More about the 'magic' automated reply from the CAB Chief Executive.

In the independant CAB adjunctants report, regarding the CAB-case, it says this, regarding the 'magic' automated reply:

16. On 5 and 27 July, the client e-mailed the complaints officer to

say he had received no answer from the bureau. On 3 and 22

August, the client e-mailed the chief executive of Citizens

Advice to say he had received no answer. The first

communication he received after the complaints officer‘s e-mail

of 31 May was an automated reply from the chief executive‘s

office on 22 August saying that he would be away from the

office until 30 August.

http://johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/04/report-from-cab-case-independant.html

I'll write the sentence in bold again, so that it's more overviewable:

On 3 and 22 August, the client e-mailed the chief executive of Citizens

Advice to say he had received no answer.

This isn't right at all. I sent the e-mails on 3 and 16 August, like can be seen in this blog-post, that contains the e-mail from 16/8, in a forwarded e-mail, to a manager/director at the CAB head office, sent earlier this year:

http://johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/02/enclosure-1-e-mail-to-cab-252.html

And here is a link to the 'magic' automated reply:

http://johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/02/enclosure-2-e-mail-to-cab-252.html

One can read above, that the independant CAB adjunctant writes this, in her report:

The first communication he received after the complaints officer‘s e-mail
of 31 May was an automated reply from the chief executive‘s office on 22 August saying that he would be away from the office until 30 August.

I wrote the date in bold, thats 22 August.

So this, the 'magic' automated reply, is waiting for six days, from Thurday 16 August 2007 to Wednesday 22 August (I checked the days in my calender, or what it's called again), before it thinks it's about time, to send itself, to my e-mail address.

So I don't know what the 'magic' automated reply was doing in the meantime.

What was the automated reply, doing on Friday 17 August, Saturday 18 August, Sunday 19 August, Monday 20 August and Tuesday 21 August?

Was it AWOL, or what it's called again?

I think this is very strange.

Shouldn't the CAB head-office, keep better track of their automated replies?

And not let them use six days, before they reach the right e-mail address.

When I recieved the magic automated reply, I didn't read it that properly, I was a bit stressed.

I thought it was a normal e-mail.

Since I was reading it in a break from work.

So I didn't really note, that it claimed to be an automated reply.

I thought at first, when I was a bit tired, when I read the e-mail, that it was a proper e-mail of some type.

Sent by a human.

Since, it didn't cross my mind, that it could have been an automated reply, when I recieved it, almost a week after I sent the reminder e-mail, on 16/8.

So I thought that this had been looked at, by the CAB Chief Executive.

So when I, a couple of weeks later, recieved the stage 1 report, from the Liverpool Central CAB, then I thought this was because the Chief Executive had looked at this.

And therefore, I wasn't really sure if I should complain, about the stage 1 report.

Since it seemed to me, that the CAB Chief Executive, had already involved himself, in the complain-process.

So that it had really, already, been at the top-level of the organisation.

So I had to think a while about this, because at first, then I thought it would be inpolite of me to complain, about the stage 1 report, since the Chief Executive, seemingly to me, had been involved in getting the stage 1 report, or at least getting it sent.

But I decieded later, to complain to the Chair, like the representative is called, there.

But due to this, that the 'magic' automated reply, at first, seemed to me, to be sent by a person, indicating, that the Chief Executive there, had directly or indirectly, involved himself in the complaint process.

Then I at first decided not to complain.

I decided to post about it on the BBC message-board, I think it was, or possibly another message-board, in Scandinavia.

And after looking more about this, in connection with the posting on the message-board, then I decided to complain.

I think it was then I discovered that the 'magic' reply, claimed to be 'automatic'.

But, now, I suspect, that this was done this way, deliberatly.

Like I wrote, in the answer to the CAB-case independant adjunctant:

http://johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/04/from-eribsskoggmail_24.html

I think there has been some type of Police surveilance operation around me, since I reported to the St. Ann St. Police, in 2005, that I had overheard, that I was being followed by the 'mafia', and that I was being chased away from my uncles farm in Larvik, in Norway, some days earlier, by some people with guns and dogs.

(It's possible, that I didn't get to explain this much, since the Police didn't want to listen to my explanation, since they didn't want to be involved, like I overheard the Police-officer, telling his collegues, in the office they have, in conection, with the reception there.

And then they sent me out, after handing me a folder, and telling me to come back, if something actually had been going on).

I didn't really know to say then.

So I said, that I couldn't go back if I was dead, I'm not sure if I understood exactly what he meant.

Like I understood it, I could only go back, if someone had actually succeded in killing or injuring me.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what they meant.

But the Police-officer, was very young and tense.

And I was stressed from being chased.

So I just said that I couldn't go back if I was dead, because what the Police-officer said, didn't make any sence to me.

And I didn't think it was any point in trying to reason, since I had already overheard, that they didn't want to be involved.

So I just went out from there, with the folder, with the phone-number on it, even if how the Police were reasoning, surrounding this, seemed a bit unclear to me.

And back to the CAB-case.

I suspect, that the Streat Theater operation, that it seems to me, that the strange incidents on the Liverpool Central CAB, on 5/4, last year was.

I suspect, that this Street Theater operation, could be a part of, a surveilance operation, from the British Police, that started after I went to the Police-station in St. Ann's St. in Liverpool, in July/August 2005.

Or, really, I suspect it started before this, since there was something going on, in London, when I went there, in February 2005, from Sunderland, where I was studying the third year of my Bachelor Computing degree, on the University there.

There was some strange things going on then, so it could be, that the British Police, knew about what went on in Oslo, in 2003 and 2004, since it seemed to me, that the whole city there, knew about what went on then.

Even if I myself, didn't know exactly what went on, other than the things I had overheard at work, and more, which I have explained a bit about, in this blog-post:

http://johncons-mirror.blogspot.com/2008/02/lack-of-openness-from-government.html

So it seemed clear to me, that something serious, to do with some 'mafia' etc, was going on in Oslo, even if I can't say that I had been doing anything wrong.

But, at first, I wasn't sure, if this was known about, in Britain.

I didn't really think, that people in eg. London, cared that much about what went on in Oslo.

Since London, is obviously a very large city.

But, something strange, went on there as well, but I'm not sure exactly, what went on.

But people acted very strange there, and from what I overheard there, some mafia or mob-stuff went on.

Eg. I went to Harrods once, and then I overheard, that someone called someone else, from a mobile-phone, and said, he isn't just staying at the hotel, now he is on Harrods.

So I thought this was very strange.

I wasn't sure exactly, why someone would call like this.

And several other, more or less, similar incidents, happened there, which I now suspect that maybe could be linked with what went on in Oslo, even if it also could have been, for some reason, not linked with the problems in Oslo.

I'm not used with things to do with mob/mafia, or what the right term is, so I can't really say this for sure.

But, in the end, I thought, many people in London, acted very stale when they saw me, and I overheard, someone talking outside the room which I rented on the hotel.

So, I decieded to go to some other place than London, which I had really planned to try to find an appartment and job, in.

Since, from what I had heard, from before this, it would be easier, to find a job in, in eg. computing, or shop-management, which I had worked with from before, than in Sunderland.

The study abroad advisor, on my home university in Oslo, HiO, Frode something, had a British friend/collegue, from Sunderland, who said in a meeting in Oslo, some months before I went to Sunderland, that it was almost imposible, to find a job there.

So that's one of the reasons, that I decided to go to London, to try to find a job, since my studies, were very delayed, due to some problems, with my study-finance, from Lånekassa, being four or five months delayed, even if HiO had told me, that they would send an aplication for me, in the spring of 2004.

And HiO, also, at first, wouldn't approve my modules there,

(I needed HiO, to approve the modules there, to get the study-founding from the Norwegian Government Study Finance Programme, Lånekassa. Around February of 2004, I think it was, I delivered two Study Abroad applications, to HiO.

