Father now defends himself

395 € property damage because daughter got out of car

Actions for adverse possession are being sent out more and more often, especially the warnings about them, and they are really expensive.

(Bild: hkmedia - stock.adobe.com)

A father is furious that he has to pay almost 400 euros because he stopped his car briefly - and came to a standstill on private property in Vöcklabruck (Upper Austria). A trial is now to show whether it was really an infringement of property rights, as the father is calling the bluff with the help of consumer advocates.

An Upper Austrian man had just let his daughter out of the car in a hurry and had stopped briefly in a marked private parking lot - now a Viennese law firm has sent an unpleasant letter.

Marked private parking space
The content: 395 euros were due due to a disturbance of property. He had disturbed the client's property by parking his vehicle in a marked private parking space. The driver, on the other hand, explained that he had not parked his car in this private parking space, but had only stopped briefly in front of it and let his daughter out and contacted the AK Upper Austria.

More and more inquiries
The issue was not unknown there, as there had recently been an increasing number of inquiries about alleged disturbances of property and in many cases this Viennese law firm represents the property owners. In order to avoid lengthy court proceedings, the Chamber of Labor advised the Upper Austrian to submit a cease-and-desist declaration and offer the lawyer a court settlement.

He complied with this advice and wrote to the lawyer that he would refrain from any interference and had already transferred the costs of 20 euros for the official owner information that was necessary to locate him as the vehicle owner. The Upper Austrian also agreed to pay further costs that would have been incurred for the appropriate legal action if these were correctly itemized.

The law firm did not agree to this proposal and insisted on payment of the EUR 395 demanded. It was not explained to the consumer how this lump sum was made up.

AK support in the event of a lawsuit
However, the motorist concerned does not see why he should pay 395 euros. The AK has promised to support him in the event of a lawsuit in order to clarify the underlying legal issues. In the opinion of the consumer advocates, there is no interference with property that justifies this monetary claim.

Is the amount of the claim justified?
In the opinion of the AK, the claim of EUR 395 is not justified in many other cases either, especially if the consumers concerned submit a declaration to cease and desist and are prepared to reach a settlement in court. In this case, in the opinion of the AK, the risk of repetition of a new disturbance no longer exists, meaning that an action for interference with possession would be unsuccessful.

New, lucrative business model?
Due to the increasing number of complaints to the AK, the suspicion arises that this is a new, lucrative business model. More and more parking spaces are being monitored by cameras and even a brief stop is being claimed as a violation of property. Consumers are being pressured into paying large sums of money by the threat of an action for trespassing.

Tape takes off
The "Krone" tried to reach the law firm in Vienna by telephone, but only ever heard a tape recorder. It was repeated twice that if you were calling about a threat to sue for adverse possession, you should write an e-mail. However, this would not extend any deadlines and the lump sum would not be negotiated. The phone call is then ended.