When the Planning and Building Agency LIES IN ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, HOW DO YOU STAND UP WITH SOMEONE WHO ARE NOTORIOUS LIARS? Good advice is expensive here!
Our stall was rejected because it was too close to the road.
When we pointed out that our house is about 3 meters closer to the road, we got no answer. As this was one of many distortions of the truth which is actually a lie according to the Wikipedia definition of a lie. The entire PBE and the public sector are a bunch of thugs, criminals and liars in this matter of ours in our opinion.
PBE goes around with meter measures and other things like a full sailor.
Illustrative photo of the employees at PBE, this is how they can be experienced for a sober married couple at the Hellerudtoppen in Oslo
Here from Wikipedia:
A lie is a false statement or statement presented as a truth. Lying takes place between people when the liar states something he or she knows to be untrue, with the intention of making someone believe it is true. A lie is put forward to mislead, and which is therefore not in accordance with the sender's own understanding of the truth.
Lying is an ethical concept. Any statement that is intended to mislead in relation to one's own perception of the truth can be characterized as a lie in the ethical sense. This can also involve saying something that is actually true. Example: The mate wrote in the ship's log: "Today the captain is sober". Such a statement implies that the captain is a drunkard, which need not be the case at all. So the mate may have said something true, but in a way that is intended to mislead. In that case, this will be a lie.
Lying is not the opposite of truth. The opposite of lying is sincerity, or honesty. (The opposite of truth is falsehood). It is fine to tell an untruth without lying. One can be in good faith, be misinformed, have misunderstood, misinterpreted, be misled and so on.
(end of quote.)
The planning and building authority here in Oslo fits in here perfectly!
The difficult thing is that everyone there lies almost all the time.
And afterwards they don't remember, they protect each other.
Then on top of it all, they do everything they can.
To try to stop you from threatening to report to the police.
Or new decisions where the fines only get bigger and bigger.
The reprisals and acts of revenge, they try to use against you as much as possible.
The whole agency is obviously criminal and lying!
Why are they allowed to continue? Because all the public are as big liars as PBE obviously!
We have been to Oslo District Court before, where we received a false verdict against us.
Where district court judge Edvards Os lied, the judgment swung against us.
The fall on our property is not slaughtered. And the deviation that PBE, the State Administrator claims we have between our wall and what is permitted. Is not 130 cm, but 30 cm.
Only marginally, and simply insignificant.
Here in from the judgment in the Oslo District Court.
The court agrees with the County Governor that the considerations behind the regulatory provision are substantially disregarded by the measure. The deviation between the permitted overall height according to the zoning plan (0.5 metres) and the retaining wall in question (1.85 metres) is approx. 1.35 meters. This is a relatively significant deviation. The measure also involves an intervention that is in direct conflict with the intention in the zoning plan to preserve existing terrain, and the measure is in itself dominant.
(end of quote.)
When there are clear errors like here, on which the judgment and all other decisions are based. Then it is, to say the least, an obvious procedural error.
As well as service errors when we were guided how to build this wall by our case manager at the time.
I am writing this here, taken from the article referred to above.
We moved in here in 2012. In 2013, we called our case manager at the time, 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 nine years later, and when there were several phone calls it feels like one when it is five years later.
Also, that Oslo municipality has not been interested in hearing our version at all, they had decided for 2015/2016 that we would be refused everything based on the documentation we have in this case. Since then we have been met by opposition, lies and decisions from another world!
What then happened to the telephone conversations we had with our then supervisor Kaja Lange Aubert?
Do you remember that we called down 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 according to my recollection she answered something like this.
Then I asked about the following, we have put up stairs and want to put up a wall. Trapp I mean we set it up in 2013, when before this we had a rope that we threw ourselves down on in Stormyrveien, and believe it or not, it is to this level that Oslo municipality has given us orders to return to, that we will use a rope to throw us down the road with. You don't believe it, mwe had one like this before we built the stairs that Oslo municipality has ordered us to demolish, whoever can.
I asked what was needed to build a wall, to which I was told that if a wall had already been built there, then it was not compulsory to apply to build one on top of it. This was answered by Kaja Lange Aubert.
I said yes, and then Kaja Lange Aubert replied that then it was not MANDATORY TO APPLY AS A WALL HAD BEEN BUILT BEFORE!
THIS IS GOING FINE!
I further said that we envisage a wall of 1.5 meters and a 1 meter fence.
This was no problem, she said, as others already have higher walls than you.
In 2013 I even called a second time, just to be on the safe side, and asked the same thing, and the same answers were given.
BUILDING ON AN OLD WALL WAS NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY.
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 received permission in advance of our construction of the wall, Oslo municipality is breaking Norwegian law by contesting this.
However, the PBE says something else now, namely:
"However, it may have been said that the improvement/reintroduction of the original wall along the road would not be subject to application. The existing wall referred to was a low piled stone wall and cannot be compared to the erected wall.”
Oslo municipality has not overheard this conversation.
Only I and Kaja Lange Aubert have that, no one else.
When district court judge Edvard Os sets out to explain what has been said in a telephone conversation that he has not overheard. Then he makes two big mistakes here.