One Erasmus-programme application (I had some loans since I had a lot of problems wih my car in Oslo, which I bought, when I was promoted to Rimi grocery store manager, in 1998. And the car was often broken in to, about three times a year I'd guess, and there were a lot of problems with the enigine and the electric system and more, so I guess I should have checked the car better before I bought it, but I had set aside some founds for repairs, like I had told my friend Magne Winnem, so I thought I was covered).

So the Erasumus programme grant, would have helped me paying the bills, for the loans.

I hadn't imagined that the founding from Lånekassa, would be so many months delayed, because I seemed to remember, that the applications there, were quite quickly processed, if one sent them, after the peek-season, since I half remebered this, from when I had sent an application to them, some years earlier. At least I this was how I remebered, that the system there worked, since not very many applications were sent them, after the automn-term had started.

But, HiO, said, that, since there was a module I hadn't taken the exam in.

(I was a bit overworked, after the years working as a Rimi grocery store manager, and the part-time job, as team-leader on Rimi Bjørndal, was very tirering, since the two store-managers working there, both put on a lot of pressure on me, even if I was only working two shifts a week.

My Area Manager there, Skodvin, asked me if I could work a shift in another shop, Rimi Langhus, which was having a kind of 'war' then, between the store manager then, Brun, and the staff.

I said that was alright, and then they needed a team-leader there, so I said that I could work there one shift a week.

So then I was working three shifts a week, as team-leader, in two different Rimi Shops.

Since I wanted to be cover my back, since I didn't get on that well, with any of the store-managers I had when I was working as a team-leader, while studyin full time, Computing/Bachelor Information Technology, on HiO (Oslo Universtiy College), in 2002-2004.

I was used to not putting that much pressure, on the Team-Leaders, when I was working as a store-manager myself.

Since I understood, that they had a lot of other things going on in their lifes, and really were just working, so that the store-manager, and the assisting store-manager, could have their rest-days.

So I couldn't understand, why they were putting so much work on me, I had to run around there, all the time, especially on Rimi Bjørndal, which is a busy shop, with a lot of customers, and low avarage spending for each customer, which means that the shop had to have more customers, to have the same income, that most other Rimi shops, but there wasn't more money spent to use on salaries, so there was more work for each person, and I thougt I got a bit more than my share of the extra work, since the manager there, put on a lot of pressure, regarding what I had to do, on eg. the busy Saturday late shift, which I worked every week. And this was not negoable. I was really on my way out of Rimi, I had just agreed to have a part-time job, so that I could keep my Rimi-flat, untill I had got å new job, in eg. management in a computing-firm, or as self-employed in computing.

So I tried to cover my back, by getting a second team-leader Rimi job, in case the problems with the Rimi Bjørndal store-manager, would escalate into some kind of constructed dismissal, or something like this.

I didn't really get on that well with the Area Manager eighter, she was a bit stale, and difficult to communitate with sometimes, and she withdrew the plan b arrangement, I had made, that I could start as store-manager again, if plan a, to work as a manager in a computing firm etc, for some reason failed.

The years I had been working as a Rimi store-manager, in 1998-2002, in three different stores, had been very eventful, with a lot of conflicts etc.

For some reason.

And in one shop, Rimi Kalbakken, I got the store assistants, against me, so I had to almost keep the shop, myself, it seemed to me, for about half a year there.

And it was a big shop, with a weekly income, of around 700.000 NOK, which is about £70.000.

So it was a lot of work, and a lot of conflicts.

And before I started there, I had been managing a smaller store, Rimi Nylænde, where there had been a lot of robberies, and projects, like starting with the Government lottery, Norsk Tipping, moving the fruit-department, chaning the freezers and the chlling-machines.

And some conflicts etc.

I had before this, from 1993-1998, been working on very low Rimi team-leader, and assisting manager salaries.

So, when I finally got a decent salary, I thought it was fun to do something else than just working in Rimi.

In the years 1993-1998, a large part of my life, was working on Rimi, and learning to run a Rimi store.

Even if I was working quite a lot, and I was a lot on the internet etc, to relax and recover from the stess in the store.

So, I hadn't been having a very good economy, in the first years of the nineties.

Since the Rimi store-manager assistant salaries then, were so low, that they were writen about, on the front-pages, of the national newspapers in Norway.

But in the first years of the nineties, Norway was recovering from a recession.

And since I had started working in Rimi, I thought it would be smart to have it on my CV, that I had worked as a store manager also, and not only as an assistant.

Since I thought it would be valuable, to have that on my CV, that would give a better impression then I reconed, and people I spoke with about this, also thought this.

And in 1998, my mother lent me some money, around £1000, to go to a Microsoft NT 3.0 or 4.0, I guess it was, course, for a week, in a holiday from Rimi, which my mate, Magne Winnem, who worked as a lecturer in Computing, had recomended me to take.

To get a computing-job, which I thought seemed tempting, since I had been working for more than two years, as a store manager assistant, on Rimi Bjørndal, with a lot of routine-work then.

But then, when I had finished the one week NT course, at Global Knowledge Network, in Skullerud, in Oslo, around February 1998.

Then I thought I could ask the Area Manager, Skodvin, if there was any future for me, in Rimi, before I started appying for computer jobs.

Since I hadn't really written any job-applications and dealt with things like that, for many years, and the work on Rimi Bjørndal, was very high-tempo, I worked all of the late shifts, so I thought that I would maybe be a bit bored, working in an office, after working so many years in a shop, with a lot of people around.

And I was used to working with almost only very beautiful young women, at Rimi Bjørndal, the last year I worked there. I was managing maybe five or six almost only very beautiful women, for some reason, on the late-shifts there, so I was also a bit worried, that I would maybe be a bit restless, if I should start working in an office, with programming etc, since I was used to working with a lot of pretty women around me all the time, on Rimi Bjørndal, in 1997 and 1998.

So I asked the Area-Manager, first, before I started to apply to computing-jobs, if she thought I had a future in Rimi, as a store-manager.

Then, she discussed this, with the Bjørndal store-manager, Kvehaugen, and then I heard she said to him, that I guess we have to give him a chance now.

Then I had been working as a Rimi store-managing assistant, for more than four years on a low salary, so I thought it was about time, to get some progress, on my work-situation.

Then I was offered Rimi Nylænde.

I was a bit disapointed, since I thought it would be a bigger store, Munkelia. (With more probably more women working in it, since I was very used to having a lot women around me at work all time. It almost made me crazy sometimes, with all the pretty women there).

But I knew Rimi Nylænde well from working there for two or three years from before, so in that perspective, it was an fine store to manage).

But there were a lot of things always happening, conflicts etc., in the three stores I had been working as a manager in.

And i was really tired, from working more than two years, with all the late-shifts, from the very busy Rimi Bjørndal shop, with all the work, the store manager there, Kvehaugen, put on me, while I was working there, in the years before starting working as a store-manager, in 1998.

So the three years working as a store-manager, really go to me.

Especially, the eight months or so, at Rimi Kalbakken, one of the largest Rimi shops in Oslo, where there were problems with the store-assistants etc.

But I thought it would be very embarrasing, to not sucseed managing a big store, so I went on, trying to keep the shop, at least the fruit-department, and chilled food department, myself, for many months, which was tirering, since it was a big shop, and I was tired from the years before in Rimi.

And there was a war with the assistant there, and the Area-manager, etc.

But then, Skodvin, offered me to start managing Rimi Langhus, in Ski municipality, south of Oslo.

A shop, that had a weekly income, in between, of Rimi Nylænde (in the Oslo township Lambertseter), and Rimi Kalbakken.

But the shop was challenging to run, in the way, that the shop-area, was really much to small, for the weekly income, and number of customers a day there.

So it was challenging, with the orders, and the logistics etc, since the non-shoping areas also were really to small there.

But this shop, Rimi Langhus, was very poorly run, from before, from a customer-perspective, I think one have to say.

Since the campaigns looked very poor, the fruit was almost always poorly presented, and goods were often sold out etc.

