Building authority wants site inspection

OP trying to play policeman

Hello HilfeHilfe

you misunderstood that. I was a policeman.
Try reading and understanding. Then one should write.

Steven

Hello HelpHelp

you misunderstood that. I was a police officer.
Try reading and understanding. Then you should write.

Steven

well even worse, your arrogant attitude does the rest. Hope that the office shows up with your former colleagues

Ultimately, it is pointless to discuss this, but the regulatory character is of course given, since a deadline was set for him by which he should have removed the enclosure. He did not comply, the deadline has passed, therefore the old/existing administrative act is not yet finally concluded.

If there had been a notice with a deadline stating that the part must be removed, that would be an administrative act, yes. The mere letter stating that they want to conduct an on-site inspection is not one. And therefore, for example, no legal remedies can be filed against the letter. Every administrative judge would see it that way too. And you can exceptionally believe me calmly on this—I am so well informed about this... you can’t even imagine...

Isn't this taught in the legal clerkship?

Your sarcasm is all well and good, but even the OP already suspects in the original thread that something is coming down on him that he cannot avert, but at best can only buy some time; direct quote, all from the original thread:

"There was an order from the building authority last year to remove this 'enclosure'. In a personal conversation, I was able to obtain a 'grace period' until summer 2016." [...]

"Last week I received a letter from the building authority saying that I still wouldn’t be finished with my construction and that the building permit was no longer valid." [...]

"Now I need another 3 - 4 months."

If you have some practical professional experience, it’s not a big step from there to follow the relevant post by , who expressed his suspicion quite clearly. At least the OP’s behavior fits with that.

What the OP received is therefore no invitation to a "coffee gathering under the enclosure" that one irrevocably rejects, but rather a friendly scheduling for an on-site appointment - if the appointment does not take place, it is solely at the discretion of the caseworker when the next letter with the same content, supplemented by the respective criteria that you do not want to see fulfilled here, will be sent out.

Assuming you are actually as well informed as you claim, you should know that this only requires a few keystrokes.

Dirk Grafe

that is correct, and I did not write it any differently. He is not doing himself a favor with his behavior.

that is correct, and I did not write it differently. He is not doing himself any favors with his behavior.

Then I wonder why one has to listen to stupid remarks about training during the traineeship here? You are doing yourself no favor either, because that is completely unnecessary chatter. His behavior or rather his attitude is clearly recognizable in the ET, and yet he will not prevent the building authority from coming onto his property - if the building authority wants it that way.

That can only be done by administrative act – so what is the point of the hollow discussion about whether it already formally exists or can be created in one minute and sent through internal mail when the caseworker runs out of patience?!

Unbelievable. Dirk Grafe

P.S.: You can save your reply, my ignore list is growing.