It is obviously a service error and punishable by what PBE did when they said we could build on an old wall, but now this is against us and wants us to demolish!
It is pretty obvious that PBEs are lawless and go wrong when they have given us oral permission, and withdraw it.
They have violated Norwegian law on several points, including Norwegian law states that an oral agreement is as binding as a written one.
The prophet Isaiah speaks that those who are to govern the law do not use it properly. They abuse the law, especially against those who need and need protection.
The same is true in our case, that we feel that the authorities are abusing their power, and their entire power loss against us.
Isaiah 10. Woe unto them that give unrighteous laws, and issue pernicious letters, 2 to bring the petty away from the court, and to rob the poor of my people of their right, to make widows their spoil, and to plunder the fatherless. 3 But what will ye do in the day of the visitation, when the destruction cometh from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you do your taxes? 4 He who does not sink to the knees among the prisoners shall fall among the slain. But with all this his anger does not return, and yet his hand is stretched out.
The Prophet Isaiah's words are valid today, "to need petty people" is something that the government will be punished sooner or later.§ 171. Service failure
With a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years, the person who exercises or assists in the exercise of public authority is punished and grossly violates his duty of service.
Here there is an obvious service error, and we are therefore considering suing Kaja Aubert Lange in court.
It is not with a light heart, as she is the case manager we have come up with the best. But at the same time, it was through her advice and guidance that we built the wall as a plan and building agency here in Oslo.
This is what my lawyer Knut Howlid writes to the Borgarting Court of Appeal.
APPEAL TO BORGARTING LAGMANNSRETT
Case No. 18-104017 TVI-OTIR / 06
Appellant: Jan Kåre Christensen, Krokstien 2 c, 0672 Oslo
Prosecutor: Lawyer Knut M Howlid, Gyldenløvesgate 24, 0260 Oslo
Appellate party: The State at the Ministry of Municipal and Modernization PO Box 8112 Dep, 0032 Oslo
Attorney: Government Attorney v. Attorney Elisabeth Sawkins Eikeland PO Box 8012 Dep, 0030 Oslo
21.12.2018 Oslo District Court handed down judgment in case no 18-104017 with such conclusion:
1. The State of the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization is acquitted.
2. Jan Kåre Christensen is sentenced to pay NOK 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 verdict.
Jan Kåre Christensen thinks the verdict is wrong and appeals it to the Court of Appeal in its entirety with regard to incorrect assessment of evidence and use of law which Christensen believes is fraught with decisive deficiencies at the same time as he believes there are procedural errors.
The appeal does not include claim # 2 before the district court that the appellant may retain the wall, staircase and storage room as it is today, but it must be stated for good measure that this is what the case is about.
The case has not been adequately disclosed by the fact that documents and witnesses have not been brought, at the same time that none of the authorities that have handled the case have conducted an investigation so that they could hear Christensen's explanation and see his remarks on the spot regarding the matters concerning the terrain and location regarding the needs of stairs, masonry and storerooms.
It is required that the Court of Appeal hold an inspection, either in the f b m main hearing event. prior.
From this page it has previously been stated that it has been wrong of the district court not to hold a hearing as part of the main hearing. That an agreement was reached in the planning meeting not to conduct an investigation was due to the fact that Christensen was without experience of the case before a court when he was not represented by a proxy.
After the initial introductory conversation with me, Christensen included a claim in his final post that inspection was required. The same was included in my first petition of November 30, 2018. In a case that deals with several aspects of a real estate, one cannot receive sufficiently sound treatment, nor can the case be adequately disclosed, without investigation.
In particular, this will apply in the case before the District Court, when neither the City of Oslo nor the County Governor was willing to call for an investigation.
Photos may not be sufficient to safeguard the considerations of a local inspection.
The support wall - advance guidance
Christensen sought advance guidance in the municipality of Oslo on two occasions before the support wall was erected. Christensen claims that in both inquiries he described the wall and that he was accepted for the construction of the wall without having to seek prior permission.