And I had been working several years, in another Rimi shop, Rimi Nylænde, which was quite similar, in the way that it was a bit worn down shop, that we succeded, in getting a better standard at, I think one can say.

So I felt a bit at home at Rimi Langhus, since I was so used with working as a manager, on Rimi Nylænde.

So even if I was very tired, when I was working at Rimi Langhus, and really only worked there, to get control of my economy, to get a job outside of Rimi, since I had totally lost faith in the Higher Management in the Rimi head-office, since I thought there had been a lot of unprofessional errors from them, regarding how I was explained to run Rimi Kalbakken etc., which created a lot of the problems I had been having there.

And I had had enough of problems with conflicts etc., so I tried to manage Rimi Langhus, in a way, that I let the assistant manager, get a lot of responsibility for the mangement of the shop.

I tried to ask the staff, what the store-manager work-tasks where.

So that the staff shouldn't be to stressed, from a new store-manager working there.

Since you don't wont unrest among the staff, at least not, if you are very tired from before, and don't want to work a lot of extra shifts, due to staff calling in sick etc.

And also, because I thought this was a good way of managing the shop, to include the other the other managers and staff, with manager-meetings, and staff-meetings.

This was also how the previous manager had been running the shop, it seemed to me.

And the staff there, were quite wary, on the Area Manager, and people that weren't from Langhus, I thought it seemed, so I chose to have a quite democratic management style, when I was working there.

But I had learned a bit about runing food-shops, from the seven or eight years as a Rimi manager, from before I started working on Rimi Langhus.

And this was a lot more than the previous manager had been working, since he was on a programme in Rimi, to work at the head-office, and working out in the field, as a store-manager, for one year, was part of this trainee-program.

So even if I didn't change any of the rutines, on Rimi Langhus etc.

Since I reset myself, and tryed to take the approach, that if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.

Even so, the results in the shop, improved, since I tryed to put empasis on the general shop-work.

Like trying to put up fruit better, and improve that department, since this deparment, had had a low standard, from before.

And the same with the campaigns there etc.

And also, in the summer of 2001, I got some of the part time team-leaders, to do work like rearrange the shelves in the shops, after 'planograms', which where drawings, from the head office, which are constructed in a way, that the goods in the shop earn most money on, are given more and better shelf-place.

So that building the shelfs, according to the 'planograms' make sure the profit of the shop, and placing of the goods, is optimised.

And then the own-label goods sold percentage increased.

The fruit sold percentage of the total income increased.

And the avarage amount sold pr. customer increased.

So in the last half of 2001, the shop won the Rimi managemnet prize, 'Rimi Gullårer', as one of only three shops, of maybe 100 or so, in the greater Oslo Area.

Even I was very tired and overworked this year.

So that was a bit fun.

But I had been working hard on Rimi Langhus also, since I didn't want to disapoint the staff and the customers there, since I had overheard that some of the staff/customers, were dispointed in me there, since the shop wasn't looking that fine, after I had been working there for maybe a month, since the Area-manager, I think it must have been, had promised them, that the shop-standard would improve, when I started working there, since the shop-standard had improved, when I managed Rimi Nylænde, a year or two before this.

But in the mean-time, I had been very over-worked at Rimi Kalbakken.

But I thought it wouldn't be very fun, thinking back on, that I had in a way, let down, Rimi Langhus, so I tried to do a good job, with improving the shop-standard etc. there).

So I finally had arranged, to start studying again, in the automn of 2002, than I was very tired and overworked, and a bit depressed due to problems at Rimi Kalbakken, and it was embarrasing, to tell my family and friens, that I was going to start studying again, since they didn't really know how it was, to work with all the conflicts etc, in the big shop, Rimi Kalbakken, since this was really tirering, working there, since I don't really like to quit, when I've set myself a target, so then I just goes on.

But in the end, I had to give up there, because, trying to run such a big shop, when you're not on level terms with the staff, assistant managers and head-office managers and directors, that isn't very easy.

So I don't think I could have lasted much longer, coping with working there, it was like in a stale-mate there, so it was really, eighter me who had quit, or all of the other employees and managers, that had to quit.

And then it really made more sense, that I quit, so I agreed to this, after working there for eight or nine months.

But then, after starting studying again, in 2002, I was a bit tired, and I needed to get my spirits up a bit, since I was a bit down, after the last seven or eight years with problems with the other managers in Rimi.

But I had been studying computers from before, for two years, at University-level, in 1989-1990, and in 1991-1992.

So I had some back-up.

So that I could relax a bit, and try recover from all the years working very hard in Rimi.

I wanted to organise it this way, since I thought I was to overworked to start a new career right away.

I needed a couple of years, with a bit lower tempo, to get recovered again, I reckoned.

But the Rimi store-managers, on Rimi Bjørndal and Rimi Langhus, they put much more pressure on me, than I had done, towards the team-leaders, when I was working as a store-manager.

And in the summer of 2002, I was working 16 hour shifts, on Rimi Bjørndal, since the other manger there, called in sick, while the store-manager was on holiday.

So, I was studying a bit from home, and didn't go to all the lectures, since I had had much of the same lectures from before, some ten years or more before this.

Except that this degree, was a three year degree, and not a two year one, like the one I had almost finished, from before.

So, since I had quite a lot of responsibility, in the two Rimi team-leader jobs, and since I thought I should try to wind down a bit, for a year or two.

Then, it was an examn, that I hadn't taken, in the first year of the studies, I think it must have been.

And then, I couldn't participate, in the Erasmus programme HiO said, since I didn't have the theoretical basis, that I should have had, after two years.

I explained, that I had this module, form NHI, and that this was why I hadn't taken the examn on HiO.

But then they found anohter reason, not to give me the Erasmus scholarship.

And then, I complained on this, but then they found a third reason, not to give me the Erasums scholarship.

But, I knew, that I had also applied, on just a regular study abroad place.

But this application, had been lost, by HiO, they told me, around May or June 2004,
when I had recieved the last rejection for the Erasmus-programme scholarship.

Before this, around April 2004, a HiO Bislet International Office representative, a woman with a lot of empty 1.5 litre Tab X-tra bottles, placed in a row, in her office at Bislet, told me, that she would deliver my Lånekassa, study abroad application, since she said that this more complicated, than a normal Lånekassa application.

I couldn't think of any reason why I shouldn't let her do this, if she wanted to do this, so said this was alright, and counted on that the issues with the study finance aplication, was sorted.

After HiO told me, in May or June 2004, that they couldn't see that they had received my plan-b application, a regular study abroad application (as a back up, in case my Erasmus programme application was rejected for any, more or less, buraucratic reason, which sometimes happen in Norway).

Then I searched on the internet.

And it turned out, that there was an organisation, in the center of Oslo, called IEC (Now Kilroy education), in Nedre Slottsgate, in Oslo.

They had an agreement with the University of Sunderland.

And, since it was already June, and much to late, to start the HiO application process, and since they were very buraucratic, and they seemed to have a dislike towards me, or that I should study abroad.

Since the study abroad manager there, also had brought a friend from Sunderland, to a meeting there, to get me, it seemed to me, to not go there, to study.

And due to the mentioned problems with the Erasmus-programme applicatons.

Due to these problems, I didn't it would be possible, to get HiO to get me to Sunderland, after they had lost my plan-b application, the regular study abroad application.

So I contacted IEC, one day, around June 2004, on my way to work, as a team-leader on Rimi Langhus.

And they helped me.

They contacted University of Sunderland.

I enlosed the grade-overviews, from both NHI, and Oslo University College/HiO, and then, I was admited, to a place, on the third year of the regular Bachelor Computing study there.

Since the University of Sunderland, thought I had the qualifications, with the exams I had from Norway, to start directly on the third year there.

So then I would have got a British bachelor degree, in computing, if I had finnished the third-year modules there.

So there shouldn't really be any reason for HiO, to make a fuzz about this.

Since this was organised on the regular study abroad programme.

