onsdag 15. mai 2019

No. 1523: PBE is now trying to scare us into obeying their orders to tear down daily fines, this is abuse of power, bullying and harassment of the worst sort!

No. 1523:
PBE is now trying to scare us into obeying their orders to tear down daily fines, this is abuse of power, bullying and harassment of the worst sort!

Got mail in from PBE where they write among others. the following: "In our letter of 29.04.2019, it was informed that if no complete application for this measure is available by 01.06.2019, it will be subject to follow-up of illegality."
In other words, now there are daily fines that they are trying to scare us with.
We know who is doing this, playing on fear of sounding. Yeah, right there you were thinking.

The mail from PBE:

Rejection of appeal against decision not to give further postponement - Crook path 2 C It is referred to their letter of 03.05.2019 regarding the above.

Case concerns

The case concerns the complaint of the Planning and Building Administration's decision not to give further postponed deadline on orders for removal of the retaining wall and storage room. In addition, a new case officer is requested for the illegality case. Regarding the stairs, the agency has not issued any order for this. Parts of the stairs enter the area regulated by road and are therefore illegally listed.

Background for the case

In the mail of 11.04.2019, a postponed deadline was requested to comply with orders for rectification / reversal / removal of illegal conditions in the form of retaining wall, storage room and staircase.

The support wall against the road is partly part of a regulated road surface and has a design that cannot be approved as it stands today. In our letter of 29.04.2019, the deadline was set to comply with the order for the support wall until 01.06.2019. It was informed that no further delay would be given.

Today's outside and standalone booths can, as it stands today, not be approved according to today's rules. In the meeting with the municipality on 11 April 2016, a smaller store was outlined which could possibly be sought. However, it was pointed out that the fine still depends on the exemption from the regulation plans' degree of utilization. Postponement was subsequently granted until 01.06.2019. It was further stated that if a complete building application is submitted by 01.06.2019, the illegality case for the booth may be suspended pending the treatment.

It is pointed out that the stairs down the road are illegal as it is designed today. The staircase must be retracted so that it does not stand on a regulated road surface and it must then be searched. In our letter of 29.04.2019, it was informed that if no complete application for this measure is available by 01.06.2019, it will be subject to follow-up of illegality.
Case number: 201510929-32 Page 2 of 3

Rules regarding complaint

Pursuant to section 33 (fvl) of the Public Administration Act, the agency must carry out a preparatory examination of the complaint. If the conditions for processing the complaint are not available, the complaint shall be rejected. That the complaint is rejected means that the reality of the complaint, that is to say, the matters complained of, is not taken into consideration.
After fvl. Section 28, first paragraph, only individual decisions can be appealed. What is considered an individual decision is defined in fvl. § 2: a) decision, a decision made during the exercise of public authority and which generally or specifically determines the rights or obligations of private persons (individuals or other private legal entities); b) individual decisions, a decision relating to rights or obligations of one or more specific persons; "
Refusal of deadline request is a procedural decision. Process-leading decisions are not individual decisions.
Process-leading decisions are only of importance to the case processing, and have no consequences for the reality of the case. Examples of other process-leading decisions may be; decisions relating to deferred implementation until the complaint has been finalized, cf. section 42 of the Public Administration Act, decisions that set a deadline, rejection of a request for oral hearing, appointment of experts, etc.
The reality of this case is that an order has been made for the removal of both the retaining wall and the store which is final. In this case, a number of postponements have been given and the final decision is a decision not to postpone the deadline beyond the last set deadlines.

Decision Because the agency's decision not to give deferred deadline is not "individual decision", cf. the Public Administration Act section 33 second paragraph last sentence and section 28 first paragraph, the appeal is rejected.

The rejection decision can be appealed The agency's decision in this letter to reject the complaint, however, is an individual decision. That means you can complain about this decision. A complaint can be sent to the Planning and Building Administration within 3 weeks.

When it comes to requesting a new case officer on the case, we find no reason for this.

Planning and Building Administration Technical Department Unit for Construction Inspection Open City

This document is electronically approved 13.05.2019 by:

Therese Brøndum - group leader Anne-Marie Vikla - Department director

Our answer:

Answer - Rejection of a decision not to give further postponement - Krokstien 2 C mail of 13.05.2019 with ref: 201510929-32

Oslo 15 / 5-2019

Why we do not see it as relevant and relevant to comply with PBE NOK
of is simply that you do not answer our relevant questions.
As well as not guiding us in a good and fair manner as one might expect from a public agency. As we were promised with a meeting with Nils-Henrik Henningstad and Lena Catrine Amdal on 11.4.19.

1.) You want us to submit a new and complete application. It is good, but we have already submitted the "world's" best application through Ferdigattest AS. Better and more complete application than this, we find it difficult for us to send when you apply for the construction of masonry, stairs and storage rooms. It was with text, pictures and drawings. Others sit on the "kitchen table" and get the most through. How good an application should we deliver to be heard?
It's just a problem here, it's that PBE has two standards.
One for us, one for everyone else.
All we do is cause problems for you as we do not understand why? Then we don't have the ability to see things that you do. It is just like we are on two different "planets" where we think you are looking at us with an evil eye for reasons we do not understand. You claim that we are settling in, doing illegal activities etc. There is no doubt that our reality perception is totally opposite to PBE here in Oslo as it has emerged in the latest emails. We do not even agree on the facts of the case, then it is understandable that the cooperation that was promised is at the bottom.

