onsdag 23. oktober 2019

No. 1470: Since we have been instructed by PBE by the caseworker to build a wall, it will be completely wrong to demolish it as it does not hinder anything or anyone!

No. 1470:
Since we have been instructed by PBE by the caseworker to build a wall, it will be completely wrong to demolish it as it does not hinder anything or anyone!

Pictures from our wall, which fit perfectly into the terrain, and which we were instructed to build no higher than 2 meters so that it was not taller than the neighbor's and was not noticed more in the terrain than others.

I had some communication with Nils-Henrik Henningstad.

I said that in our case, everyone in our case had been granted an exemption.
And we have been given guidance by them to build.
Then Nils-Henrik Henningstad threw to me others who he claimed were in the same situation as us.
This was very easy to refute as these had among other things. The fire brigade who ordered the demolition, stands opposite to us.
What happened then?
All communication breaks, at the low level are these people.

I wrote this in an email to PBE, with zero response.
Eg. then I got a response from Nils-Henrik Henningstad that there were several others who had to demolish the wall etc. I went into the cases he came up with, and then the fire and rescue agency and other agencies were in to impose demolition. I pointed this out and told us it was also an advantage for fire and ambulance, as well as other agencies as we have built. Did I get an answer then? Never, such is PBE, just full of cheating and lack of good folk to answer things.

John Richard Island from Eiker Husbygg came back for a while to look at our buildings.

We might need a responsible applicant, so we called him.
We went over it all and he was mighty impressed with how everything went together.
When I said we had been given oral guidance. Then he answered back that he understood, for this could not happen by itself.
Everything was in harmony with and fit in the terrain and with both our house and the neighboring houses. This was no problem for him to understand.
I then asked if he would have testified in court about this? No problem, he said, he was more than happy to show up.
Why aren't the County Governor, the Civil Ombudsman and the courts doing the same? It is for one reason only that they protect and protect one another.
As mentioned, we have been given oral guidance on how to build.
And we didn't have to search when we built an old wall.
We have pulled the wall further in than it was before. We have got a greener and flatter terrain. Everything has gotten better.
Who would want to vandalize our property? That's no wonder.
Scripture says very clearly what light and darkness want, and what the good powers want and the bad ones. It's pretty obvious in the day.

Joh. 10. 10 The thief comes only to steal and murder and destroy; I have come that they may have life and have abundance.

That said, John Richard Island from Eiker Husbygg.
Who is an experienced builder who has been dealing with this whole life and who has a trained eye.
He saw right away that we had built under guidance, and had not taken care of ourselves!

This is what my lawyer Knut Howlid wrote to the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

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 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, who knew the area years back through the development period to Krokstien 2, he asked if it was okay to erect a new and higher wall on the former old wall along Stormyrveien 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.
Service errors are stated with regard to the guidance / counseling. If there had been any basis for any kind of doubt from 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. But 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 officer in connection with the planning and development of Krokstien 2 a b c and d.

He was thus known locally in the area, known to the terthe heights and the formations, having 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.

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.

Here is my presentation of the case. Takes it in from what I wrote to Oslo District Court.

1.) The municipality of Oslo writes this in its decision.

No violation of the duty of supervision after fvl. § 11
The State disputes that there is a breach of the duty to provide guidance pursuant to fvl. § 11.

The plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times. The State refers to the Planning and Building Agency's letter of 30 January 2017 to the City Council Department for Urban Development stating that the case manager referred to has not said that a wall of this size placed in a regulated road is exempt from application. However, it may have been said that the repair / restoration of the original wall along the road would not be compulsory. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall.
The management's duty to provide guidance must be seen in the light of the fact that guidance is mainly conducted orally over the telephone, and that information is provided on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the policyholder. Oral counseling on the telephone does not have a binding effect on the municipality, and the policyholder must bear the risk of having listed measures that are required to apply without permission.
(quote at end).

Note that this process of supervisory duty, which the City of Oslo believes they have done right, is confirmed by the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman.

A.) "Plaintiff claims to have received oral approval to erect the support wall from the municipality several times."

