Jeg sendte en e-post til the Charity Commission

Erik Ribsskog

---

MD - 1076396 - LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] - To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293943

---

Erik Ribsskog	2. februar 2017 kl. 18:11
Til: "PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue)" Kopi: Phso Enquiries , "post@sivilombudsmannen.no" , Politikk Høyre , Akademikerforbundet , "sande.vgs" , PGREY@acas.org.uk
Hi, thank you for your reply! I think you probably know, that the Citizens Advice Bureau, is mainly founded, by the British Goverment. (If I remember right, they provide something like 95 percent of the founding). And the British government, has tried, to get me killed, (I have to say, by stopping my jobseekers allowance and by the Merseyside police harassing me and kidnapping me, at all times, for months). And I've even complained, about this, to the UN. So I think I've taken this, as far as I can, really. So if you could please escalate this, to your line-manager, for a second opinion. Regards, Erik Ribsskog 2017-02-02 17:36 GMT+01:00 PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>: Dear Mr Ribsskog LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP - 1076396 Thank you for your email dated 9 January 2017 about the above named charity. Unfortunately, we are still unable to consider your complaint as it does not involve charity law.  It is not within our regulatory role to consider complaints about the service provided by the charity.  We cannot substitute our judgement for that of properly appointed trustees and our role as charity regulator is not one where we decide on personal, social or cultural issues that arise between individuals or groups. Our regulatory focus is on whether the trustees of the charity are acting within their powers and complying with their legal duties. This means that you will need to resolve this matter with the trustees of the charity.  We expect those involved in the dispute to follow the approach as set out in the guidance OG565 Disputes in Charities.  Essentially we will not become involved unless we have evidence that clearly shows that: ·         There are no validly appointed trustees; and ·         All other methods of resolving the dispute have failed. If you remain unhappy with the charity’s response then we recommend you seek mediation or seek your own professional advice from an appropriate provider. I trust that this response further explains why we cannot become involved on this occasion. Yours sincerely Michael Delaney Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team ------------------- Original Message ------------------- From: Erik Ribsskog Received: To: PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) Cc: PGREY@acas.org.uk Subject: *Re: MD - 1076396 - LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP [Charity complaint] - To Mr Erik Ribsskog CRM:0293907 Hi, yes, I contacted ACAS about the employement-case, back in 2009. But they didn't want to give me advice in writing. I had to call them. And then they just told me: 'It's no excuse for ignoranse', (as I remember it). But why they told me that, I'm not really sure about. So it was a bit strange contacting them, I have to say. I haven't been aware of, that your organisation existed. Or else I would have sent about this earlier. You write that you haven recieved enough information. So I have found an e-mail, that I sent, to the CAB adjudicator, in April 2008. And I will paste that e-mail later in this e-mail. Thanks for the reply! Best regards, Erik Ribsskog PS. Here is more about this: 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 > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:16 PM, PCT PB3 Correspondence (Queue) <Operations3@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk> wrote: Dear Mr Ribsskog LIVERPOOL CITIZENS ADVICE PARTNERSHIP - 1076396 Thank you for your email dated 21 December 2016 about the above named charity. The Charity Commission ('the Commission') is the registrar and regulator of charities in England and Wales.  Our core role is to protect the public's interest in the integrity of charity. We enable charities to deliver effective services whilst also ensuring their compliance with charity law.  We do this by working with charities through providing advice and guidance and setting out best practices to resolve any difficulties encountered.  To address matters of serious concern, we will intervene to protect the charity by using our legal powers where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Trustees collectively have, and must accept, ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of their charity, ensuring that it is solvent and well-run, and delivering the charitable outcomes for the benefit of the public for which it was set up in line with the requirements of the charity’s governing document, charity law, company law and any other relevant legislation. We have looked carefully at the information you have provided and we appreciate the time that you have taken to send this to the Charity Commission.  We note that you are in dispute with the charity over the employment law advice that you may have received from the charity.  However, unfortunately, we are unable to become involved on this occasion. This is because of the following reasons: ·         We have not received sufficient information that clearly demonstrates that charity law has been breached in this instance.  It would be unfair for us to act on unsubstantiated allegations or opinions which could disrupt a charity’s work and have a detrimental effect on its users and beneficiaries; ·         We cannot become involved in disputes over employment law issues.  In such instances, we would recommend that you contact ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service:) as this organisation provides information, advice, training, conciliation and other services for employers and employees to help prevent or resolve workplace problems. I trust that this response explains why we cannot become involved on this occasion. Yours sincerely Michael Delaney Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance Team ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ On track to meet your filing deadline? Charities have ten months from their financial year end to file their Annual Return and Accounts. Find out more at www.charitycommission.gov.uk. Remember to file on time and use our online services. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.