No. 1493:
The website Sokelys describes our feud with the Government Attorney and PBE here in Oslo, but does not mention the unfair and meaningless treatment we have received!What the PBE here in Oslo, with the Government Attorney, the County Governor, the Civil Prosecutor and the courts are up to, is nothing but a level of criminal work for nothing. Their arguments and attacks on us and our property do not make sense or reason. It is a form of criminal work, without any purpose, meaning or content.
Illustration of some criminal workers.
It is at the level this case is.
This writes the Searchlight website.
https://www.sokelys.com/?p=24818Blogger Christensen cannot try his building case in the Court of Appeal - may have lost more than a million on the project!
Blogger Jan Kåre Christensen has, as previously written, filed a case against the State after he had, without applying in writing, erected a wall, a staircase and a booth on his own site. According to Christensen himself, he had twice what he mentions as an oral permit by his former case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. According to Christensen, this must twice have given him oral permission to erect a wall without applying, since it was a low wall from before. Both the wall and the external booth and the stairs down to the Stormyrveien were thus erected before there was anything other than a slightly unclear oral permit that the former case officer does not remember afterwards. According to the blogger himself, the neighbors must have given him permission to build, but in hindsight, when they saw how the towering wall was in the terrain, they changed their mind and complained to the municipality of Oslo. The municipality then made an inspection without the evangelist being aware of it, and then made a decision that both the wall, shed and staircase that now must be demolished were listed illegally.
Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen erected an 11 meter long and approx. 1.85 meter high retaining wall on their property in Krokstien 2C in Oslo. A little before this, a gear shed of approx. 12 sqm. After first rejecting a defective application in 2014, Oslo municipality received the Planning and Building Administration on July 1, 2016, an application for entry of the support wall and the fine. In the case of the booth, an application was made for an exemption from the provisions on the utilization rate in the house plan and the distance provisions in section 29 of the Road Act. terrain interventions, and the regulatory purpose of traffic area road. The municipality came to the conclusion that the statutory conditions for granting an exemption were not fulfilled, cf. the decision of 14 October and 20 October 2016. The County Governor of Oslo and Akershus declined a complaint against the decisions, cf. no, cf. letter May 30, 2018. The county governor rejected applications for reorganization on June 14, 2018. Subsequently, Christensen sued the case before the district court, whereupon he lost the case and was sent both own and the state's legal costs. Christensen then appealed the case to the Borgarting Court of Appeal, which has now concluded that his appeal is rejected because it is likely that the Court of Appeal will not come to another result. In the district court the result was this: “Oslo District Court passed judgment on December 21, 2018 with such a ruling: 1. The State at the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization is acquitted. 2. Jan Kåre Christensen is sentenced to pay 40 600 - forty thousand six hundred - in compensation for legal costs to the State by the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization. The payment deadline is two to two weeks from the announcement of the judgment.
Not another result in the Court of AppealIn the conclusion of the Borgarting Court of Appeal, it is stated as follows: "The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13 second paragraph are fulfilled, and that the appeal should be refused. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result. ”Christensen is also charged with an additional NOK 6,000 in legal costs. Since Borgarting's Court of Appeal's rejection of the case cannot be appealed, this sentence is for this case. The blogger must therefore tear everything he has built and at the same time purses out with both his own and the state's costs as well as everything that will cost to demolish. Together, the Court of Appeal's decision means that the blogger incurs a staggering financial loss. On direct questions from Searchlight about how much he has lost on it all, Christensen responds as follows: "Has not counted on it, but somewhere between 1 - 2 million," writes Christensen who assumes that in pure money there is a million in losses plus the loss of the values staircase, booth and wall make up. First, the expenses to build, so expenses to get Paal Løvaas For Ferdigattest Byggesak A / S to write and send an application for exemption in retrospect. Then the blogger has to spend expenses both for his own lawyer, the state's legal costs, the costs of tearing everything he has built up, and the costs of returning things to the way they were in 2013. In one of his many writings about the case, Christensen says this: “Now was this third time i've been drawn to court for really nothing.