2.) Now, the stairs you are going to kill are never mentioned before by you.
It was we who took it up at the meeting on April 11 to bring clarity to our lot in the road. We have not yet received an answer to any of you if we have asked several times. Only on 2 - 3 occasions are you threatening with daily fines etc. if we do not remove the stairs spore immediately.
It can easily be arranged so that it does not go out into the road, where as we see it is only talk about max. ½ meter more than we agreed with Mrs. Aubert Lange.

3.) We have received guidance several times, here is what actually happened.

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 six years afterwards, and when there were several phone calls it feels like one when it is six years later.

What happened to the phone calls we had with our then supervisor Kaja Lange Aubert?

Do you remember remembering that we called down mid-April and August 2013? It is six 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 a wall. 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 you have given us orders 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 the staircase, which gave us orders to demolish it, grasp it that can. We do not, never applicable to our security and everything to comply with such obscure and dark decisions that PBE operates with.

I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I got the answer that if a wall had been 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!

I further said that we envision a wall of 1.5 - 2 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was no problem, she said, as others from before have higher walls than you. Their is 2.5 meters with 1 meter fence.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for the sake of safety and asked the same, and the same answers were given.
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 this wall.
It was also asked and talked about distance from the road where 1 meter from the road surface was what had to be due to snow skiing etc.

4.) It is that neighbor in Stormyrveien 9 c that is in the air section from us 50 meters has been granted exemption from the utilization rate of 57 times more than us. Have you heard of anything worse? Not we, and they are allowed to have their standing, but we must tear ours.

Here's the calculation. And it's also important, I don't want them to tear anything. But they must keep everything. What is evil here from everyone's side is that we should tear down what we have built that is excellent and beautiful, and not to anyone's disgust. It is not poured "different" into someone else's walls or something, as ours is much lower than many others. Even the neighbor's who is a 2.5 meter high wall, while ours is 185 cm high.

The neighbor in Stormyrveien has also searched several times and received an exemption. They have been doing this l meadows after we built, when they were "finished" with everything in March 2018.

Reading through the documents several things are set up before they have applied for an exemption.
This applies to the property in Stormyrveien 9 c, and for our part this is completely, perfectly fine.
Blue. a tool shed of 10 sqm, and other.
Had eg. The dispensation here has been 2 - 3 times more than us, this case had also been very relevant.

But here they have built, searched and built several times and use the same argumentation as us.
A long-awaited outbuilding etc.
But then they have blasted everything with 57 times the utilization rate of the plot.
They build in the same period as us, located a few meters from us.
They get yes, we get no. In other words, there are a thousand reasons that you overlook to give us the minimum dispensation we need. How to apply without getting guidance is difficult as you always keep in mind that everything we do does not hold. While what others do, it keeps goals, no matter largely on the whole.

5.) Since we have been allowed and have built masonry, storage room and staircase. It has been applied before, we believe that it is only their difference treatment and unwillingness that underlies that no wall, staircase and storage room are approved and this has come in orderly conditions.

6.) You have been on a visit here, about a hidden inspection. We have stretched ourselves as far as we can and tried to get order in all conditions. Even though this has not led to you, you are now starting to threaten with daily fines, etc. What you are doing is at such a low level. Are you going to such a step to start demanding us for money etc. So, of course, the road is short for the mental stresses to be too big for us that sick leave and hopefully not disability benefits etc. are waiting?

For such a pressure as you put us down after you think we have done something illegal that for us is completely, completely beyond! In our eyes, all that you are doing is illegal and unnecessary. It is experienced as harassment, bullying and abuse of power.

7.) We will never do anything about anything on our property outside the stairs. We can agree that should be withdrawn. But it is we who have brought this on the path, not you. We also ask for our lot to be withdrawn, but have not yet received an answer. As we see it, half a meter must be more than enough? May hope for a constructive and good answer here by you.

8.) For the sake of fault, we appeal the rejection decision to the PBE and that we are not allowed to change the case officer. We also complain about these short deadlines, we complain about everything that PBE stands for and does. Nothing matters, and they do not have the standard one would expect from a public agency. The smallest goal must be that one is solution-oriented and that one does not make a difference between the municipality's inhabitants.
It's bad the whole PBE is in our eyes when they can do and adopt what they do, which is without goals and meaning.

The fact is that we disagree with you in absolutely everything. That we are going to demolish the wall and that it lies "too far" out in the roadway when the neighbor's is 20 cm from the road and our 1 meter. Just tell you that you want to tear, destroy, and engage in discrimination beyond anything we have ever been to! 57 times the neighbor gets to use the plot, they get to keep and we are going to demolish.
We are not close to thinking about meeting their demands as the differential treatment you are doing is, to our eyes, shameful and evil. The fact that we should not keep the nice and functional we have built is simply unthinkable with our eyes. The orders you come with are unfair and primitive.
The only thing here is that we get approved masonry and booth, and change on the stairs by not letting it get out of the way as it does now!

9.) Our case can not be compared to that of others without further ado as we have a commitment to build the wall. Will also emphasize that all we have built is more for the benefit of neighbors than nuisance. It is in favor of us, it is in favor of those in the rental apartment. There is really nothing negative about it all, it's just positive benefits!
It is in favor of absolutely everyone, even neighbors behind us using stairs to get easier to their own house, so as not to walk around completely if they park or come from the Stormyrveien.

10.) It is also weird that neighbor, closest who have the same farm and utility number as us, Peter Faarlund in Krokstien 2 d. Also has too high a wall, but there it looks like the dispensation goes through only they get the papers submitted.
No, what you are doing is nice to us when you have a "law" for others. Where everything goes through and a "law" for us, where everything is difficult. Our understanding of reality and PBE are real as night and day.

Berit and Jan Kåre Christensen
Crocodile 2 c
0672 Oslo

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar