Parking fraud is spreading like a wave to the Viennese courts. The hands of the judiciary are often tied, but there is hope that the practice will end.
Cornelius Riedl is familiar with property interference lawsuits against motorists, because the subdistrict court of Favoritn cannot do much else: he had to file around 300 lawsuits in the context of the parking fraud in 2023, compared to about 15 “normal” property interference lawsuits, for example, because landlords have tenants’ locks changed, trash is left with neighbors or the runaway scene – quote Riedl: “Fast and Furious favorites” – takes up space.
Some statements already have an impact
Last year, 2,869 lawsuits were filed across Vienna for interference with property, “which mainly focused on everything related to motor vehicles,” confirms Peter Weiß, vice president of the Regional Civil Law Court. The judges also know that lawsuits for violation have become a matter. The worst ‘layers’ of the companies in the background have now been stopped by appropriate judgments, Weiß emphasizes. Companies that have sent threats of legal action can no longer do so directly. But usually they let lawyers do it.
However, the principle of freedom of ownership still applies, Weiß emphasizes. Within the legal framework, anyone can do whatever he or she wants with a building, even if he or she only wants to keep it car-free and indicate this as inconspicuously as possible. However, for the judge, “Proceeds that no reasonable person would experience as a disadvantage” cannot result in property disruption. Weiß gives the example that he immediately turned around after discovering a sign saying ‘private property’.
“It always depends on the individual case”
Anyone who has committed to the parking lot scamming business model won’t give up so easily. “The plaintiffs very often go to the second instance,” reports Weiß, who then handles many of these cases at the regional civil court. Do the plaintiffs or the defendants win more often? “It’s in balance,” says Weiß. It is difficult to say in general what the chances are for those affected: “It always depends on the individual case.”
High judges must remain silent about fraud
One reason for the misery: interference with property is legally an exceptional case. There are only two cases; the Supreme Court has no chance to formulate general legal principles. An obvious example is the prohibition on intimidation, which is derived from Article 1295 ABGB and prohibits abuse of legal powers. The ÖAMTC has also tried to crack the parking garage barrier business model in model cases, but without success in the courts. “We are also surprised,” says ÖAMTC lawyer Nikolaus Authried.
Nevertheless, Authried is confident: We are currently covering parking lot theft with model lawsuits wherever possible and collecting one partial success after another – which can be recycled in similar processes. “We suspect that these revenue models will soon be phased out anyway.” In any case, he notes that “people are becoming less and less intimidated” when drivers currently demand around 400 euros per letter for disturbing property.
Authried is not the only one who advises against paying. The first step, lawyers advise, is to carefully check whether the information in the letter is correct. Parking lot scammers rarely make mistakes, but they do. A second opportunity to avoid payment is the time that has passed since the property was disturbed. If the case is over a month old, a plaintiff is often dealt a bad hand.
How to eliminate the desire for anti-scam lawsuits
If what is stated in the threat of legal action has actually happened, you do not have to comply. Instead of the required amounts, lawyers see 20 euros as sufficient compensation if the letter comes from a company, and 100 euros for a lawyer’s letter. You must transfer the money and guarantee in a statement that you will pay 250 euros if you repeat the case and also offer a settlement to the court. That’s often enough for parking lot scammers to lose interest in lawsuits.
If you want to better protect yourself, Authried’s tip is that you should offer an ‘enforceable settlement’ – but that requires a lawyer – or, for example, request a ‘praetorian settlement’ at the official court meeting before the trial. The costs for this must be well below 400 euros.
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