In the two phone conversations in 2013 that Christensen had with case manager Kaja Lange Aubert
rt, who knew the area years back through the development period of Krokstien 2, he asked if it was okay to erect a new and higher wall on the former old wall along the Stormyrveien road to get a larger and much better outdoor area southwest of their accommodation on Krokstien 2 c.
On both occasions, Christensen believes that he was given a clear answer by the municipal caseworker that the wall was not compulsory as he described it. He himself perceived it as a binding acceptance and agreement. It seems clearly unreasonable if it is Christensen who, in a case like this, should be at risk of any misunderstanding.
It is stated that there are service errors with regard to guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any kind of doubt with the caseworker regarding the request, she should have asked to have a sketch and / or written presentation of the building measure to make sure that her guidance / advice was correct.
Thus, the municipality's duty to provide sound guidance and / or counseling has failed and in any case has not been properly clarified vs. a contractor who addresses the municipality's planning and building authorities with a very specific question of prior permission in a specific building case.
The case officer was waived by the undersigned as a witness for the district court. However, it later emerged during the main hearing that the State Prosecutor had no knowledge that the case officer to whom Christensen approached had also been a case manager in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.
The person in question was thus locally known in the area, familiar with the terrain heights and formations, as she had followed the development of the Krokstien from A to Z as far as Christensen has knowledge. Therefore, as a witness, the person will provide the case with the necessary information so that it will be far better and more properly informed.
In the guidance Christensen received, there was no mention of the considerations for small-scale housing, only that Christensen's wall would be like the other walls in the immediate area. Aubert Lange guided out from someone else's house on Stormyrveien.
Against this background, it is a mistake of the district court not to assume that the proprietor has been in good faith regarding the duty to apply. The only thing that has occurred through negligence is the case manager's handling of Christensen's inquiries. It is a mistake of the district court not to see this as a material breach of the duty to provide guidance after fvl. § 11.
This is what our responsible applicants write to PBE in Oslo.
From Completed Test Byggesak AS, Pb 9385 Greenland, 0135 Oslo
The municipality's duty of guidance:
Reference is made to Section 11. of the Public Administration Act If, from the supervisory authority, it has not been sufficiently and clearly communicated that the measures trigger the application obligation and exemption from the current plan basis, then this should also be given weight in an overall assessment of measures already implemented. The policyholder must be able to trust that he or she can follow the advice sought by the relevant authority. This naturally follows naturally from the Public Administration Act. On this occasion, it should be pointed out that the responsible applicant has only described the oral communication between the municipality and the initiative holder on the part of the initiative holder. We note that the municipality has failed to comment on this in its decision.
Other walls / stalls in the area and the principle of equal treatment:
It is correct as PBE writes in its decision that many of the walls established in the area were probably established before the current plan was adopted. However, it is not correct that all the walls were established before the detached house plan became applicable. Several walls have been erected towards the roadway in recent years.
When assessing the current wall in ft. other walls in the area are also specified that the wall in question is by no means the largest wall in the area, neither in height nor length. We note that PBE points out that many walls have been erected before the small house plan became applicable. The promoter then wonders if these are then legal, even though they have never been applied for and they obviously must have been in violation of both previously applicable plans and exemption provisions in the Planning and Building Act. To this end, we understand that the proprietor - who himself thinks they have followed the municipality's recommendation - considers it unreasonable to be the only ones being followed up.
The action holder finds it further unreasonable that PBE defends what the action holder perceives as a neighbor's illegally erected wall in his argument against the action holder's own wall. The respondent points out on this occasion that it is not correct that the neighbors' wall is not in a regulated way. Whether the neighboring wall is illegally constructed is unclear to us, but it is correct as the proprietor points out that the walls of the complaining neighbor's properties (both walls on the other side of the road and the nearest neighbor's wall) may appear to lie partly in areas regulated to the road.
Incidentally, the policyholder cannot understand the importance of neighboring walls (at least some of them) being associated with carport. The walls are not lower, or affect the area or the like
is less lane, for that reason.