HovedpunkteDuring these negotiations, I was careful to be "waterproof" when I also wrote in advance and talked well and long in court. But what does the judge do? This was the dishonest judge Edvards Os. Well, he says in a lie story that I haven't understood what I've been told. "It's strange, our family and I am probably Norway's nicest man and law-abiding, as the first Christians and Jesus were. But the opposition to our family from the authorities is great, as the scripture says we must count on. It reminds me of what Jesus and his disciples suffered from lies. When Jesus had stood up, the guards who "slept" were paid to pay to say that his disciples had stolen his body. The lies of the guards of the tomb of Jesus and the court judge Edvards Os are of the same age, "Christensen wrote who has now finally lost the case. Christensen had long hoped that the municipality would grant dispensation (as they have done in some other building issues) but his gambling did not lead and for the blogger it might feel unfair.
(Finally quote).
But there are many things they do not bring, here are some points.1.) We did not appear in court that the fine is shared with the rental apartment
2.) Our house is built in such a way that we do not have a real storage room as we have to go through several rooms to get to the storage room.
3.) The booth in the basement lane is cramped and impossible to store bike and other things there.
4.) The angle of the judgment is far too positive against what the Government Attorney and the County Governor reject.
5.) That we built the booth in good faith is not mentioned roughly and that we have done the same before is not mentioned.
6.) That the wall gives us a flatter terrain and more green areas is not included.
7.) Our booth is minimal above the utilization of our plot, but others also our neighbors have actually searched several times and have utilized the plot 54 times more than us. Making such a big difference between people in the same living area is not right.
8.) We have been verbally told to build masonry on old wall NOT APPLICABLE.
9.) We have a wall that is no higher than the neighbor's right across the road.
10.) The judgment states the following: “Second, in addition, the benefits of granting dispensation must be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment.” In my opinion, only benefits we have built are not ONE ONLY, NON-NON, ONLY ONE !!!!
11.) Neighbor has got in house b has been approved both wall and staircase, which we have not received, even our staircase will the tear that is not mentioned in the judgment? Should it be torn or not?
12.) The judgment is not based on the fact that what we have built is not a single negative thing with. There have not been problems for the bus, not for the view of traffic, there are only advantages, not some disadvantages and something negative with what we have built. Not even aesthetic.
13.) That we should tear this and neighbor's approval, appears to be pure and happens vandalism and completely unnecessary.
14.) "In the case of the fine, the municipality considered the benefits and disadvantages of the measure against each other, and thought there was no clear predominance of benefits in granting exemption". They have never justified this, and neither does the court. Only reason for rejection and that we do not reach out here are the rule riders who control the bay and both ends. The fact that we have accepted a paragraph even though then should and should we receive an exemption is totally ignored.
15.) When others simultaneously apply as us, for 2 or 3 times about exemption and get it. While we get blank no appears as a huge democratic problem that neither the court, the county governor nor the PBE here in Oslo want or want to decide on.
16.) This is written in the judgment: “In the case of the support wall, the municipality believed that a dispensation would entail a substantial breach of the considerations behind the regulatory provisions. Nor was there a clear predominance of benefits in granting exemption. ”
I strongly dispute this, there are only benefits, no drawbacks to what we have built and done, no one mentions backs except that we have broken a paragraph, that is the only negative with everything we have built.
17.) The road in Stormyrveien is also one-way, so that no traffic will be met. Then a possible wall of 1.5 meters and 2 meters of no significance as it does not prevent visibility when the Stormyrveien where we live a flat stretch without turning. After we built the wall, the road surface has become approx. 20 cm wider and it does not fall down the filler and dirt as it did before and makes the road surface dirty and soiled.
18.) In the judgment it says so well: "In reality, there are no drawbacks to the wall. You really only face benefits. Then it can be granted exemption. The wall does not mean that any provisions have been substantially violated. "
This does not appear at all in the judgment, for me the whole judgment appears to be a form of rational argument and rhetoric, sad!
