09/11/2023: In this linked document to the Review Board, I reiterated that the re-review the Civil Service had commissioned was defective in that it avoided the primary pathway (existing use pre-2009) by which the CLU should have been issued. The re-investigation of my complaint deviated from the Review Board’s instructions and terms of reference.

  • The primary way to obtain the Certificate of Lawful Use was to show the property was an office before 2009 when the relevant planning law came into force. This clear pathway was not followed.
  • The Cadastral records showing the property’s office use, which the DPA had access to, provided sufficient evidence to issue the certificate directly.
  • The DPA intentionally delayed and complicated the process unnecessarily when they should have simply checked the Cadastral records and issued the certificate promptly.
  • I showed that the DPA seeking legal advice over the 4 or 10-year periods was irrelevant as they chose to ignore the primary pre-2009 pathway for issuing the certificate.
  • I called for independent arbitration of his complaint and suggested appointing a specific retired judge to review the matter.
  • I asked the Review Board to refer the case to the States of Deliberation under the relevant law due to insufficient implementation of the Board’s findings.

In summary, I continued to show serious failings in how my complaint has been handled and investigated. I sought further escalation and an independent review of this case.