First, they lie, and then they fantasize about what they think has been said. This in itself means that neither Oslo municipality, the county governor nor the civil ombudsman have any credibility when they can allow themselves to commit such scandals. This is also against Norwegian law and common decency to dictate things into a document.
If the fabricated and lying representation that PBE gives here had been true, then of course we would never have erected a wall.
It is, of course, an outright lie that PBE is dealing with.
Unfortunately, both the County Commissioner and the Civil Ombudsman have let this pass, it only shows that their credibility in this matter is equal to zero.
What have both Oslo Municipality, the County Commissioner and the Civil Ombudsman actually done here? When it can be established with great certainty that all public agencies are not telling the truth and are not willing to accept that we have received verbal approval, then this means that their general credibility is cracking decisively!
Yes, they do not respond to our inquiries regarding this, and when they do, they have either fabricated a "truth" or lied and made up what could possibly and has been said in several phone calls that they have never overheard or referred back to to Kaja Lange Aubert who gave us verbal permission to build.
§ 171. Service error
Whoever exercises or assists in the exercise of public authority, and grossly breaches his duty of service, is punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
"The administration's obligation to provide guidance must be seen in the light of the fact that guidance mainly takes place verbally over the phone, and that information is given on a general basis based on the information provided by the initiative holder."
This is also false and wrong to write. We have not been given a general guidance obligation, but specific guidance on several occasions. Therefore to write like this, then they are neglecting their duty again. The lies will if there is no end to the various agencies we have been in contact with. They completely lack impulse control. One day this is legal, the next day it is illegal.
"No breach of the obligation to provide guidance pursuant to Art. Section 11"
Oslo municipality claims this, but it is not just a breach of the duty to provide guidance. It is also a breach of Norwegian law. This is what Norwegian law says.
Law of King Christian the Fifth.
By decree of 14 April 1688, the law came into force from Michaelmas Day (29 September) 1688. Only the provisions which are assumed to be still in force are included here. Regarding the repeal of various provisions and certain provisions which are assumed to have lapsed, reference is made to older editions of Norwegian Law.
Fifth Book. About Access, Property and Debt.
In Cap. About Contractors and Obligors.
1 Art. Everyone is obliged to fulfill what he promised and entered into with his mouth, hand and seal.
2 Art. All contracts that the volunteer is given by him, who are of legal age, and have reached their legal age, be it purchase, sale, gift, transfer of property, mortgage, loan, rent, obligation, promise and other by whatever name the aforementioned can, which is not against The law, or Reverence, was to be kept in all its words and points, as they are entered.
(end of quote).
Distance to road etc
If one reads our case complex, we have been told in rejection after rejection that it must apply with a dispensation against the road in all our cases.
Stairs are against the road, and therefore cannot be approved.
When we got a carpenter to change our stairs. So that it now lies opposite our property. It is 100% on our property, we have asked over many years whether it is now legal. Not a single answer, here just have in this case. Regarding our stairs. Has the Public Administration Act been notoriously broken over many years.
As far as the shed is concerned, exactly the same conditions apply.
The refusal states the following:
"The measure is in breach of the Roads Act and is dependent on a dispensation in order to obtain a framework permit."
When we point out that this is true, then our house which must be approved, heh-heh!
It is probably 3 meters closer to the road, so what is the problem with the shed?
This and many other questions, when it is in our favor. Then neither PBE nor the State Administrator answers us. The whole case against us is only a narrative based on lies, and the actual conditions.
They are being ignored for a narrative and even more lies from the public!
With regard to the wall, the refusal states the following:
"The disadvantage is that the natural transition towards the road and the greenery is lost."
It is exactly the opposite then. Before we didn't have anything green at all, that's what we have now. We have also got a very harmonious and natural transition between Stormyrveien and our property. Green, flat and aesthetically pleasing. Before there was slush, clay and storm water. All the way through, the case handlers lie to us in their refusals/decisions.
It also states that our wall is located in regulated roadbed.
But it is located 1 meter from the asphalted road surface, it didn't do so before the broken slope. Almost the same slope as our neighbor has today.
When we pointed this out several years ago regularly in questions to PBE and the public sector.
Not once have the liars and abusers from PBE, the Statsforvalteren, Oslo District Court or anyone else wanted to answer or comment on this!
The lies and narrative of the Planning and Building Agency are so enormous, and never end.
They have been defended by other public bodies.
I finally include a comment and my answer to this from the Heavenly Blog:
This refusal, based on incorrect information, must become a main theme in the upcoming trial. Here you have found the weak Achilles tendon of PBE
4 January 2023 at 09:13
Jan Kåre Christensen said...
Yes, the drop on our property is actually vertical.
PBE has obtained drawings from our developer, which are directly misleading.
Our neighbor in house D has blown up the plot by several metres.
Also applying for dispensation and approval.
The regulations state that walls must be erected and follow the terrain, as our wall does.
The neighbor's and many others do not, they easily get dispensation and approval.
Here, too, there is enormous discrimination in our disfavour.
Yes, this is the main issue in the upcoming trial.
Here, PBE has really screwed up!
4 January 2023 at 09:43
Legg inn en kommentar