19.) It is stated in the judgment: “Before the wall was set up, the plaintiff was in contact with the case officer Lange in the municipality. They had two phone calls. He asked on the entry of the wall on the old wall. It can't excluded that in the conversation there were misunderstandings or ambiguities. "
This is not right, I understood very well what Kaja Aubert Lange said, that there should be misunderstandings is something the court puts into the verdict which for me appears to be actually lying, not good in a judgment this.
20.) The verdict says: "The actual excess of 0.64% is also very modest."
Here we are 2 families who share this minimal small booth, that it should be demolished so that it exceeds the utilization rate minimally by just about, 7 sqm2 seems so bad that I do not weigh which words I should use another totally meaningless!
21.) When I read the judgment, it is only for one reason that we have to tear down walls, stairs and stalls. This is because the rules must be followed to the letter when PBE thinks so. No one over, no one next to the state, and those who decide.
There is nothing for everyone in the world that we have built. Neither the store, the staircase nor the store, that one they write the following as this one there are more advantages than disadvantages for tearing what we have built experienced as just as a hypothesis without root in reality!
22.) This judgment states: "The plaintiff therefore argues that there is grossly unreasonable discrimination and that the result is arbitrary. Furthermore, the decisions lack the understanding of fact on the spot. The county governor's legal application pursuant to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act has thus become incorrect. ”
But when the judge goes on, he writes: "The relevant measures require dispensation pursuant to the Planning and Building Act § 19-2"
In other words, no matter what we state as long as a dispensation is required, PBE is actually allowed to do anything and then, if one is to follow the judge here, all argumentation is wasted. This is not democratic but as it is in totalitarian countries and courts. Is this Norway or a dictatorship state? The verdict here is I totally disagree, we must appeal!
23.) Sorry strong wording, but after reading the verdict twice it is as I see it horrible to me as all of our arguments are set aside for PBE having after all made no obvious mistakes. Is it not wrong not to grant an exemption in this case where everything we have built is only positive!
24.) The small house plan they refer to is also partly misleading when we live in an old established field with houses around us which are as rules much smaller and lower than ours. They have walls and other things that are in many cases larger than ours, even though we have a house that is bigger and not least higher. Everything that is to our advantage is not mentioned, and at least not taken into account. Here, paragraphs apply more than anything else.
25.) It is obviously suggestive when neither PBE, County Council and court have been on inspection here. Imagine, no one on the inspection and even though I have written mail to both the County Governor and the PBE to come for inspection, and my lawyer urged the court to come on inspection, no wish and will come.
26.) The judge writes so confidently this: "In the case of the support wall, the considerations behind the relevant regulatory provisions will be substantially disregarded if an exemption is given. Furthermore, the benefits of giving dispensation are not "clearly greater" than the disadvantages. "
I disagree with 120% and he does not give any reasons either, not credibly what he then writes?
27.) It is undisputed that both measures - both the wall and the fine - require exemption according to section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act. Both parts are to be regarded as "measures" in the sense of the Planning and Building Act, and they are in violation of the current zoning plan "Regulation plan for small-house areas in Oslo's outer city, S-4220, adopted on 15 March 2006, with revised regulatory provisions adopted 12.6.13. writes the judge.
Instead of trying with a "counter attack" with paragraphs and examples that we have come up with in divergent terms on difference treatment etc. Then it's what he just "gives up" and says that the race is run when there is a dispensation here. Yes it does, and here one can with advantage and easily give it without coming into conflict with neither the roadway, the bus company that runs here or general traffic or the view of neighbors or anyone else. It is quite incomprehensible that no dispensation has been granted in this case when others receive it up to X times more than ourselves from 2006 and beyond since the house plan is from.