Yes, I have been guided several times, here is what actually happened.

We moved in here in 2012. In 2013, we called our then case manager Kaja Lange Aubert. It was called 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.
Also, that the City of Oslo has not at all been interested in hearing our version, they had decided 3 - 4 years ago that we would get no on everything.

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

Remember to call in mid-May and August 2013? It is five years back in time, it is a long time ago and it is difficult to remember in detail every word as it was said, but in my recollection she answered like this.
Then I asked about the following, we have set up stairs and want to put up a wall. Trapp I mean we set up 2013, when before this we had had a rope that we threw ourselves down in the Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level that Oslo municipality has given us an order to go back to, that we will use a rope to throw us down the road with. You don't think so, but this is how we had it before we built the stairs that the City of Oslo has given us orders to demolish.

I asked what it takes to build a wall, until I got the answer that if a wall had been built from there, it was not obligatory to build one on top of it. This answered Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange Aubert replied that then it was not compulsory when it was built a wall from before!

I further said that we imagine a wall of 1.5 meters and 1 meter fence.
This was no problem, she said, since others from earlier have higher walls than you.

In 2013, I even called an extra time, for safety's sake, and asked about the same, and the same answers were given.
As long as there was a wall there from before, we didn't have to search even if the wall was different. In other words, we were given permission in advance of our construction of a wall, Oslo Municipality violates Norwegian law by disputing this.

However, PBE says something else now, namely:
b.) “However, it may have been said that the repair / restoration of the original wall along the road would not be mandatory. The existing wall referred to was a low brick wall and cannot be compared to the listed wall. "

The municipality of Oslo has not overheard this conversation.
Only Kaja Lange and I have Aubert, no one else.

When the City of Oslo sets out to explain what has been said in a telephone conversation that they have not heard. So they make two big mistakes here.
First, they lie, and then they fantasize about what they think has been said. This in itself means that neither the City of Oslo, the County Governor nor the Civil Ombudsman have any credibility when they canallowed themselves to commit such roars. This is also against Norwegian law and common decency to dictate things in a document.

Had the fictitious and false presentation that PBE provides here to be true, we would of course never have set up a wall.
Of course, this is purely spikka lie that PBE drives.
Unfortunately, both the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman have let this pass, it only says that their credibility in this matter is equal to zero.

What exactly have both the City of Oslo, the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman done here? When it can be stated with great certainty that all public agencies do not speak true and are not willing to admit that we have received oral approval, it means that their general credibility beats absolutely crucial cracks!
Yes, they do not respond to our inquiries about this, and when they do, they have either fabricated either a "truth" or speak false and dictate what could and may have been said in several phone calls they have never overheard or referred back to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us oral permission to build.

§ 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.

c.) "The management's duty to provide guidance must be seen in light of the fact that guidance is mainly conducted orally over the telephone and that information is provided on a general basis on the basis of the information provided by the policyholder."

This also becomes false and wrong to write. We have not been given general guidance, but concrete guidance on several occasions. Therefore, to write such, then they neglect their duty again. The lies will if no end take for various bodies we have been in contact with. They lack pulse control completely. One day it's law, the next day it's illegality.

d.) "No violation of the duty of guidance pursuant to fvl. § 11 »

This is asserted by the City of Oslo, but it is not just a breach of the duty of guidance. There is also a violation of Norwegian law. This says Norwegian law.

King Kristian the Law of the Fifth.

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 legal, and come to their Ages, be it Purchase, Sal, Gift, Gut, 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.
(quote at end).

2.) Oslo Municipality's decision, confirmed by the County Governor and not criticized by the Civil Ombudsman that there are "illegally" built storage rooms, stairs and walls.

a.) We have built all this before, in different houses we have built. When we built and had a house on Karmøy around 2002, we built a wall against the road. It was probably 7 - 8 meters and at the highest 2.5 meters. All this we built without any application, only a telephone to the municipality of Karmøy. It stands to this day and is "approved". The same with a firewood.

b.) When we had a house at Mortensrud here in Oslo, we built a storage space of around 10 sqm2 which was set up without any kind of application when it was less than 15 sqm2 which meant that it was not required to apply. This was around 2008 it was built.

c.) This again shows that we had on several occasions built both a storage room and a wall without any kind of written application. It goes without saying that when we received oral approval from Kaja Lange Aubert on several occasions, this was not something we reacted negatively to. But positive as we have been allowed to set up the same before, without written application and approval. Is it unreasonable then that we have taken Aubert's guidance seriously and undertaken the construction of a wall.

