Ipcc.

From: eribsskog@gmail.com Erik Ribsskog
To: peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk Peter Crouch
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:37:05 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Your Complaint To IPCC

Hi,

I can't see that I have recieved an answer to this e-mail yet, that's why
I'm sending it again.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Ribsskog <eribsskog@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 4, 2008 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
To: Peter Crouch <peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>


Hi,

well like I had decided to wait on the Ipcc answer which you sent me last
week.

I didn't get a letter sent to me on 10/1, so I have not recieved
confirmation of dispensation, untill I read this e-mail now.

But now I'm aware of this, and I would please like to appeal to the Ipcc,
with the reason that I haven't got any confidense
in the force, due to the reasons already mentioned.

That they have a phoney general enquiery e-mail address and more.

And I also think the cases are linked.

I have sent the new case as an update to the old case, when I have been
contacting you.

So I think they should be investigated collected, by the Ipcc.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,

Erik Ribsskog


On 3/4/08, Peter Crouch <peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> I understand that you have lost of confidence in the Merseyside Police and
> have decided to await confirmation of dispensation. It appears from my
> records that a dispensation was granted by IPCC and a letter sent to you on
> 10th January 2008.
>
> With regard to any more recent complaints that we have forwarded to
> Merseyside Professional Standards department (PSD), the same situation may
> arise if you do not respond to any letters you have been sent. You may be
> better advised to cooperate with the PSD, despite your lack of confidence,
> allowing them to complete any enquiries they intend to make. At the end of
> this process you then may have a right of appeal to the IPCC. Ultimately the
> decision is yours, but I just wanted to make it clear that you may
> disadvantage yourself by not cooperating.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> *Peter Crouch*
> *Senior Casework Manager*
> *Telephone Complaints Centre*
> *Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)*
> 90 High Holborn
> London WC1V 6BH
> Direct Line: 020 7166 3123
> Personal Fax: 020 7166 3423
> E-mail: peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Erik Ribsskog [mailto:eribsskog@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 28 February 2008 19:12
> *To:* Peter Crouch
> *Subject:* Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
>
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your answer!
>
> Like I exlained earlier, I've lost a bit of confidence in the Merseyside
> Police, due
> to the phoney e-mail addresses etc., so I don't think theres any point in
> me
> going to any more meetings with them etc.
>
> I'll just wait untill they're finished, and then I'll appeal to the Ipcc,
> for the Ipcc,
> to have a look at the incidents collected.
>
> Like I informed the Ipcc about in one of the former e-mail, which you are
> answering
> me on now, I recieved a letter from the Merseyside Police, from 3/12, last
> year,
> from an Inspector on the Complaints Investigation Bureau.
>
> It says in the letter, that they want an answer, within 21 days from 3/12.
>
> Then they were going to inform the Ipcc, that 'the need for further
> investigation
> of your complaint be discontinued because of lack of co-operation'.
>
> So I reackon I'll eighter hear from you, the Ipcc, or the Force then, once
> the Force
> have finished with their enquieries.
>
> And then I'll contact the Ipcc, when I've got confirmation from the Force
> or the Ipcc,
> that the investigation from the Force have been discontinued.
>
> Hope this is alright!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
>
>
>
> On 2/28/08, Peter Crouch <peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribsskog,
> >
> > I am writing in reference to your e-mail of 3rd January 2008 marked for
> > the attention of Douglas Cleaver. As the line manager for Sarah Brown
> > and previously the line manager for Joanne Fitzgerald, he has asked me
> > to respond to the concerns that you raise.
> >
> > Firstly please accept my sincere apologies for the prolonged delay in
> > contacting you.
> >
> > The first issue that you raised concerned an e-mail that you sent to my
> > colleague Joanne Fitzgerald on 10th November 2007, in which you
> > expressed a lack of confidence in the Police, following a meeting with
> > Walton Lane Police Station on 8th November 2007. You were informed by Ms
> > Fitzgerald that she had forwarded the e-mail to Michael Gibbs, the IPCC
> > Casework Manager who had been dealing with an Appeal that you had
> > submitted. Your concern appears to be a lack of response from Mr Gibbs.
> > Having looked into the matter I can see that Ms Fitzgerald asked Mr
> > Gibbs to consider whether the e-mail you had sent was part of the
> > previous Appeal. She also stated that he should pass the e-mail back if
> > he believed it to be a new complaint, which he duly did.
> > For your information the IPCC allocates the work to its staff based on
> > the category of work and geographical location of the force who are the
> > subject of the complaint. Accordingly all new complaints are dealt with
> > by my team at our London office and all Appeals, Dispensations and
> > Discontinuances are dealt with by the IPCC regional office dealing with
> > the Police Force concerned. In your case our Sale office deal with all
> > such matters regarding Merseyside Police related Appeals, Dispensation