And, even if I didn't get an Erasmus scholarhip.

Even so, the Norwegian study-finance programme, Lånekassa, is quite good, and the living expenses low in the north of Britain, like the International Office representative, with all the empry Tab X-tra bottles, had told me, a couple of months before.

And I had all the theory I needed to participate on the third year of the Bachelor programme there, like if I had been a regulare student studying the first two years in Sunderland on schedule.

So there shouldn't have been any reason for HiO, and the study abroad manager there, Frode, not to autorise me studying there, and not to autorise the modules there.

Which I needed, to get the Lånekassa founding.

I needed the HiO study abroad managers approval to get the Lånekassa founding.

But there shouldn't have been any reason for him to deny me this.

He had made enough problems for me, from before, with the three aplications for the Erasmus schoolarship, being turned downed by the department he was responsible for.

But, the HiO study abroad manager, wouldn't accept my modules there, before after, the University of Sunderland study abroad office staff, had let me borrow their phone, and call HiO, from their offices.

And this was maybe in November, two months after my studies there had started.

Something like this.

Then he finally accepted the modules.

He was over in Sunderland, for some reason, and then I met him, in a meeting at the University there, and then he accepted the modules, a couple of months late.

And then, Lånekassa, needed a couple of months as well, to get the application processed.

So I didn't recieve the founding, untill January, four months late.

And then I had lost control, on the several differnt loans I had in Norway, and my Norwegian mobile bill.

Since I wasn't that good at understaning the dog-and-bone, phone-card, system, that one had to learn, to take calls from the Forge flats landline phone.

I had presumed, that it wouldn't take that long time to get the Lånekassa founding.

And I had quite a lot of money with me there, since I had been working a lot, on Rimi Langhus, as a manager, in the summer of 2004.

So I got by, untill January 2005, for four months, on the money I earned in the summer, even if I spent quite a lot of money the first month in Sunderland.

Since I had planned to stay in Britain, after ending the studies in Sunderland, in 2005.

Due to the mentioned problems in Oslo.

So I also built myself a desktop-computer there, and bought a lot of clothes etc., since I had planned to stay in Britain, so I didn't have to worry about excess bagage.

But, I lost control, on my bills in Norway, since the study-founding, was delayed by four months.

And I also lost control, of the studies, since I had some problems, finding the right modules.

For some of the modules, one had to be very good at writing in English.

So, that it was challinging for native Brits, to complete the module.

So when I understood that a couple of the modules I had chosen, weren't that smart for Norwegian speakers, to chose, then I changed a bit on the modules.

And I also, had to get the modules, in line with the HiO-modules, since I had to do this, to get the modules approved, by HiO, to get the study-finance from Lånekassa.

And before I went to Sunderland, I didn't really want more people than necessary, eg. the lecturers at HiO etc., to know where I was going, due to the earlier mentioned problems in Oslo/Rimi Bjørndal.

So I waited untill I got there, to start working with finding out of the modules.

So, when I finally recieved the study-founding, in January 2005, then I was so long behind scedule, for the modules, so I decided, that it would be smarter, to just try to find a job.

The first day in Sunderland, I overheard the study abroad manager there, commenting to a collegue, that he didn't understand why I wanted to study, with the papers I had from before, from NHI and HiO, he said that he didn't think I needed to study any more, to get a job, to a collegue there, the first day there, so that I overheard it, from where I was sitting there.

I had heard that the job-market was difficult in Sunderland.

And I though noone would know who I was in London, so I went there.

And then I had plan to find a job, and an appartment, and to contact the University again, when I was established there, and had a flat and a job, and internet and/or a landline etc., since it took some time for me to get a British mobile etc, in London.

But things didn't go according to plan, unfortunalty.

And the University of Sunderland, where very fine, since they didn't throw me out, from the Forge, even if my study finance was delayed for many months.

But I was in a difficult situation.

I didn't want to find myself, without any money, without a degree, without a job, in the summer of 2005.

So thats why I thought it would be smarter, to go London, in February 2005.

While I still had the study-finance.

So then I could try to get a job there, and then sort with the money I owed the University and the banks in Norway, and get payment-plans for the money I owed.

I thought this would be a better solution, than wait till the summer of 2005, with trying to get a job, due that I was very behind schedule already, with the modules, and since I was a study abroad student, with the lectures being held in English, then I thought the chances of me finishing the degree on shedule where low.

And if I hadn't managed this, then Lånekassa wouldn't have given me any more study-finance for 2005/2006, since I was already, close to a year delayed, with the modules from NHI and HiO, due to working quite a lot as a manager etc., besides the studies.

And the Lånekassa-limit, for when the study-finance is being stoped, is if one are more that one year delayed, which I would have been if I hadn't finished all the modules, which didn't seem likely at all that I would have managed, since I was really delayed with the modules by January 2005.

So thats why I chose to go to London.

But now, when I think back, I think it was a bit strange, that HiO should make so much problems for my studies at Sunderland.

But I had some problems with my face also. (It's a long story), so this distracted me a bit, I must admit, since my face didn't look very normal at all there.

I think I was subject of some kind of plot, so that the skin in my face, was very strange, and thin, and to thight, so I didn't look like usually had done, so this I thought was a bit embarrasing and strange.

So this was also one of the reasons, that I wanted to go to London, since I had been having problems with my face looking strange, when I was in Sunderland.

So I used to work-out, and swim, a lot, on the Sports Center there, this helped me relax, and forget about the problems.

So I was really more at the Sports Center almost, than at the University.

But really, the most important thing for me, surrounding this study-year, was to get away from Oslo.

Because it wasn't very fun living in Oslo, the last months there.

Because every time I went out the door, I overheard people talking about me, behind my back.

I overheard things like:

'Haven't they taken him/got him yet, haha'.

'I can't see why it should be so difficult to get him, since he's walking the same way home from work each day'.

'He's even buying clothes this guy'. (Said in a more or less chocked way, when I bought a couple of t-shirts, on H&M, at Stortorget, in Oslo, around March 2004.

And also at HiO, there were people talking, more or less, behind my back, saying things more or less similar, to this.

I had already overheard, in December 2003, when I was working on Rimi Bjørndal, that I was followed by the 'mafia' _also_.

And I heard some collegues talking, about another collegue there, Songül, a Kurdish girl from Turkey, being together with a mafia-guy, and that she was calling to the store, and to all the people she knew, trying to get information about me, and trying to get to the stores employment-folder, to see if there was any information about me there.

Which I heard the collegue, say to Songül, that she couldn't get to the employee-folder, since it was looked in, in the safe.

But, anyway, I thought it was a bit strange, always hearing people talk, in a upset/shocked way, behind my back, so it was very nice, to get to Britain and Sunderland, where people were behaving a bit more normal, than I thought people were behaving in Oslo.

I don't think I could have coped with living much longer in Oslo, since it was like everybody knew what was going on.

Expect me, maybe, since I had never read anything about, in the paper, that one could end op, being followed by some mafia, in Norway.

So this was a surprice to me.

And people were acting very strange when I went out the door, and I got strange phone-calls from friends etc.

But I didn't have much money, when this happened, in December 2003, I was a student then.

So I just had to try to be calm, and get through it, untill the automn, when I had planned, to go abroad, on the study aboad programme.

Since I didn't think the situation in Oslo was very fun, seemingly being followed by some mafia, and the whole town seemingly knowing about what went on, but without the possibility, of finding out more, about this, by reading in the paper, or on the internet, since things like these, weren't written about.

So this was a surprice to me, who thought, that what when on in society, should be written about in the paper.

So I decided, to wait with calling the Police, since obviously had failed, in informing the public, regarding what was going on.

And then, when I had my own flat, abroad, then I wanted to find who it was in the Police, who were the experts on this subject, mafia etc. (Kripos, I read it was, who were the experts on organised crime/mafia problems etc, I read in the online Norwegian newpapers, when I was studying in Sunderland).

