ÖAMTC also surprised

“Zupf di” anew: Here they even rip you off four times!

One of the four invoices in the possession interference case: What the driver is now being charged as a penalty is surprising and relatively new in this form.

(Bild: Krone KREATIV/zVg)

"You'll get the full load": Even the ÖAMTC's legal department is surprised by the procedure: In a narrow one-way street, a driver could only avoid the rescue service by driving into a "prohibited zone" - two threats of legal action! After a "Krone" phone call with a landowner, a hefty additional penalty was imposed: the driver received two more bills!

"This is another, quite new and outrageous attempt to capitalize on the property infringement": The legal department of the ÖAMTC reacted quite surprised to the development of the (rip-off) case of a driver who actually only made way for an emergency vehicle - we reported. A second "wave" of payment slips has now fluttered into the house - four different payment slips from two companies for one offense. 

Phone call with landowner yielded no insight
Leaving aside verbal expressions, there is only one conclusion from the conversation with one of the two landowners, who both want to collect: they feel they are in the right - and even in the "victim role". The driver is accused of not having turned, but of having used the "prohibited zone" to drive through. The driver claims that he immediately turned around and drove out again: "I was only sent a single photo - how can you prove that you drove through?" he says, puzzled.

The background to the "renewed" business model
The new invoices are for a lower amount than the threat of an action for trespassing (usually 399 euros), but are professionally drawn up: All costs incurred as a result of the evaluation of photographic material and data research are listed neatly. Total per letter: 156 euros - in the case of the Wolkersdorf driver times two.

The ÖAMTC speaks of a fairly new approach, with which the - quote "property disturbance specialists" - apparently want to skim off at least a smaller amount. The recommendation is clear: ignore it and never pay it in! To be on the safe side, you should object to the claim in writing.

New procedure stands on shaky ground
"We have not heard of any cases in which 'Besitzwacht' has filed a lawsuit. A negative judgment would probably put an end to the whole business model," says the ÖAMTC. This is because behind "Besitzwacht" is the same man whose well-known company 'Zupf di' has already been stopped.

The letter from "Besitzwacht" is a further, fairly new - outrageous - attempt to capitalize on the ownership disruption. According to information from the ÖAMTC, all addressees who have been contacted due to the possession disruption (whether paid or not, whether sued or not) will now receive another letter from "Besitzwacht".

The "second wave" of the business model: the demands will be made - reportedly regardless of whether you have responded to the first letter,

(Bild: zVg)

Here is the "double trap" - there are two plots of land at the passageway, resulting in two disturbances of possession.

(Bild: zVg)

Despite the quadruple payment request, the Weinviertler remains calm: "From an email correspondence it emerged that work is even carried out on Sundays just before eight o'clock in the evening. Apparently, many victims are served with this business model," he speculates.

Statement by Besitzwacht GmbH ("Correct and counterstatement")

The charging of our costs was deemed admissible by the Commercial Court of Vienna under case number 57 Cg 105/24b and does not constitute a rip-off. Likewise, if our amounts are not paid, they will of course be claimed in court by our lawyer.