> > And Discontinuances.
> > Since the e-mail of the 10th November 2007 was considered a new
> > complaint it was passed back to my department where it was assigned to
> > Casework Manager Sarah Brown, Joanne Fitzgerald having since moved into
> > a different department. Ms Brown contacted you on the 7th December 2007
> > and informed you that she had taken over the matter from Ms Fitzgerald.
> > However, I can see that since Ms Fitzgerald had informed you that she
> > had passed the e-mail to Mr Gibbs, you might still have expected a reply
> > from him even though you had been contacted by Ms Brown. I apologise if
> > there was any confusion there.
> > Also in your e-mail of 3rd January I notice that you refer to advice
> > received from Ms Brown that you should contact the police regarding your
> > lack of confidence in them. You state that this doesn't make sense.
> > While I appreciate you may wish the IPCC to become involved at this
> > point, you must remember that each police force is responsible for
> > considering complaints made against that force and for recording your
> > complaint. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording
> > your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us. Therefore, while I
> > acknowledge your frustration with the response, Ms Brown advice to you
> > was appropriate.
> >
> > You also raised 3 concerns following a new e-mail sent to Ms Fitzgerald
> > on 5th December 2007.
> > 1) How to deal with a letter from the police.
> > 2) How to deal with a letter from the IPCC, in connection with an
> > harassment episode on Walton Lane Police Station on 8/11.
> > 3) The problem with Mr. Gibbs not answering the e-mail sent on 10th
> > November 2007.
> >
> > You go on to say that you consider only the 2nd point to have been
> > answered by Sarah Brown. However I can see that Ms Brown contacted you
> > by e-mail on 11th December 2007 and stated that whilst the police are
> > conducting an investigation into your complaint the IPCC is unable to
> > intervene and is not able to dictate which department carries out this
> > investigation. She went on to say that you will need to speak to the
> > Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Merseyside Police to discuss
> > further. While I appreciate that this does not make specific reference
> > to the letter received from the police, dated 3rd December 2007, it is
> > quite clear that we were not able to intervene and that you should
> > contact the PSD. As for the 3rd point concerning Mr Gibbs not
> > responding, I assume that Mr Gibbs did not feel it was necessary to
> > contact you since Ms Brown was now dealing with the e-mail from you. Ms
> > Brown similarly did not make reference to Mr Gibbs since she had
> > informed you that she would be responding to the e-mail that you had
> > sent Miss Fitzgerald.
> >
> > The final point you make in your e-mail, dated 3rd January 2008, was,
> > broadly, that the latest complaint should perhaps be dealt with together
> > with the previously made complaints. As you will be aware, the Appeal
> > that you submitted to IPCC in August 2007 had already been upheld and
> > the Merseyside Force instructed to 'record' your complaint. Therefore
> > they were already looking into that matter and the IPCC would not have
> > been able to instruct them to add any new matters to the existing
> > complaint. However, it is entirely possible that they might have chosen
> > to add them together once the new complaint was submitted. Once the
> > Force had completed their enquiries into any of the complaints that you
> > raised, you would have had a right to Appeal to the IPCC.
> >
> > I hope that this e-mail addresses the concerns that you have raised and
> > helps to explain the process that the IPCC has to follow and the reasons
> > behind some of the decisions that we took.
> >
> > yours sincerely
> >
> >
> > Peter Crouch
> > Senior Casework Manager
> > Telephone Complaints Centre
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London WC1V 6BH
> > Direct Line: 020 7166 3123
> > Personal Fax: 020 7166 3423
> > E-mail: peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> > privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> > recipient
> > please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying
> > or
> > distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The
> > content of
> > this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> > those
> > of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> > accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> > computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of
> > your
> > receipt of this email.
> >
> > Independent Police Complaints Commission
> > 90 High Holborn
> > London,
> > WC1V 6BH.
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> >
> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
> > leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> > recorded for legal purposes.
> >
>
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership
> with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of
> problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient
> please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
>
> distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content
> of
> this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily
> those
> of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
> accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
> computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
>
> receipt of this email.
>
> Independent Police Complaints Commission
> 90 High Holborn
> London,
> WC1V 6BH.
>
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On
> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>