But they havent even given me advice, now that I have been calling them, in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

So it's obvious that something serious is wrong, in society.

Something that a lot of people know about.

I think the media and the Police, probably also must know about the problems that are going on.

But for some reason, they don't inform the public, about what's going on.

So it's difficult, to know who to trust, regarding issues like this.

I think people have the right to get advice from the Police etc.

But I haven't managed to get any advice from the Government, even if I have contacted a lot of ministries etc., regarding this, both in Norway and Britain.

So it's obvious that something is going on.

And I'm not sure who's side the Governments are on, I must admit.

If they are on the mafias side, or what they are.

Or if they are on the normal peoples side.

I wouldn't be to certain about, that the Government are on the normal peoples side, when it comes to problems like this.

I think it's obvious, that there some serious things going on, in society, that the Government, and the media, for some reason, aren't informing the public about.

I'm not sure if maybe everybody are aware of this.

It seems to me, that very many people must be aware of whats going on, and must get some kind of underground information, regarding this.

But in case, that there are someone, that haven't heard anything about this, then I would maybe try to tell a bit, that it seems like the Government, and the media, are involved in some kind of agenda, to do with not people, what it is that's going on.

This seems quite clear to me.

At least clear enough, to me, so I think I should maybe mention this, since it seems, that it isn't only in Norway, that things like this, is going on.

So that's why I thought I could maybe mention this, while I was writing here anyway.

That I'm not sure how much trust I would have in the Government actually telling people whats going on.

Even if, I think, if I remember right, that one of the foundations for democracy, is, that people know whats going on in society.

So if the Government don't tell people whats going on, then it's not really a democracy, it's a Plutocracy, like I've read in the Norwegian papers, in the late 90s, and in the first years of this millenium, that the papers have been writing in some of the comments etc. in the paper.

That in Norway, the Governing-system, is really a plutocracy.

I didn't really understand exactly what they meant by this.

But now, I'm beginning to understand.

It means that everyone, that are not in the elite, have no rights.

You have to have a university degree, etc., to get help from the Police, if something happens.

Or to get help from the legal-system etc.

Like I read in a Norwegian blogg/online newspaper, Riksavisen, lately.

In the justice-system, one, as a normal person, aren't finding justice, you are meeting/opposing the power.

So the justice-system, is political.

It should be about peoples rights, but it isn't.

It's about the Government, who is organised like some kind of mafia, so that you won't get any help from any Government organisations.

On the conterary, they can start putting obstacles in your way, and start messing you around, like HiO did, when I wanted to study abroad.

Like this, the justice system can be, the different ombudsmen, the different ministries, the prime ministers office in Norway, the list goes on and on.

It isn't only me, who is writing about this, or have experienced things like this.

This is also mentioned, on the Riksavisen site, where they use an example from the municipality Eiker, in the County of Buskerud, in Norway, where the local Government, crushed, picturally, a citizen, by working together, like a mafia, to achieve this purpose.

And I've also read about this other places, even if there is very much information on the net, regarding Illuminati/New World Order, so it's a bit difficult to remember exactly where I've been reading all the different things.

But it's really to search on Google about these terms, and I must admit, that even if I hadn't heard about the term Illuminati, or reflected anything on the term 'New World Order', six months or a year ago.

Even so, I must admit, that if I add what I've experienced myself, together with a lot of the information one cand find, if search on this issues on the internet, then it seems to me, more and more, that the probelms with these agendas, are very real, even if they aren't properly explained about in the newspapers.

Also, there seems to be different mafias, in addition to this.

I've read, that the muslims, aren't in on the New World Order agenda.

But, I've also read, that the reason, for why, countries like Norway, and cities like Oslo, have let in so many muslims imigrants, is to help holding the natives in check, or traumatise them even, so that the Illuminati/New World Order/The New Elite, wont lose control, on the normal people, on the sheep og the goy, like they are calling them.

These are anyone, who aren't in the top percentage of the elite, that know whats going on, and want to control the rest of the people.

The ones, that they don't think deserves to be alive, or the ones who seem to difficult to tame maybe, are being put in the 'slaughterhouse'.

This means, that the Illuminati/New World Order, exploites them, in every way they can, to use them as slaves, to work in shops, etc, used as spies by the police, againts ones will, etc.

Everything and everyway they can think of, of exploting this person, till they die.

They don't think about them as people, but as sheep or cattle, that they can do whatever they want with.

And they have a Government administration/mafia, and an Illuminati mafia, (these two are probaly just the Illuminati I guess), who help them, so that the vitims, that are in the slaughterhouse, wont get any help, from their familiy, friends, workplace, government and human rights organisations, since all of these people and institutions, have been taken control of, in the slaughterhouse-plan, that the Illuminati, has laid up, for this person/cattle.

I'm not sure where they make these plans, but I wouldn't be very surprised if it was in the Pentagon, and in the Free-mason buildings.

And they are very good at making plans, and cover ups.

When it seems, that the Illuminati, have been taken down, and lost control.

And then they manage to cover this up anyway.

Then this is called a false dawn, or another false down.

Which there have been many of, during the last centuries, since the Illuminati, are from the end of dark ages, or even longer back.

And it also seem to me, that there is a war, of some kind, against light-haired people.

Eigther as part of, or in adition to, this mentioned Illumintai/New World Order agenda, in which the richest people in the world, the new elite, wants to control the world, and exploit the people they find worthless, that they call excess baggage, for the human race.

They just exploit these people mercylessly, in a type of Matrix-system, or like the Ace Ventura-guy movie, about the guy who finds out that he is on TV all the time, or what it was. The Truman show? Something like this.

This is my impression, about what it is that's going on now.

One could see this, when Hurricane Katrina was destroying New Orleans.

Now help, was given, to the poor people, who didn't have cars, and could get away from the city, on their own.

The facist leaders there, which I think one have to call them, with George W. Bush, and Co., did not put in, by far, enough resources, to help the poor people that was left in New Orleans, during Hurricane Katrina.

Why didn't the let the US Army or US navy help these people?

I can't see this any differently, than that it was an example of facist New World Order policy.

That people were just considered sheep, cattle or excess baggage, by the elite/people in power, and left to their own destiny, and given little or noe help.

The same, with the Tsunami, in Asia, in 2004, where the Asian countries, where not called, and warned, by the US tsunami monitoring center, for the Pacific, who sat and watched the tsunami, getting closer and closer to Asia, on their computer screens, for hours, without they, or their managers, calling the Asian countries embassies etc., to try to warn them, which they should have had plenty of time to do.

The use the excuse, that they didn't have their Asian collegues phone-numbers.

But, you it should only be to get your manager, to escalate, and get someone to inform these countries embassies.

It isn't difficult, for someone, to find the phone-number, to eg. the Thai embassy.

It's just to call 118 118, or what it is again.

And the embassys, would know who in eg. Thailand to call.

I shouldn't have been more difficult than that.

In stead, hunded of thousands of people were killed by the tsunami, since no warning was given.

So I suspect that these failures to give help to people, in these natural catastropies, are so un-explainable, that I think must have been to do with some type of New World Order aganda.

At least this is how it seems to me.

There are probably a lot of people, who'll say, that this just nonsense etc., it can't be like this, the people in power aren't as cynical as this.

Then I'll just recomend, to try to do the same as I myself did, last week, to search on eg. 'Illuminati' or 'New World Order', on Google.

Then it's possilbe to find, I think, millions of web-pages, with information about this.

And they all add together, it seems to me.

It's just that the normal media, are all part of a New World Order agenda.

So they don't want people to know this.

That's why it isn't in the news.

So if people don't want to end up in the 'slaugterhouse', being mercylessly exploited, by the Government/elite/Illuminati, in different types of slavery, untill one dies, without getting any form of help, from family, friends, the Government, Human Rights Organisations etc, since all of these, have been already been instructed by the Police and others, not to help.