3.) Implementation of the regulations.

PBE in Oslo gives permission, and then they withdraw it. Afterwards, we think we should have known better, even though no one else has searched in our area before we should have searched. Others have built walls almost out of the way, double and triple taller than us. PBE shows an unpredictability and unpredictability, as well as what we call illegal.
We tried to have a dialogue, not least in relation to the fact that we have been given oral permission, which they totally ignore until now when they have to deal with this as it has become a trial. Hollowing out most of it, we do not stand for it, but PBE here in Oslo, unfortunately supported by the County Governor and the Civil Ombudsman. In many ways, PBE is abusing its power to become a ruling power, in which it tries to hide its own mistakes in pushing us to do something that was legal and that is suddenly illegal. Everything is also nicely, functionally and appropriately built and located.

Final Comment:

It is in the Act of Schedule gging and construction cases (Planning and Building Act)

There must be "clear excess weight for consideration" (cf. § 19-2). The considerations behind the provision that is dispensed from or the considerations behind the purpose of the Act must not be neglected significantly and the benefits of granting a dispensation must be clearly greater than the disadvantages after an overall assessment.

• should be especially emphasized by exemption from legislation / regulations: consequences for health, environment, safety and accessibility

• should be particularly emphasized when exempting from plans: state and regional frameworks and targets

• The municipality should not exempt from plans, the provisions of the Act on plans and the prohibition in § 1-8 (prohibition zones along the sea and watercourses) when a directly affected state or regional authority has made a negative statement on the application for exemption (cf. § 19-2, fourth paragraph).

The right to set exemption terms

Exemption may be granted on terms, cf. Section 19-2, first paragraph, of the Planning and Building Act. Exemption conditions must be aimed at preventing, repairing, dampening or compensating for negative consequences of deviating from the regulations or plan.
(quote at the end.)

In our case, it is actually very special. There are only positive things about giving us an exemption.

No one has come up with a single negative thing about our buildings that hold water. No agencies, no government agencies or anyone else. Why? It does not exist. No one has mentioned a specific thing, but we can name many.

1.) Our wall lies further in than our pre-sloped south-facing slope.

2.) Fire and ambulance come easier to our property with our wall and stairs.

3.) Our booth is almost not seen from the road, it is not noticed until one comes up to our property.

4.) Our wall does not stand out negatively and is not higher than others in our living area.

5.) We have got a nicer, flatter and larger outdoor area by our wall.

6.) None of what we have built creators disharmony or noticed to be anything different that breaks with other buildings.

7.) The stairs that we have built are a thousand times safer and better to get down and up from Stormyrveien in conditions that we had before when we lowered ourselves with ropes and hoisted us up immediately.

8.) That we should return the property to how the property was before and that should not cause any negative inconvenience. Of course, that's not true.

9.) It's the way we feel now, which is the very best. It is simply more like it says when dispensing is to be granted and granted. Implications for health, the environment, safety and accessibility should be emphasized, to our advantage, not disadvantage. Why? There is not a single negative thing about what we have built, only positive.

10.) That we do not receive an exemption must be Norway's largest and worst interpretation of the Planning and Building Act.

It is not just an overweight, as the law required with the benefits of giving exemption. That must be clearly greater than the drawbacks after an overall assessment.

With us, this is not only fulfilled, but overfilled.

It is like you have asked to get 100,000, - NOK for a car and get 1 Million.

This gives you, the Civil Ombudsman and the PBE here in Oslo no exemption and order for demolition.
Yes, so when the state institutions are full of evil and do not realize it themselves ?!

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar