To: stow_adjudicator@btinternet.com Barbara Stow
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:49:34 +0100
Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
Hi,
I think, that, when you wrote your report, you must have thought that the
automated e-mail, was sent on the
same day, as the e-mail it was answering to.
(And not six days before).
And also, you must have thought, that the CAB, had the right e-mail adresse,
on their website.
I explain to you, that this isn't right.
So, you have had wrong information, that you have based your report on.
I also question your judgement, regarding, what you wrote in your report.
This was mentioned, in points 1-8, in my previous e-mail, from 25/4.
This is only for the record.
I'm not telling you, what to do, regarding this. (Since I have no right to
do that, since
the CAB is a charity, and I have no formell right to complain about your
report, as far
I've understood).
I just wanted to make opinion clear.
Just for the record, so I at least can explain about the things I'm
disagreeing with, even if I know,
that I have no formell right to appeal.
So I hope it is alright, that I bring this up for the record, anyway!
Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog
On 4/28/08, Barbara Stow
>
> Dear Mr Ribsskog
>
> The result of my review of how your complaint was handled is in my
> report. I was grateful to you for pointing out my error in the date of the
> e-mail and explaining where the wrong e-mail address for the bureau was
> displayed.
>
> There is nothing else for me to add to the report.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Barbara Stow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Erik Ribsskog
> To: Barbara Stow
> Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 3:50:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
>
> Hi,
>
> I see that you have conluded your involvement.
>
> But, how can you say that the CAB haven't done anything wrong, when.
>
> 1. The meeting at the CAB, was held in the dark.
>
> 2. The CAB representative, was lieing, in report 1, where he said he
> turned the lights on there, at the beginning of the
> meeting, which he didn't he turned them on at the end of the meeting.
>
> 3. How could the automated message, be delayed for six days?
>
> 4. Why doesn't anyone (neighter you, or the CAB Chief Executie), reflect
> on, that the automated message, was delayed for six days?
>
> 5. I tell you, that there was a street theater operation, going on in the
> CAB premisses.
>
> I don't mean that the operation was on the steet outside the State House.
>
> Street Theater, is a term, it doesn't have to be on the street, even if
> it's calles Street Theater.
>
> 6. How can the CAB have had the wrong e-mail address, on their website,
> for years, like it seems from the website design?
>
> 7. Why is it, that I'm writing all the time, that the meeting, on 5/4, was
> being held in the dark, and still noone reflects on this.
> Isn't this a bit inpolite, to act in a way like that?
>
> 8. You say, that the delay with the automated message, was not due to
> something that was sinister.
>
> I appriciate, that you are explaining to me, what it isn't due to.
>
> But the reason I'm complaing, is not to find out what it isn't due to.
>
> I'm trying to find out what it is due to.
>
> So I'm really not very much viser, from your reply.
>
> I know one thing that it isn't due to, but I think would be very fine, to
> know what it was due to.
>
> What caused this, the six days delay, to the automated message.
>
> So I hope you have the oppertunity to have a look at this again!
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Erik Ribsskog
>
> Again, I've seen that you have conluded your work, but like I explained,
> in the last e-mail, I can't see that these issues are
> being taken seriously, by eighter you or the Chief Executive, so I'm goint
>
>
>
> On 4/25/08, Barbara Stow
> >
> > Dear Mr Ribbskog
> >
> > Thank you for this message and for the second one to which you attached
> > a screenshot.
> >
> > I attach my letter in reply.
> >
> > Barbara Stow
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Erik Ribsskog
> > To: Barbara Stow
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:24:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Citizens Advice
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank you very much for your answer!
> >
> > I've been reading through your report now, and I have some comments on
> > it.
> >
> > I hope it's alright that I send you these comments!
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > Here you write, that I left the employment with Arvato Services Ltd.
> >
> > What happened, was that the Managing Director ordered me home, with pay,
> > since he wouldn't let
> > me stay and work there, since he feared for my security there, he said.
> >
> > Arvato, were supposed to call me, when they had checked up more about
> > what went on in the company.
> >
> > They didn't call me, but they pushed a 'phoney' letter under the door to
> > the building I live in, which was
> > written, by one the persons I had reported there, and which the Managing
> > Director, had put in charge of
> > the investigation of the problems I had reported.
> >
> > And then, I got a form, saying my employment there had ended.
> >
> > I reported about this to the Police, as continuing of the harassment,
> > which is the way I saw it.
> >
> > Now lately, I've heard, that this type of dismissal, is also called
> > 'constructed dismissal'.
> >
> > So I didn't leave the employment.
> >
> > I was the subject of a constructed dismissal.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this, since this isn't reflected in your
> > report.
> >
> > 9.
> >
> > You write that the area was poorly lit.
> >
> > It was in fact very poorly lit.
> >
> > One couldn't read like a folder or a newspaper there.
> >
> > (At the Liverpool Central CAB premisses).
> >
> > And most of the meeting there, was held in the dark there.