If the risk of ending ones life in slavery, and being exploited by the super-rich New World Order elite (Bush, Blair possibly, Brown possibly, prince William, the Queen of England, the Rotchilds, the Rockefellers, the Bilderberger-group people. Microsoft is involved, I've read. The ones that have/is participating in the pervert club, that the American elite, with Bush and Co., has, called Bohemian Groove, where smuff-film type of pervert stuff, with very pervert explotaition of people is going. And who has an owl, as their logo. Bush and Prince William, have both been taken pictures of, showing the owl/devil sign, with showing your index-finger, and the smallest finger, what it's called again. This is because they are memebers of this pervert club, where they have slaves, who they exploit and torture, and execute etc. I'll find a link):

Here's what President Bush, and Prince William & Co., seems to be up to, since they are showing this sign, of the owl, or the devil, which is the logo of the very pervert Bohemian Grove club, that the elite have.

I can't see any other reason, why they would show this sign, than they must almost without any doubt, be members of this very pervert Bohemian Groove club, that one can read here, about some of the very pervert things they are doing, and thing I've read on other web-sites about this club, was even worse:

http://www.savethemales.ca/000683.html

If someone reading this post don't belive me, then it should really just to Google 'Bohemian Groove', and then it should be so many web-pages regarding this, which also are quite well-documented, many of them, so it shouldn't really be much doubt that it is like this.

So if people don't want to end up as being exploted, and in the end killed, in a very pervert way, or used as slaves or killed or exploited, in other ways, by the New World Order elite, then I'm not sure what they should do, other than try to keep this in the back of their heads, and try to be aware of this, and try to use ones head.

And if one don't belive me, that it really is like this, then it should really be just to search on 'Illuminati', 'New World Order' or 'Bohemian Groove', on the net, and then, after reading some of the millions of web-pages, that has been written about these subject, then I don't think it should be very much doubts, that this is really how it is.

Now I wrote a bit away from the subject, but I wold suspect that the 'magic' automated replies, in the CAB head office, are in some way also linked to this New World Order/Plutocracy/Slaugherhouse agenda.

It would suprice me more if it wasn't.

I think I should be able to ducument the things I've been writing in this blog-post, so pleace just contact me, by writing a comment to this post, or eg. by sending an e-mail to my e-mail address, which should be possible to find, on my profile here on Blogger.

Then I can try to explain better, about things that I might have forgotten to explain well enough about, regarding this, in this blog-post.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

Screenshot, Liverpool Central CAB website, showing that the e-mail address on it, is still the old one. Enc. to e-mail sent the ind. CAB adj. today.

E-mail to the CAB-case Independant Adjudicator, 24/4/08.

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:27:17 +0100
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Citizens Advice

Hi,

I said I would enclose the screenshot, so I'm sending the screenshot now,
since I forgot
to enclose it with the first e-mail.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog
Date: Apr 24, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
To: Barbara Stow


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 wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Eribsskog
>
> I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
>
> I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within the
> next two weeks when they have considered the report.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Barbara Stow
> To: Erik Ribsskog
> Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my review by
> today, 18 April.
>
> I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
>
> I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than the end
> of next week.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Barbara Stow
> To: Erik Ribsskog
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> Subject: Citizens Advice
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
>
> I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line with the
> Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have no
> authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> whether it has been considered properly.
>
> Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
>
> If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you are
> unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me know
> at the e-mail address above.
>
> I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not heard
> from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to add to
> what you have explained already.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
> Independent Adjudicator
>
>
>
>
>
>

Report from the CAB-case Independant Adjudicator, enclosure sent with e-mail from 24/4/08. (Converted from PDF).

REPORT BY THE INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR

INTO A COMPLAINT ABOUT

LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU

INTRODUCTION

1. National Citizens Advice has asked me to review how the

service has dealt with a complaint about Liverpool CAB.

2. The Citizens Advice Service has a national complaints

procedure. It is set out in a guidance note for member bureaux

and summarised in a leaflet for members of the public.

Complaints are first considered inside the Citizens Advice

service. If a client is not satisfied with the response, they can

ask me to review how their complaint has been dealt with. I do

not have any authority to comment on the substance of a

complaint or to say whether it is justified. My task is to say

whether the service has followed the complaints procedure and

acted fairly. If I find that the procedure was not followed or that

the matter has not been handled fairly, I say why and may give

directions for a re-investigation.

3. In this report I will summarise the background to the complaint.

I will then look at the complaints procedure and the sequence

of events to show whether the complaint has been dealt with in

compliance with it. I will then turn to the content of the

complaint and the replies so that I can see whether the

complaint has been dealt with fairly. To protect the

2

complainant‘s confidentiality I refer to him throughout this

report simply as ”the client‘

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

4. The complaint is about the client‘s requests for advice in the

period February to April 2007. Until the client made his

complaint in May 2007, the bureau‘s only record of their

dealings with him was a brief note made by a solicitor on 27

February 2007. Apart from this, I have relied on the client‘s

own papers and the correspondence about the complaint to

understand the background.

5. It seems that the police advised the client to go to a citizens

advice bureau. The client had reported problems with a former

employer. He believed the company had been infiltrated by

persons who were engaged in crime and harassing him. He

had also asked for advice about the job centre, since his

eligibility for unemployment benefits depended on why he had

left that employment.

6. On 19 February 2007, the central Liverpool bureau arranged

for the client to see a solicitor at the bureau on 27 February.

The session was not long enough for the client to explain the

problems fully. The solicitor‘s note says that the client might

have a harassment claim but she had advised that it might be

preferable for him to consult someone who could advise on the

criminal aspect, too. She would discuss this with a colleague.

The client says that, after the interview, the solicitor wrote to

3

him from her firm and said that they could help with a complaint

of harassment and the charges would be £140 per hour.

7. On 20 March, the client went back to the bureau to ask about

legal aid and the circumstances in which he would need a

solicitor who was expert in criminal matters. The bureau has

no record of the client‘s visit on 20 March but agrees that they

arranged for him to speak to a solicitor on the telephone.

Neither the bureau nor the solicitor told the client the solicitor‘s

name or firm. The solicitor said that the client would need a

solicitor expert in criminal matters only if he was charged with a

criminal offence. Otherwise, crime was dealt with through the

police. The solicitor referred the client to the Community Legal

Service‘s Legal Aid Calculator, to find out whether he was

eligible for legal aid. However, when the client looked into this,

he found that because he was self-employed the calculator did

not help. It said he would need to go a legal adviser for advice

about eligibility and the place to get advice was the CAB.

8. So the client went back to the CAB, who arranged an

appointment with a solicitor at the bureau for 5 April. Before

the appointment, the client went back to the solicitor he had

seen in February. She told him that her firm never got legal aid

for employment cases and only accepted payment from private

funds. The client felt confused and decided to attend the

appointment at the CAB and contact the firm again after that.

9. On 5 April the client arrived in time for his appointment at 1.30.

It was lunchtime and the bureau was closed, but he was

admitted after —buzzing“ twice. The client says he was left

4

alone in the reception area for some minutes and the area was

poorly lit. The bureau unit coordinator then arrived and

explained that the solicitor who was expected to attend had

cancelled. He gave the client a telephone number and

suggested he telephone the firm and ask if they could help by

telephone. The coordinator did not know the name of the

solicitor who had cancelled. Again the bureau has no record of

the client‘s visit.

10. The client went home and tried to telephone the firm but the

number did not work and the firm was not listed in the yellow

pages. He telephoned the CAB and was given the correct

number. The number he had been given was a fax number.

The client telephoned the firm again. His call was transferred

to a legal adviser who said: his complaint was outside the three

month time limit though the employment tribunal could extend

its time limits in exceptional circumstances; only the solicitor

dealing with the case could advise about legal aid; and the firm

took only trade union cases. The solicitor gave the client

details of a firm that acted on the basis of contingency fees.

11. On 10 April, the client contacted the solicitor he had previously

met at the bureau who said that the time limit for harassment

cases was longer than three months. He expected the firm to

contact him but they did not do so. When he approached them

again on 24 April he was told: it would cost £250 for an

interview; there could be no payment plan; his case was not an

employment case; and he could approach the Law Society.