28.) Judgment is not based on what is actually true when it is called "clearly greater than the disadvantages" does not have relevance only to follow paragraphs. Here are a thousand reasons why the thing should stand as they are built, and only one reason why it should be demolished. The one reason is that it must be applied for and get dispensation as this is beyond the limits of a few millimeters and cm. While others are metervis outside and receive exemption. If exemption is not to be used in this case here, then it becomes incomprehensible that others can get what has violated the regulations actually by just what we have found of the largest example 54 times more than us, and it only 50 meters in the airline from us and the case ended in 2018. In other words, after we applied.
29.) The truth is that before we built the wall, the slope was steep, not flat as PBE raised there. And especially when it was raining, it was soft and mold and other things went down and the bedridden on the road. Mur was required, and then I mean required. The fact that this does not appear in the judgment is certain because the PBE and County Council, or the court, have been on inspection. Looking back in hindsight, that when one has not been willing to come to the inspection, the statements are partly misleading and misleading as in the judgment.
30.) Judge Edvard Os writes the following: In his refusal dated 14 October 2016, the Planning and Building Authority assessed the measure against the considerations behind the provision as follows: “A wall with height from 1.75 m to 1.85 m, in 11 meters length, and with accompanying terrain fulfillment, is considered a comprehensive terrain change. The wall leads to an unnatural transition between land and road, and that the green slope between the house and the road is lost. ”(Quote end).
In court, I argued that this was misleading and also referred to the picture where the neighbor who has not done anything that the terrain they state here is not right. When he then writes this into the sentence, it is clear that one in a way writes false that one should get the judgment to fit in with the result than wishes. All the judgment I am 120% unequal with in all paragraphs, at least large parts.
Not my conclusion!
Here are other things I have also written, bring it along.
1.) These phone calls between me and Kaja Aubert Lange will downplay them and believe they have no value. This will be completely wrong.
No wall had ever been built without these phone calls, where she guided me and made it clear that it was not necessary for us to build our wall above the old wall. That would have been a good 1.5 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top there as our wall would not be higher than its neighbors who have walls of over 2 meters with a fence of 1 meter on top of it.
2.) This also confirmed indirectly by our responsible applicants Ferdigattest AS, who writes this in our application to PBE here in Oslo.
"By the way, not all the walls in the area were established before the house plan became applicable. Several of the walls in the area appear to have been established after 2006. From the point of view of the case, we cannot see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien which concern explicit walls over the past 100 years. ”
If one goes in and reads on PBE homepages here in Oslo, it looks like this is right. No one has applied for walls here until almost 2016 when it seems that PBE had a "rassia" here and approved "everything". Apart from what we have built.
The small house plan was supposedly established in 2006, but never communicated to us that it was here at Hellerudtoppen. Then this is also a service error not to inform about this when we called and talked to them (Kaja Aubert Lange, our then case officer) several times before construction.
3.) Reads through the legislation on exemption. So it clearly shows that dispensation should be given if it is positive for the environment, security etc.
With us before we built the wall, the filling mass ran out towards the road, now it does not. Only the little thing here shows that PBE violates Norwegian law and the intention of what the law really says.
This says the Act: "When dispensing from the Act and regulations to the Act, special emphasis shall be placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environment, safety and accessibility."
Here it is quite obvious that in our case it is advisable to grant dispensation, then one is in harmony with the law, something one is not today with the harsh and unnecessary square treatment of us.
4.) It is PBE guidance that has created problems.
And what is "the problem" is reinforced by the fact that one does not want to get in touch in any area or add "gods" that should not be difficult in our case. Since it is only benefits, in fact, not a disadvantage of what we have built. They obviously break Norwegian law.
Violation of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11
5.) Our neighbor on the same site has also applied for PBE for exemption as you wall is actually higher than ours, then with the fence.
The actual blocks with masonry and fence on top are also 1.3 meters + fence of 1 meter. There is just one waiting for some additional information where it is clear that PBE wants to meet our neighbor. Read about the case yourself:
Building case 201011373
https://innsyn.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/saksinnsyn/casedet.asp?direct=Y&mode=&caseno=201011373
6.) Includes as I have described the telephone conversation between me and Kaja Aubert Lange, and that PBE here in Oslo has violated Norwegian law.