By the way, not all the walls in the area were established before the small house plan became applicable. Several of the walls in the area appear to have been established after 2006. From case view, we cannot see that any cases have been registered in the Stormyrveien road relating to explicit walls in the last 100 years.
We assume that some walls are rated in sqm. other buildings, but notes that it may nevertheless appear that the project owner is right in that several of the walls have not been subject to a reality assessment.
Mht. natural transition to road, it is pointed out that the few plots in the area have natural transition to road. In most of the plots along Stormyrveien walls and or cuts have been established in one form or another. Several of these have the same size as the current wall.
Mht. The requirement for natural stone is then pointed out that there is great variation in the walls in the area, and that there is a considerable number of walls in plastered walls and concrete, ie with similar expression as the actual wall. In this connection, reference is made, for example, to the walls of Stormyrveien 9 and 12.
Mht. in conjunction with green areas, the policyholder perceives PBE's reasoning as slightly in excess of the application. Again, almost all the sites in the immediate area are referred to where this green space is broken up with some form of terrain - primarily the construction of walls. All complaining neighbors' properties are terminated against the road with what PBE refers to as an unnatural transition that violates the green contiguous areas against the road.
The initiative holder is wondering that residents in the immediate area should have received an exemption for a listed booth (case 201316839 - Stormyrveien 9C). Whether there are major differences in this case and the present case we are somewhat uncertain, but at least we note that this is also an illegal listed bid and that% BYA was reported up to 60%. We also record that the site is subject to another regulation, without being sure how it affects the assessment criteria. Furthermore, we assume that PBE has an overview that no corresponding exemptions have been granted in respect of PBE. % BYA for similar measures in the Småhusplan's scope.
We have not been able to answer several of the above statements exactly to several of the above quotations. Since it is PBE's arguments the proprietor refers to, we find it most natural to leave it to PBE to comment on this in the complaint case.
Mht. outdoor area:
In its decision regarding storage, PBE has emphasized the living areas. The defendant perceives this argument to some extent to be contradictory when the agency in fm. storage emphasizes the outdoor space a lot, while in fm. the improvement of the surface area attached to the wall does not attach this considerable weight. We understand the agency. that the storage facilities to some extent occupy land allocated for outdoor living, cf. given permits for housing. We also understand that the agency has assumed that sloping terrain (up to 1: 3) is considered usable (the living areas to the west if no wall is established). Mht. we will point out that due to changed regulations regarding calculation of the living area, the outdoor areas of the dwelling have in fact increased computationally, cf. given permission for housing, even after an established dwelling. Previously, PBE did not consider areas in sqm. roof terrace to be "usable", while acc. changing regulations then they do. Thus, requirements for outdoor space are met regardless of whether the accommodation is established or not. Mht. the outdoor areas to the west, we again want to point out that flat areas provide better opportunities for varied outdoor living than sloped areas. On this occasion, it is requested that the municipality look to the neighboring plots, and most plots down the Stormyrveien road (where trapping of terrain is relatively widespread) in its complaint case assessment. It seems obvious that it is not only the proprietor who has had a desire to flatten the hilly terrain with a desire for flat outdoor area.Final Comment:
What does Norwegian law say I will end with.
King Kristian the Law of the Fifth.https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1687-04-15/KAPITTEL_3-1#a1
By regulation 14 Apr 1688 the law was put into effect from Mikkelsdag (29 Sep 1688). Only the provisions that are believed to still apply are included here. For the repeal of various provisions and for certain provisions which are believed to have lapsed, please refer to older editions of the Norwegian Laws.
Fifth Book. About Access, Goods and Gield.
In Cap. About Contracter and Commitment.
1 Art.Everyone is obliged to comply with whose hand with mouth, hand and seal promised and entered into gardens.
2 Art. All Contracts that are voluntarily provided by those who are of legal age, and come to their Ages, be it Purchase, Sal, Gift, Garbage, Mortgage, Loan, Rent, Commitment, Promoter and other know what Name the mentioned child who is not against The law, or veneration, should be kept in all their words and points, as they are.