5

THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS

The procedure at Stage One

12. The first stage of the national complaints procedure is a review

by the bureau concerned. The procedure stipulates, among

other things:

Once a complaint has been received, a letter of

acknowledgement must be sent to the complainant within five

working days. The complainant must be told who is dealing

with the complaint, what action is being taken, and when s/he

can expect to receive a full reply œ the target time is 20 working

days. If it is unlikely that this target will be met, then the client

must be informed in writing and given an indication of when the

review will be complete.

The bureau manager should undertake the investigation œ or

oversee it if it is carried out by another member of staff. If the

complaint is against the manager then the chair or a

designated member of the bureau trustee board will need to

investigate, in effect jumping straight to Stage Two.

If the matter is complex and will take longer than originally

indicated, write to the complainant explaining the reasons why

and including an indication of when a response can be

expected.

The full response to the complaint must inform complainants of

their right to ask for a review of the investigation if they are not

6

satisfied with the outcome of Stage One and of how to access

the second stage

13. The guidance for bureaux contains a checklist of good

investigative practice. Among other things, this says:

Ensure that the person undertaking the investigation is not

implicated in the complaint.

What happened at Stage One

14. On 18 May, the client telephoned the complaints officer at

national Citizens Advice and on 23 May he sent her his

complaint by e-mail with other material by post. The

complaints were specified within a lengthy document that also

included much information about the client‘s concerns about

the employer and other related matters.

15. The complaints officer attempted to contact the Liverpool

bureau coordinator by phone but they kept missing each other

and on 29 May she forwarded the complaint by e-mail. The

coordinator replied next day that he had located the file and

remembered meeting the client. On 31 May, the complaints

officer sent the complaint to the bureau manager to handle in

accordance with the standard complaints procedure. The

same day the complaints officer e-mailed the client to say that

the bureau manager would investigate and send her findings in

20 working days.

16. On 5 and 27 July, the client e-mailed the complaints officer to

say he had received no answer from the bureau. On 3 and 22

7

August, the client e-mailed the chief executive of Citizens

Advice to say he had received no answer. The first

communication he received after the complaints officer‘s e-mail

of 31 May was an automated reply from the chief executive‘s

office on 22 August saying that he would be away from the

office until 30 August.

17. On 28 August, the complaints officer e-mailed the Liverpool

coordinator about the complaint. He replied that he had

investigated and recently forwarded his findings to the bureau

manager who was on leave until later that week. On 6

September the coordinator sent a full reply to the client,

commenting on each aspect of the complaint. He sent a copy

of the reply to the bureau manager and concluded by saying

that if the client was not satisfied he could ask for a review by

the Chair of the bureau whom he could write to at the bureau‘s

address.

The procedure at Stage Two

18. Stage Two of the complaints process is a review under the

direction of the bureau trustee board. The procedure says that

the process to be followed is similar to the process for Stage

One but the lead person conducting the review is the Chair of

the board or a designated sub-committee. The same target

timetable applies as at Stage One, namely five days to

acknowledge a request and 20 working days to complete the

review. The complainant must be informed that if they are not

satisfied with the outcome of the review they can ask for a

further review under the direction of the Citizens Advice chief

8

executive by writing to the chief executive at the Citizens

Advice Central Office.

What happened at Stage Two

19. On 7 October the client e-mailed the bureau at

bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk, an address that the client says

he obtained from the bureau website, and asked what e-mail

address he should use for the Chair. The message bounced

back as undeliverable. On 8 October he e-mailed the

coordinator, repeating the request and explaining that he had

tried to send a message to the address on the website but it

was not working.

20. The coordinator replied on 22 October. He apologised for the

delay and explained he had been out of the office for two

weeks. He provided another e-mail address,

bureau@liverpoolcab.org. On 27 October, the client e-mailed

the Chair at that address, asking him to review the complaint

and explaining under each point why he was not satisfied with

the coordinator‘s response.

21. On 26 November, the client e-mailed the Chair at the bureau

again as he had received no reply to his request of 27 October.

22. My copy of the Chair‘s reply is not dated but I am told it was

sent on 14 December. The Chair commented on each of the

points in the complaint and ended by saying that the client

could ask for a further review under the direction of the chief

executive of Citizens Advice by writing to the complaints officer

at the national office.

9

The procedure at Stage Three

23. The procedure states that the aim of this stage of the

procedure is to check that the fundamental issues have been

explored and the process followed properly. The Stage Three

review will not comment on the advice given. It is conducted

under the direction of the chief executive but delegated to an

appropriate individual.

24. On receiving a request, Citizens Advice will acknowledge it

within five working days and explain the purpose of the review.

The bureau should send the file to the Central Office within five

days of a request and the target time for communicating the

outcome of the review is 20 working days from receipt of the

file. The letter should explain that the complainant can ask for

a review by the independent adjudicator and the remit of such

a review.

What happened at Stage Three

25. On 11 February, the client e-mailed the Head of Advice Policy

and Standards. He said he had not contacted the complaints

officer, as the Chair had advised him, because she had not

answered the e-mails he sent in July when the bureau did not

answer within the promised timescale. He therefore sent the

Head of Advice Policy the details of his complaint.

26. The complaints officer obtained from the bureau a copy of the

Chair‘s reply to the client, the earlier correspondence about the

complaint and the solicitor‘s case note from 27 February 2007.

On 18 February, she e-mailed the client to confirm that a

review would be conducted under the direction of the chief

10

executive, that it would focus on how the complaint was

handled locally, and a full response would be sent by 14 March

or any delay explained.

27. The complaints officer sent the client the chief executive‘s

review on 14 March. The chief executive‘s letter ended by

explaining the availability and purpose of a review by the

independent adjudicator.

Stage Four

28. The client replied to the chief executive in two e-mails on 14

March. He said that he would like to have an independent

review as there were a number of points that still troubled him.

He explained what these were.

29. I received the file by post on 20 March, the day before the

Easter weekend. I e-mailed the client on 1 April inviting him to

contact me by 11 April if he wished to add any more

information. I have not heard from him.

The question of fairness

30. I have explained that it is not for me to say whether a

complaint is justified or whether I agree with the response. In

considering whether a complaint has been treated fairly, I look

to see whether it has been treated seriously, whether those

responding have taken trouble to understand the complainant‘s

point of view, and whether the replies are consistent with any

other material, such as case records. If there is a conflict

about the facts, I want to be sure that the complainant has had

a fair hearing and that the responses are not unfairly

11

prejudiced in favour of what the staff say rather than what the

complainant says. I also bear in mind that what usually

happens is not necessarily what happened on a particular

occasion.

31. It is also right to say that I look for a proportionate response,

taking into account the bureau‘s resources and the other

demands on these. The complaints procedure is not a court of

law. I do not expect a forensic examination of every difference

of recollection. It is not unusual for different people genuinely

to remember the same events slightly differently. Overall, I

expect bureaux to approach criticisms with an open mind, not

defensively, and to reflect the principles stated in national

complaints procedure that:

Citizens Advice and all Citizens Advice bureaux take

complaints seriously. Complaints give us the opportunity to put

things right and the lessons learned can often influence bureau

practice.

32. I have set out below a brief summary of the client‘s complaints,

the responses he received at each stage and his comments on

those responses.

33. In connection with the interview with the solicitor on 27

February, the client says that the bureau should have

explained the legal aid scheme to him before the interview, that

he was not told that the interview was limited to 30 minutes,

and that he ought to have been told that the solicitor‘s firm did

not accept money from legal aid.

12

34. At stage one, the coordinator said that it was the bureau‘s

usual practice when booking appointments with the duty

solicitors to make clear that it was a —free first half hour“ and

they did not take responsibility for advising clients about their

legal aid entitlements when booking solicitor appointments.

The bureau was not responsible for the actions of the solicitor

after the first half hour at the bureau.

