E-mail to the University of Liverpool about the Bertelsmann Arvato-case

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>

---

Advice letter

---

Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>	Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM
To: Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk>
Hi, it doesn't calrify it, unfortunatly. First it was mentioned a pro-bono case, with a contract to sign, not a letter. The Solicitor interupted the meeting, and said they couldn't help, since - The case was to old, she said. I explained, that I hadn't been ignorant, and then the solicitior said the University coultn't help, due to that: - The case was to complex. I suspect that the Solicitor just didn't want to help, and made up excuses. I didn't want to start an arguement in the meeting, that's why I'm complaining about this now, instead of in the meeting. Yours sincerely, Erik Ribsskog On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear Mr Ribskogg, > > > > Thank you for your email.  Regarding the matters that you raise, I have > contacted the supervising solicitor who tells me that during the course of > the interview, you explained that you had already spoken to the CAB and two > separate solicitors but had not been happy with the advice you received.  In > addition to your concerns regarding employment issues, you also discussed a > potential Crown Court proceeding.  The reference to ‘Nature of the Case’ is > to the fact that your concerns contained wider issues than employment which > fall outside of the areas of expertise of  the Law Clinic. > > > > The Law Clinic is intended to provide an advice letter that is prepared over > two weeks. The Client discusses a concern/issue/claim with the students who > then go away and research the matter and respond to that concern in writing. > This was explained during the interview and you agreed that the Law Clinic > was not the correct forum for you as it was unlikely we could provide the > level of advice/support you required. > > I trust this clarifies the situation. > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > Marie Ball > > Clinic Administrator > > Liverpool Law Clinic > > lawclinic@liverpool.ac.uk > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com] > Sent: 07 March 2009 14:47 > To: Law Clinic > Subject: Re: Advice letter > > > > Hi, > > > > thank you for the advice-letter! > > > > I've been reading through it now, and thought that I would contact the > > LSC, for further advice. > > > > But, there was a couple of things that I didn't understand, from the > > meeting and your letter, > > that I was just wondering about if you have the chance to explain about. > > > > The solicitor said in the meeting, that the case was to big for the > > university to give advice on, > > since I had been 'mis-lead' by the Police and the CAB and some > > law-firms, and therefore > > didn't contact the Employment-tribunual within three months. > > > > But couldn't the case be run as a stand alone employment-case even if > > it was delayed due to > > that I was mis-lead by the Police etc? > > > > My second question is that you mention 'the Nature of the Case', in > > your letter, and say that the > > Law Clinic can't deal with the case, due to the Nature of the Case. > > > > But I can't say exactly that I understand what you mean by this term, > > and I would like to explain > > this, what you mean, to the LCS etc, so I was wondering if you could > > please explain to me what > > you mean with the term 'the Nature of the case', that you mention in > > the advice-letter. > > > > Thanks again for you help and thanks in advance for your help with > > answering these questions! > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > Erik Ribsskog > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Law Clinic <clinic@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Dear Mr Ribskogg, > >> > >> > >> > >> Please find attached letter of advice from the Liverpool Law Clinic. > >> > >> > >> > >> Yours sincerely, > >> > >> > >> > >> Marie Ball > >> > >> Administrator > >> > >> Liverpool Law Clinic > >> > >> lawclinic@liverpool.ac.uk > >> > >>

---