No. 1456: Talked to someone who has been a case manager himself, who thinks this is a very ugly case as the planning and construction agency in Oslo has systematically violated the Public Laws Act by failing to answer our questions, treated us unfairly compared to others!

No. 1456:
Talked to someone who has been a case manager himself, who thinks this is a very ugly case as the planning and construction agency in Oslo has systematically violated the Public Laws Act by failing to answer our questions, treated us unfairly compared to others!



Like Danish, one has his thoughts, even if one lives in Norway as a foreigner and a foreigner. As PBE and the public Norway hold, are they really Molboers? I have turned that down, as they do not want to answer our questions time and time again, if they do not fit. That they are really more monkeys than they are molesters. Therefore, include this mole story so readers can understand PBE better, and how and why they behave as they do.

The monkey

A gentleman at Mols had a monkey, for whom they had for fun sewn nice clothes, so that on the move it looked like a little boy.
A man in the neighborhood one day sent a farmer to the manor with an important letter, telling him that he had to have an answer back.
When the farmer came to the farm, the army had just gone out into the garden, but the monkey stood by an open window. When the farmer saw this well-dressed person, he went over to him and asked if the gentleman was at home; he had a letter to him, to which he should reply.
The monkey nodded and reached for the letter the farmer gave him. The monkey took it, looked at the seal, turned it over, looked at its contents, and finally tore the letter into bits, which he threw out of the window. The farmer, who was watching this, then asked if he should have any answer back. The monkey looked at him, smiled faintly, and shook his head. Then the farmer went his way.
When he got home, his master asked if he had a letter back.
"No," he said, "there was no one else home but junior, and I gave him the letter. He opened it and read, but it was easy to see that he was furious at the letter and would not answer it."
Image of a monkey, as an illustration image.


 


Coincidentally met someone who himself has been on the other side of the "table" than us, had a good time with him when we also ate in together. There I got to go through our case pretty well. this as I write in the headline here.

Talked to someone who has been a case manager himself, who thinks this is a very ugly case as the planning and construction agency in Oslo has systematically violated the Public Laws Act by failing to answer our questions, treated us unfairly compared to others!

The Public Law says discrimination is not allowed.

We have been discredited time after time, while others have been exempted even near our living area up to 57 times more than us. In other words, the discrimination in our case is systematic and has been going on for several years.

§ 6 Prohibition of discrimination

When dealing with cases under the law here or in other cases where access to information is granted, it is not appropriate for any kind of discrimination between comparable cases or to agree that someone should have exclusive rights to access information. The fact that an inquiry is presented by a public or a public enterprise does not give rise to any discrimination when the purpose of the inquiry is not related to the public action of the agency.

The prohibition in the first paragraph does not preclude the possibility of an exclusive rights agreement if it is necessary to provide a service of general interest. A new assessment of the grant will be required to make such agreements in the third quarter. Agreements on exclusive rights made in pursuance of this paragraph shall be public. It is not possible to agree on exclusive rights to access information that the public has a legal requirement to gain access to in accordance with the legal precedents in law or regulations.

Unless otherwise specified by the King in regulations, the provisions of this section shall apply to activities falling within the scope of the EEA Agreement, Annex XI (5k) (Directive 2003/98 / EC as amended by Directive 2013/37 / EU) concerning the use of public sector information.

Furthermore, we have repeatedly asked about things, even the same things and never got an answer. They fail to systematically and for several years subcommunicate and not communicate at all.

31. Rejection and granting

Refusal of access requirements must be in writing. The body must always refer to the driver's license that provides the basis for the rejection, and to the link, letter or number in the driver's license used. If section 13 is the basis for the rejection, the body shall also refer to the driver's license as an obligation to impose an obligation. If the refusal is based on regulations, the body must inform about this, and what point in the regulations the refusal is based on. The refusal must also inform the court to appeal and the time limit for appeal.

Anyone who has been rejected may, within three weeks of the rejection, receive our request for a more detailed justification for the rejection, where the main reason that has been the deciding factor for the rejection shall be almost. The body shall give written reasoning as soon as possible and no later than ten working days after the claim was received.

We have asked many things that we have never had tt answer to. In other words, they have repeatedly broken the law here and not get an answer to a question when one also repeats the questions, that's bad.

This is stated in the Public Law: If the refusal is based on regulations, the body must inform about this, and what point in the regulations the refusal is based on.

When we do not get answers about things we have asked. Here are some examples of questions.

1.) We have asked why they cannot when they are so careful to follow the regulations why they completely ignore the exemption law.

2.) The neighbor on the other side, has a wall that is 20 cm from the road. They are allowed to have it, but we are not ours.

3.) We have asked why they approved and want us to build a more "illegal" slant than the wall we have today. We have never answered this.

4.) Why do others get roughly in the same situation as us, and in a far "worse" situation than us exemption?

5.) When we e.g. put PBE answers guilty, then they never answer back. This is not good!

This I also pointed out in our complaint to the County Council, so this is nothing new. Here's what I wrote:

10.) When we ask for answers, they usually never answer. If they answer, then it is to blur. It is very difficult to have a good dialogue, since PBE really leads than monologue above us and largely against us!