35. In connection with his visit to the bureau on 20 March, the

client says that he was not given sufficient opportunity to

explain the two issues on which he wanted advice. He was

simply given access to speak to an unidentified private solicitor

on the telephone and no adviser was available to speak to him

when he came off the telephone.

36. The coordinator‘s reply said that it was not the bureau‘s

responsibility that the solicitor did not give her name. It was

probable that no adviser had been available to see the client

on 20 March so he had been allowed to talk to a solicitor and

referred to the legal aid calculator as at least some

”signposting‘ advice.

37. In connection with the arrangements for legal advice on 5 April,

the client said that when the duty solicitor was not available at

the time of his appointment he would have preferred an

alternative appointment to see a duty solicitor at the bureau

instead of being given a phone number (which was wrong) and

no reference or contact details to quote when he telephoned

the firm. Moreover, the solicitor he spoke to said he could not

advise about legal aid on the telephone and the client

13

understood (wrongly as it turned out) that the firm was not

based in Liverpool.

38. The coordinator said that there was no alternative appointment

available until May, whereas duty solicitors who cancelled

usually saw or spoke to the clients who had appointments

either the same day or shortly afterwards. He said he had

been conscious that time limits were important in employment

cases. The coordinator said he did not know the name of the

solicitor who should have attended. The firms sent different

representatives and the firm had telephoned to say no one was

available. The bureau left the question of legal aid eligibility to

the solicitors. The coordinator apologised for giving the client

the fax number by mistake. He said the firm was in Liverpool

3.

39. In connection with his reception at the bureau on 5 August, the

client said that the fact that the bureau seemed to be closed

and was poorly lit, and the fact he was left alone in reception

for some time, gave an unprofessional impression.

40. The coordinator said that the lights were partly off as the

bureau was closed for lunch and he had switched them on

when he began speaking to the client. He acknowledged that

perhaps they should have been fully switched on to create a

professional atmosphere.

41. In his request for a review by the Chair, the client

acknowledged the apology about the fax number and that the

solicitors‘ firm he spoke to when his appointment was

14

cancelled was based in Liverpool. He explained why he had

thought otherwise. He reiterated that he felt he should not

have been left to phone the firm without some form of contact

details and would have preferred another appointment. He

said that as he was unemployed it should have been obvious

to the bureau that he ought not to have been referred to a

solicitor who only took work that was privately-funded. He said

he had not been told that the free interview was for only 30

minutes. When a solicitor telephoned him at the bureau on 20

March, the adviser had not let him explain properly what he

needed and the client thought it wrong that a solicitor

telephoning him at the CAB did not introduce herself, in case

there was any future problem about possible wrong advice. He

did not agree that the coordinator had turned on the lights

immediately and he explained his memory of what happened.

He related other incidents that occurred at the bureau and on

his way there and afterwards which, in combination with his

reception at the bureau, had made him uneasy.

42. In his review, the Chair set out his understanding of the

complaint under nine main points. He emphasised that the

coordinator did not book a fresh appointment when the solicitor

cancelled on 5 April because of the risk that the client would

miss legal deadlines. He explained that the solicitors who

attended the bureau did so on a voluntary basis through their

firms and the bureau usually knew only the name of the firm,

not who would represent them any particular occasion. He

apologised for any unprofessional impression created by the

lights being partly switched off. He said it was the solicitor‘s

15

responsibility, not the bureau‘s, to inform clients about legal

aid.

43. The chief executive‘s review summarised the sequence of

events following the client‘s meeting with the duty solicitor in

February. He then gave his conclusions, expressing concern

about delay in dealing with the complaint at stage one and

stage two, and the absence of case records documenting the

client‘s dealings with the bureau, and he acknowledged the

lack of responsiveness from the Central Office to the client‘s e-

mails in July and August. He apologised both for delays in

dealing with the initial complaint and the lack of response from

Central Office and said he certainly upheld the complaint in

those respects. He said, however, that he believed the bureau

had responded fully to the issues in the complaint. He

commented that bureaux have to find ways of coping with the

demand for their advice services and it was not inappropriate

for bureaux to work closely with local solicitors to help provide

advice.

44. In his request for an independent review, the client explained

that his reception at the bureau on 5 April had made him

uneasy, partly because of other incidents on the way to the

bureau and afterwards. He explained that because the police

had advised him to go to the bureau to get the issues heard in

the Crown Court he had thought that the service was part of

the Government and everything would be free. If he had

known that he would have to pay for solicitors, he would have

gone back to the police and complained. He suspected a plot

between the CAB and the police to obstruct his case. The

16

client said that the advice from the two firms of solicitors was

contradictory. The second firm said his employment case was

too late but the first firm said there was a longer time limit for

harassment cases.

ADJUDICATOR‘S CONCLUSIONS

45. I am asked to say whether this complaint has been dealt with in

line with the national complaints procedure and fairly.

46. The time limits for correspondence were not complied with.

The chief executive acknowledged this and apologised, but the

failure was spectacular. The procedure says that complaints

will be acknowledged in five working days and a full response

sent in 20 working days or an explanation given. Apart from an

automated ”out of office‘ response, no communication was sent

to the client from 31 May until he received an e-mail from the

coordinator a full three months later on 6 September. And this

was despite the client‘s four courteous enquiries in July and

August.

47. At the second stage (for which the target times are similar), the

client‘s request reached the bureau on 27 October. There

appears to have been no acknowledgement, and the full reply

was sent some six weeks later.

48. I do not know why the service, both locally and nationally,

neglected to reply to the client, as common courtesy, never

mind the procedure, required. It may be because the client

preferred to communicate by e-mail rather than by post that the

17

messages ”slipped through the net‘ and the usual standards

were not observed. But e-mail is increasingly used in place of

formal letters. Organisations have to adapt to ensure that e-

mails are subject to the same deadlines and disciplines as

letters would be.

49. There is one respect in which the procedure might be clearer.

When the complaints officer refers a complaint to be dealt with

locally at stage one, in my experience, the bureau usually

sends a letter of acknowledgement to the complainant,

explaining what will happen and when. I think it desirable that

they should, but perhaps the Liverpool bureau thought the

message to the client from the complaints officer was sufficient.

When next the guidance is reviewed, Citizens Advice may wish

to make sure that it is clear whether bureaux are expected to

send their own acknowledgement to complainants when a

complaint has been referred by the central office.

50. The stage one response also departed from the procedure in

another respect. The procedure states that the first stage

investigation will normally be by the bureau manager and that

the person undertaking the investigation should not be

someone who is implicated in the complaint. The complaint

was in part about the actions of the coordinator. According to

the procedure, the coordinator should not have been

responsible for the stage one reply.

51. None of the correspondence from Citizens‘ Advice mentions

the e-mail address that the client used unsuccessfully to try to

contact the Chair, and which he says he obtained from the

18

website. I do not know why the problem occurred but I see that

the e-mail address currently listed on the website for the

bureau is the correct address.

52. Was the complaint dealt with fairly? I am sorry to say that I

think the delays and failures to reply to correspondence in

themselves amount to unfair treatment towards a client who

was obviously worried. That apart, when replies were sent,

they all seem conscientious, thorough and fair. The client has

commented on his experience of the service. He does not find

some of the explanations he has been given satisfactory but

that does not mean they are unfair. It is however helpful for

any public service to see a customer‘s eye view.

ADJUDICATOR‘S RECOMMENDATIONS

53. Although there were deficiencies in how the complaint was

dealt with, there is no reason for me to ask for any further

investigation of it. However Citizens Advice may wish to:

• ensure that when the guidance is next reviewed it is clear

as to whether bureau should send their own

acknowledgement to complainants at stage one of the

procedure when the complaint has also been

acknowledged by central office;

• consider why the client‘s messages were left so long

without reply and whether any additional advice or

19

protocols are required when complainants communicate

by e-mail.

Barbara Stow

Independent Adjudicator 24 April 2008