Owner disorder: Legal advice shows new dimensions of the dispute

Owner disorder: Legal advice shows new dimensions of the dispute

The topic of possession disorder has become increasingly important in recent years, which is also reflected in the work of the legal advice of the ÖAMTC. The advice center reaches hundreds of inquiries on this topic every year. Nikolaus Authried, head of legal advice, explains: "The problem is that in recent years, based on the courts, a business model has established itself." There are considerable differences in how with such cases is used in different regions. For example, while an informal declaration of cease and desist can be sufficient in the area of the Wiener Neustadt State Court, horrendous sums are often required in Vienna.

A property owner can claim a possession of possession under different circumstances. Authried illustrates this with an example: "If you park in the parking lot of a supermarket and then go to the pharmacy, this is already considered a possession." The owner only has to prove that his possession has been disturbed, while the alleged interferer has to explain that there is no risk of repetition. The assumption that repeated disturbance is more likely plays a central role here.

unfair practices and challenges

Martin S. is an example of the challenges of many who are looking for an explanation for financial demands. In his case, he was asked for a claim because he hadn't stayed on his car to look for a lost wallet. "In court, life experience is often used: how do people behave and what is likely?" Explains Authried. In order to successfully ward off a lawsuit, direct evidence would have been necessary, for example in the form of witnesses or video recordings.

The ÖAMTC has nothing against the protection of property, but sees the amount of the claims as problematic. People often have to pay sums of around 400 euros, which goes far beyond Martin's case. In recent years, a flourishing business model around the topic has developed. Companies such as "Zupf di" sent payment requests on behalf of property owners, but this was stopped by a decision by the Supreme Court. Only property owners or their lawyers are allowed to initiate such communication, and although the companies have been pushed out of this business area, they continue to make money as an intermediary.

Of many drivers, this procedure is often perceived as a “rip -off”, especially when possession of possession of possession of possession repeatedly in the same place. Authried wonders why owners do not take more active measures if they are repeatedly affected instead of only using legal steps. "A larger sign or other precautions could help a lot," says Authhried.

financial consequences and solutions

The business model lives from the intimidation of those affected, whereby the payments are often so calculated that they are high enough to drop profits, but not so high that the interferers defend themselves against the demands. Authried explains: "Such models only work if the cause is clarified out of court and pay people." However, the fewer people are willing to pay, the faster the model could collapse.

The legal cap of extrajudicial claims at around 70 euros is considered a necessary step by the ÖAMTC to contain the excesses of this business model. However, such a regulation is currently not in sight. The ÖAMTC therefore recommends taking legal advice. In certain cases, it is quite possible to ward off the claims. Martin S. ultimately had to pay the required 198 euros.