We moved in here in 2012. In 2013 we called down to our then case officer Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called down 2-3 times, to make sure we did the right thing.
It is not easy to reproduce this five years later, and when there were several phone calls it feels like one when it is five years later.
And, that the city of Oslo has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we should get everything down.
What happened to the phone calls we had with our then supervisor Kaja Lange Aubert?
Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-May and August 2013? It l it is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my memory she replied like this.
Then I asked about the following, we set up stairs and wanted to set up walls. Trapp I think we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level the Oslo municipality has given us the order to return to that we should use a rope to throw us down on the road with. You do not believe it, but we had it before we built a staircase that the city of Oslo has ordered us to demolish, to grasp the one who can.
I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall was built there before, it was not mandatory to build one on top of it. This replied Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange answered Aubert that then it was NOT APPLICABLE WHEN IT WAS BUILT A WALL FROM BEFORE!
THIS GOES GOOD GOOD!
I further said that we foresee a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was not a problem she said, as others from before have a higher wall than you.
In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING UP OLD WALL WAS NOT APPLICABLE.
As long as there was a wall there before, we didn't have to search even though the wall was different. In other words, we got permission in advance of our construction of masonry, the Oslo municipality breaks Norwegian law by contesting this.
7.) When can the dispensation be granted?
The municipality's access to granting exemptions is limited. It is required that the considerations behind the provision to which it is dispensed are not substantially disregarded. In addition, an interest weighing must be made, where the benefits of the measure must be assessed against the disadvantages. There must be a clear predominance of considerations that speak for exemption. This means that it will normally not be possible to grant an exemption if the considerations behind the provision for which an exemption is sought continue to apply with strength.
The assessment of whether the statutory conditions for being able to dispense are a law enforcement practice that can be reviewed by the courts. The Public Administration Act's rule on emphasizing the municipal self-government will thus only be taken into account when weighing the interest if an exemption is to be granted when the formal conditions of the Act for granting an exemption are fulfilled. It will apply in the same way in dealing with complaints and judicial control.
(quote end).
Here is clearly the following:
1.) It is required that the considerations behind the dispensation from which it is exempt are not materially disregarded.
Answer. In our case, nothing is significantly neglected, on the contrary, living environment and everything is much better.
2.) an exemption is sought from which still applies with strength.
Answer. We have built a booth that only "bounces" the border with a few sqm2 on a plot of more than 1500 sqm2. The wall is actually lower than its neighbor across the other side. It is not something that will have a negative effect on giving us dispensation, we are really only left with positive things.
8.) We have received a clear rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett, why?
It is angled and fabricated only with the aim of hitting us. Here they have jumped belly over so many facts in the case that it appears to be almost on the verge of being written with an overly subjective purpose of defending PBE here in Oslo that should not be walked in the seams in some areas.
Everything that can be used against us is used. What can speak to our advantage is completely proven omitted. In my opinion, the rejection from Borgarting Lagmannsrett is not held or credible. It is angled too negatively against us.
9.) The Court of Appeal finds that the conditions for refusing the appeal pursuant to the Dispute Act § 29-13 second paragraph are fulfilled and that the appeal should be denied. There is no prospect that an appeal will result in another result.
This is what the Court of Appeal writes, and we dispute that. It's just really a problem here that everything gets angled IMOT US! FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THAT WE HAVE BUILDED, NO PROBLEMS OR REASONABLE WITH, ONLY POSTIVE.
According to the law this: the benefits of granting exemption must be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment. It cannot be exempted from case processing rules.
(quote end).
When the PBE, County Council and Civil Ombudsman use this, there are clearly more disadvantages than advantages of having to demolish masonry, stairs and storerooms and not mention one thing. The only thing they can mention as "benefits" is that we have conflicted with some paragraphs and so little. But only this can be negative to us. Otherwise, it is only positive things with what we have built. Mention someone to show clearly that in our case, dispensation and that we will keep the wall, staircase and shed are the only correct ones.
