> on 5/4, last year.
>
> This isn't taken seriously.
>
> I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in
> contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
> I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some
> reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
>
> (Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with a
> collegue there, in the township, that the
> shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level
> studies).
>
> When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I
> explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
> on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that noone
> wants to be involved'.
>
> I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of the
> Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
> about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some type
> of survailance operation, around me.
>
> And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part of
> this Police surveilance operation.
>
> So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just some
> kind of phoney set-up.
>
> I don't think this is right.
>
> Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens
> have the right, to work and live in Britain.
>
> And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
>
> So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way
> like this, since the Police want's to have some
> kind of set-ups, like it seems.
>
> Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your report.
>
> But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned,
> and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
> and fail to reflect on.
>
> Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this phoney
> Police operation, or what this all is.
>
> So I think this is very poor.
>
> That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to
> work for making sure that peoples rights are
> respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
>
> Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the whole
> CAB process around the meeting and
> the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
>
> So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I
> think something will be done regarding the
> serious issues I've been pointing at here.
>
> But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll
> be able to deal with this in that way, that
> I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and maybe
> react or reflect on what's going on.
>
> So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
>
> Just to explain about this.
>
> Hope this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerly,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
> On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow
> >
> > Dear Mr Eribsskog
> >
> > I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
> >
> > I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within
> > the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> >
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> > Independent Adjudicator
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > From: Barbara Stow
> > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> > Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> >
> > When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review
> > by today, 18 April.
> >
> > I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
> >
> > I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the
> > end of next week.
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> > Independent Adjudicator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > From: Barbara Stow
> > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> > Subject: Citizens Advice
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> >
> > I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> > write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> > me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> > as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
> >
> > I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with
> > the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no
> > authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> > whether it has been considered properly.
> >
> > Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> > includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> > accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
> >
> > If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are
> > unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know
> > at the e-mail address above.
> >
> > I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not
> > heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to
> > add to what you have explained already.
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> > Independent Adjudicator
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Innlegg
