Building authority wants site inspection

Dear thread starter, as a civil servant I tell you, this is getting out of hand. For you. We love this kind of thing. The citizen does crap, doesn’t even admit to it, bites the outstretched hand, becomes miserable. Then it goes differently, then everything is checked very very thoroughly. There are cadastral maps and Google Earth. Man, how can anyone be so stubborn! Karsten

As an employee of the largest security company, I can only confirm that

But I also don’t understand the defiant behavior: they offer you the little finger, and you could only win with the site visit – namely, that they find out it is allowed to stay after all.

Measures do not always only serve to impose something, but often also to relieve. But some stiff-necked stubborn people simply cannot understand that

Hello

no, the count is not right.
An official is financed by the sovereign and should primarily see himself as a service provider. If there are several possibilities for a decision, he must decide neutrally. And not to show the citizen a tough stance for once. That this happens in reality is a sad truth and must be critically questioned. That an official here presents this exactly like that and also says about himself that he acts exactly like that is sad and gives cause to have his oath taken again.
People, I have some wood and a tarpaulin behind my garage. The building authority is fed up with it. The stuff has to go. Well, it will be removed. That it is there is undisputed. I also do not understand why some people now want to come out and take a close look at it again. From about 10 meters away it can be clearly seen from the public path.
And how some people here deal with their fundamental rights and willingly let them be taken away scares me a bit. For me, there must be more substance and also the legal basis named.
I have problems with overly curious officials.
I have taken note of the few helpful tips in a benevolent manner.

Steven

A civil servant is financed by the sovereign and should primarily see himself as a service provider. If there are multiple options for a decision, he must decide neutrally. And not to show the citizen a hard line. That this happens in reality is a sad truth and must be critically questioned. That a civil servant presents this exactly in this way and also says of himself that he acts exactly like this is sad and gives reason to reconsider his oath.

Such nonsense. A civil servant performs sovereign tasks, and must exercise discretion without legal error. No more, no less. But civil servants are also only human.

Hello Steven,

unfortunately, I don't have a real tip for you. However, I would also refuse the "on-site appointment" on the grounds that the proof of factual necessity has not been provided.

Please read the opening post again. With awake eyes and carefully. Garage....simultaneously serves as a terrace, 1.70 meter height difference to the garden behind. Remise built on 4 years ago as a shelter for odds and ends. Approved. Now stairs, unfinished, Remise apparently now open, mesh tarp over it..., think about neighbors when reading. Think about protecting their privacy. Terrace...roof garden? Strange stairs...granite, won't be finished for years. There must be a reason why someone makes a business trip there, surely not because of a piece of tarp that is supposedly even visible from the street. I'm just asking....this smells fishy to me. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. I mean, since we are service providers anyway, then we serve law and order, and the law regulates a variety of conceivable cases always so that there should be a balance between different interests. Clearly visible in building law, which basically regulates that buildings are constructed so that they do not collapse and also so that the one with the biggest excavator and bank account does not overshadow everyone else. Karsten

Have you actually already thought about the suggestion to simply go to the building authority with the documents and try to clarify the matter in a short conversation? It should actually be the easiest way to avoid someone entering your property.

In the worst case, the caseworker will give you the shortest deadline to remove the enclosure/weather protection after your objection/refusal, and you will look dumbfounded, but the main thing is that you have preserved your Art.13. Just stopping by and laying your situation on the table can already help.

I also don’t see anyone here who lets their fundamental rights be taken away, as you claimed earlier. Rather, I see users who use common sense to consider which approach would be more advantageous for their respective situation. And if it just happens to be allowing access to their property in order to possibly gain advantages from it, then they would accept that. I could bet that if the caseworker had decided based on the files and sent you a notice about demolition without prior contact, you would be just as upset about it as you are now.

I also find it interesting, if not even audacious, to invoke applicable laws/rights and insist on their compliance, but at the same time want to circumvent applicable laws and rights for one's own benefit. In your case, the expiration of the building permit. Here, the authority is supposed to turn a blind eye, to give you time until you are finished. But you are not willing to make concessions.