> >
> > This isn't reflected in your report I think, that the meeting was
> > held in the
> > dark, so that it wasn't possible to read there.
> >
> > 11.
> >
> > Morecrofts had promissed me, on 10/4, that they would take on the case,
> > on a payment plan type
> > of payment-solution.
> >
> > Miss Pool said this.
> >
> > So when they (Samantha) said on 24/4, that there could be no payment
> > plan type of payment-solution,
> > then the company, went back on what I had previously agreed with them.
> >
> > I thought I'd make a point of this as well, since I can't see it's
> > reflected in your report.
> >
> > 16.
> >
> > You write, that the second e-mail I sent the CAB Chief Executive David
> > Harker, was sent him on 22/8,
> > the same day as the automated reply for this e-mail was sent back.
> >
> > This isn't right at all.
> >
> > My e-mail, was sent on 16/8.
> >
> > And the CEO's automated, or 'automated' reply, was sent back, on 22/8.
> >
> > I'm a bit disapointed, since noone seem to think, that this is
> > remarkable.
> >
> > Since I myself, think, that automated replies, shouldn't be sent many
> > days later.
> >
> > Since then, I suspect that they aren't really automated at all.
> >
> > Then I would start to think, that there's something phoney going on.
> >
> > So I'm a bit disapointed that you write that the second e-mail, that I
> > sent the Chief Executive,
> > was sent on 22/8, when it was in fact sent on 16/8.
> >
> > 51.
> >
> > You write, that you have checked yourself, that the e-mail address,
> > listed on
> >
> > www.liverpoolcab.org, now is the right e-mail address.
> >
> > But I checked it now, I went to the website, and pressed the
> > e-mail-button.
> >
> > Then outlook opens, and the e-mail address that one get up, is:
> >
> > bureau@liverpoolcab.f9.co.uk
> >
> > and not the right e-mail address (bureau@liverpoolcab.org), like you
> > write in your report.
> >
> > I'm enclosing a screenshot, from the Liverpool Central CAB website, from
> > today, that shows this.
> >
> > 52.
> >
> > You say that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > But I don't agree with this.
> >
> > Due to these reasons:
> >
> > 1:
> >
> > The CAP-representative, said that the whole meeting there, on 5/4, was
> > held with the lights on.
> >
> > But I explained, to the Chair there, that this was a lie.
> >
> > Since, he waited until the meeting was almost finished, before he
> > switched the lights on.
> >
> > And before this, it wasn't possible to read in the area.
> >
> > The fact, that the representative, read the fax-number, from the phone
> > list, instead of the
> > phone-number, to EAD, I think shows this, that the representative lied.
> >
> > But this fact, that the representative lied, has been ignored, by the
> > Chair there, thats Chairman of
> > the Board then, I presume. And by the CAB Chief Executive.
> >
> > I don't think this is very fair.
> >
> > 2:
> >
> > Further, you write, that e-mails were answered late.
> >
> > But some e-mails, like the ones I sent the Comlaints Manager there,
> > Follows, weren't answered at all.
> >
> > This isn't reflected on, as far as I can see, in your report.
> >
> > 3:
> >
> > And what about the problems with the automated reply.
> >
> > Or the 'magic' automated reply, would maybe be a better description of
> > the nature of this reply.
> >
> > Since the automaded reply, waited, from 16/8, untill 22/8, before it
> > found it right to send itself.
> >
> > Isn't this a bit strange, that the CAB headoffice, is operating, with
> > seemingly 'magic' automated replies?
> >
> > Why didn't the Chief Executive reflect on this at all?
> >
> > Even if I made a point of it, in the compaint.
> >
> > So I don't agree with you, that the complaint was dealt with fairly.
> >
> > And I also think also you yourself, should have maybe reflected more on,
> > at least, point 1 and 3 here, in your report,
> > since I made a point out of these issues, in my remarks, regarding the
> > Stage 3 report, from the Chief Executive.
> >
> > These are the issues that comes to mind, from reading your report now.
> >
> > So I thought I'd send you them, so that you could be aware, of the
> > obvious errors you've made, with the Liverpool
> > Central CAB's e-mail address, on their website, which you write that you
> > have checked, and you say it's now
> > the right address, which it isn't.
> >
> > And the error, when you write, that my second e-mail to the Chief
> > Executive, was sent on the same date, as the
> > ('magic') automated reply, was sent back (22/8), when the e-mail was in
> > fact sent on 16/8. (And not on 22/8,
> > like you write in your report).
> >
> > So these are obvious errors, to do with obvious facts. So I don't think
> > this can be disputed.
> >
> > The other issues, surrounding that the lie from the CAB representative,
> > isn't reflected on.
> >
> > That the fact that the meeting there, was held in the dark, isn't
> > acknoledgded, even if I make a point of it in the
> > answers to the various reports, I think is worrying.
> >
> > Since I explain what happened around this in detail.