It is positive with masonry that we get a flatter outdoor area. With stairs we get a safe access and with the booth we do not have to use presses and other things about our things. There are a thousand things to mention if soneeded.
10.) The Court of Appeal writes: Nor is it a mistake that the case officer Aubert was not taken as a witness. The witness was dropped by Christensen during the main hearing. (quote end).
This is about the only sentence in which I agree with what the Court of Appeal writes. But this was a miss on our part when my lawyer and I were so different on the case. The reason for this was probably howlid got into the case late and we made this slip. But we can do that "good" again by Aubert Lange being told next time. It must be allowed to do anything wrong, until it is used to us for all its worth.
11.) The Court of Appeal sees completely proven in that it is a very skewed differential treatment of us. It may well be that the law does not fully take this into account, but then there is something wrong with the law and the wording.
It is obvious when one reads through the Dispute Act and otherwise all Norway's laws, so no one should take precedence or someone be neglected. Here we are neglected, while others get priority.
Blue. Our neighbors just outside of us at Stormyrveien 9 c have exceeded the utilization rate of the plot 54 times more than us, and the case ended in 2018. Thus, the same period that PBE and the public agencies have been doing with us. This is obviously a service error that also violates Norwegian law.
§ 171. Service error.
12.) The Court of Appeal completely ignores the fact that we have had an oral agreement and received oral guidance from PBE here in Oslo. Will remind you that an oral agreement is as binding as a written agreement according to Norwegian law.
King Kristian the law of the fifth.
(Who says that verbal agreement is the same as the written agreement.)
By Decree 14 Apr 1688, the law came into force from Mikkelsdag (Sep. 29, 1688). Here, only the provisions that are believed to remain in force are included. If repeal of different provisions and if any provisions that are supposedly lapsed, please refer to older editions of Norway's Law.
Fifth Book. About Access, Gods and Gield.
In Cap. About Contracts and Obligations.
1 Art.Everyone is obliged to comply if the hand with mouth, hand and seal promised and entered gardens.
2 Art. All contracts made by the volunteer by the volunteer, and come to the age of them, be they jealousy, hall, gift, alternation, pledge, loan, rent, obligation, forerunner, and other things by what name the name of the name of the man who is not against The Law, or Honor, should be kept in all its words and punctures, as the entry is.
(quote end).
13.) That we should be assessed on the basis of the house plan is incorrect.
It should actually be set aside in our case when our case officer did not guide us according to it, but after the settlement that was in and around our residence and in here in Stormyrveien. In many ways one can say that the court "operates" with the wrong set of laws when they assume that the house plan is valid in our case. It is not, but what Kaja Aubert Lange conveyed. Nothing else. And that it is really against the law to be as hard and square as PBE here in Oslo is, confirmed by the County Governor. If one goes into the law, it speaks of being generous in small deviations which after all apply to us.
Listen to what the law says:
§ 19-2. Exemption decision
- If the benefits of granting an exemption will be clearly greater than the disadvantages of an overall assessment
- whether (sufficient) emphasis is placed on the consequences of the exemption for health, environmental safety and accessibility.
(quote end).
In our case, there are only benefits, there are benefits to "for health, safety and accessibility."
Blue. when the car came with sirens when our daughter had become acutely ill. Then they used up stairs from Stormyrveien, it just shows that what we have built is required. Tear it breaks the law, all common sense and makes no sense.
Final Comment:The judgment against me and my family is deeply unfair.
When the neighbor just outside of us gets the exemption to utilize the utilization rate of the plot 54 times more than us.
Our excess is minimal on a plot of 1,595 m², the excess is only a few m²
This was just one of many arguments.
It is obviously wrong, undemocratic and totally meaningless.
What we have built does not actually have a negative thing or effect. In fact, it has only positive, appropriate and environmental benefits.
Tearing this makes no sense!