> >
> > That I explain that the CAB representative read the fax-number to the
> > EAD-company, instead of the phone-number.
> >
> > So it shouldn't really be any doubt regarding if the meeting there, was
> > held in the dark or not.
> >
> > I also explained, that there seemed to be some kind of 'Street
> > Theather', arranged there, at the Liverpool Central CAB.
> >
> > That it seemed that there was a planned Street Theather operation, set
> > up there, in connection with my meeting there
> > on 5/4, last year.
> >
> > This isn't taken seriously.
> >
> > I think this is probably something to do with, that I have been in
> > contact, with the Liverpool Police, regarding something
> > I overheard, when I was working in Norway, that I was followed, for some
> > reason unclear to me, by some mafia.
> >
> > (Possibly due to some honour-stuff, due to some misunderstandings, with
> > a collegue there, in the township, that the
> > shop I worked as part-time team-leader in, besides my University level
> > studies).
> >
> > When I got to Liverpool, I overheard that the Police-officer, that I
> > explained to, that I was followed, said on the back-office,
> > on St. Ann St. Police Station there, that 'don't he understand, that
> > noone wants to be involved'.
> >
> > I think, that the British Police, after this, that they sent me out of
> > the Police-station, without leting me explain properly,
> > about this, why I thought I was being followed, have been having some
> > type of survailance operation, around me.
> >
> > And that this Street Theater operation, at the CAB, last year, was part
> > of this Police surveilance operation.
> >
> > So that the whole meeting there, wasn't a proper meeting at all, just
> > some kind of phoney set-up.
> >
> > I don't think this is right.
> >
> > Because since Norway are part of the EU-market, then Norwegian citizens
> > have the right, to work and live in Britain.
> >
> > And I have paid tax to the UK government, and to the Council.
> >
> > So I don't think it's right that my rights should be ignored, in a way
> > like this, since the Police want's to have some
> > kind of set-ups, like it seems.
> >
> > Anyway, how this is, I can't see that this is reflected on in your
> > report.
> >
> > But I suspect, due to the mistakes in your report, that I've mentioned,
> > and due to the many things you just ignore in it,
> > and fail to reflect on.
> >
> > Due to this, I also suspect that your report, could be part of this
> > phoney Police operation, or what this all is.
> >
> > So I think this is very poor.
> >
> > That the organisation, and system, around the CAB, that is supposed to
> > work for making sure that peoples rights are
> > respected, just play games with peoples rights in a way like this.
> >
> > Since I think it has to be something phoney going on here, since the
> > whole CAB process around the meeting and
> > the complaint, is obviously corrupt.
> >
> > So the reason that I'm writing this e-mail, isn't really because that I
> > think something will be done regarding the
> > serious issues I've been pointing at here.
> >
> > But I'm planning to publish my e-mail on my blog, so then at least, I'll
> > be able to deal with this in that way, that
> > I at least get this published, so that maybe someone reads this, and
> > maybe react or reflect on what's going on.
> >
> > So that's really why I'm writing this e-mail.
> >
> > Just to explain about this.
> >
> > Hope this is alright!
> >
> > Yours sincerly,
> >
> > Erik Ribsskog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/24/08, Barbara Stow
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Eribsskog
> > >
> > > I enclose the report of my review of your complaint.
> > >
> > > I have also sent it to Citizens Advice. They will write to you within
> > > the next two weeks when they have considered the report.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2008 12:12:35 PM
> > > Subject: Fw: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > When I wrote to you on 1 April I said that I hoped to complete my
> > > review by today, 18 April.
> > >
> > > I have almost done so but I am not yet quite ready to send the report.
> > >
> > > I am sorry for the delay. I will write to you again not later than
> > > the end of next week.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > > From: Barbara Stow
> > > To: Erik Ribsskog
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2008 1:05:32 PM
> > > Subject: Citizens Advice
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Ribsskog
> > >
> > > I am the independent adjudicator for the Citizens Advice service and I
> > > write to confirm that Saffron Follows, on behalf of David Harker, has asked
> > > me to review how your complaint has been dealt with. I am writing by e-mail
> > > as I understand this is your preferred means of communication.
> > >
> > > I will consider whether your complaint has been dealt with in line
> > > with the Citizens Advice national complaints procedure and fairly. I have
> > > no authority to say whether your complaint justified. My task is to say
> > > whether it has been considered properly.
> > >
> > > Ms Follows has sent me the correspondence about your complaint. This
> > > includes the e-mail message of 14 March to David Harker in which you
> > > accepted the offer that someone independent could look at your complaint.
> > >
> > > If there is anything more you would like to say to me about why you
> > > are unhappy with the way your complaint has been considered, please let me
> > > know at the e-mail address above.
> > >
> > > I hope to be able to complete my review by 18 April. If I have not
> > > heard from you by 11 April I will assume that there is nothing you want to
> > > add to what you have explained already.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Barbara Stow
> > > Independent Adjudicator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment