131.42 Euro for parking offences Drivers in Bad Godesberg feel ripped off
Bad Godesberg · Anyone who parks their car in the private garage on Friesdorfer Straße without a parking disc will be asked to pay. A good 650 notices have already been sent out since the beginning of the year.
A woman from Bad Godesberg actually just wanted to do some shopping for work. But the quick parking in the private underground car park on Friesdorfer Straße turned out to be an expensive pleasure, because a few days after the shopping trip a notice fluttered into her house. She now has to pay 131.42 Euro - because she had forgotten to use a parking disc. "Okay, that was stupid and it's my own fault. But it's madness," says the woman from Godesberg, who wishes to remain anonymous due to the ongoing proceedings. "You're so powerless and helpless," she describes.
"In the three-page letter, it looks as if they had put a notice on my windscreen beforehand," says the woman from Godesberg. Because she had not paid the 30 Euro demanded to the garage management, "it would now be more expensive". But that was not the case. Unlike a friend who had also overlooked the sign indicating the parking disc. "I definitely didn't have the note she received." She is not alone in this. Another injured party also reported a high payment demand - without any prior warning.
Operator sees risk of repetition
The letter was sent by Claim Rechtsanwalts GmbH Cologne, which is claiming a breach of possession. There is also a risk of repetition. Instead of "submitting a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause", the client, the owner of the private car park, offers "to let the matter rest by paying 30 Euro and not to take you to court immediately for payment and injunctive relief“.
But why are 131.42 Euro then due instead of 30 Euro? According to the letter, the amount is made up of the main claim (30 Euro), the owner investigation costs (5.10 Euro) and the lawyer's fees (96.32 Euro). This must be paid within a certain period of time. If this is not done, "we have already been instructed to issue a warning (by issuing a temporary injunction) and take legal action for injunctive relief (and payment) at this point in time", according to the letter.
At the beginning of the year, Claim Rechtsanwalts GmbH Cologne, which has been active in this area for years, was commissioned "because there was wild parking in the garage", explains lawyer and managing director Oliver Lüsgens. The barrier had not been intact for some time, which is why the garage was being used frequently. It is located on Friesdorfer Straße not far from Aennchenplatz. Initially, an employee of the operator approached the parking offenders. Without success. "He was sometimes mobbed and insulted." So at some point, they "resorted to our product", says the lawyer.
Warning is issued via an app
The warning is issued via an app, explains Lüsgens. An employee of the operator documents the offences on site - such as a missing parking disc, exceeding the parking time or the fact that the alleged customer did not even shop in the shop - and uploads them via the app. Claim Rechtsanwalts GmbH is then mandated with this and the letter is sent out - over 650 times since the beginning of 2024.
"You have to understand both sides," says the lawyer. You can understand that the amount seems very high to some. "But you also have to look at what the owner loses out on if people park there without authorisation.“
According to Lüsgens, the amount of the claim is based on an estimated value. The normal fee claim is the lawyer's fees plus the damage incurred. "In the case of a possession offence, the legal claim exists regardless of whether there are signs or not." If an authorised party reports the infringement, there is a claim for injunctive relief.
The signs are located at the entrance to the garage in question. Within the parking decks, however, the parking disc requirement for the first parking deck - parking is not permitted at all on the second - is no longer signposted. "We find this incident very regrettable," says Dovile Dobrolovicz, spokesperson for the Action chain, whose branch shares the car park with a now closed hotel. However, it is a private property "which is neither owned nor managed by Action". Increased efforts are being made to "sensitise our customers to the use of a parking disc through loudspeaker announcements and even more signs". The client of Claim Rechtsanwalts GmbH could not be reached.
Settlement proposal does not have to be accepted
According to the ADAC, the procedure is legal, as the argument is based on a disturbance of property including the feared risk of repetition. According to ADAC spokesman Alexander Schnaars, the case law of the Federal Court of Justice allows the owner or manager "to demand a cease-and-desist declaration even in the case of a first offence due to an alleged concrete risk of repetition“.
The settlement proposal addressed to the vehicle owner does not have to be accepted. "Neither the settlement amount nor the lawyer's fees can be claimed." However, if you do not agree to this, "there is a risk that the owner will be required to make a declaration to cease and desist for a fee". This includes a promise to no longer park the car in the spot in question - or to allow other drivers to park there. "If you do so, a contractual penalty, usually several hundred Euro, is due," says Schnaars.
According to the ADAC, you can only save the costs for a corresponding declaration if you are quicker than the other party by sending a preventive cease-and-desist declaration to the owner and also informing the limited liability company. If you are too slow, "then you can at best argue about the amount of the costs, keyword: amount in dispute, or about the scope of the cease-and-desist declaration." This is because you usually have to submit this for all vehicles that have ever been and will ever be registered to you, "which in our opinion is far too far-reaching and not specific," says Schnaars.
Otherwise, there is only one option left: discussing whether a lawyer had to be called in at all. If the so-called authorised party, i.e. the owner, operator or tenant, is considered to be experienced in business, this approach could "possibly be inappropriate". This could be the case if the authorised party is a company or has already repeatedly obtained the same cease-and-desist declarations via a lawyer. In other words, if he regularly takes action against parking offenders, he can no longer demand legal fees from them out of court.
Police and public order office are not responsible
Some of those affected have contacted the police and public order office. However, they are not responsible. According to a police spokesperson, nothing can be done as the matter is a matter of civil law. And: "It is not a public traffic area." The city of Bonn also points this out. As it is a private underground car park, "the operator itself determines the rules that apply there". In a public car park, the fines would be lower in any case. If the parking disc is incorrectly set or not present at all, fines of between 20 Euro (up to 30 minutes) and 40 Euro (more than three hours) are due.
It is this discrepancy that is also causing anger on social networks. There is talk of "rip-offs" and "scams". The Godesberg woman affected is also furious. She is less concerned about the money than the principle. "I hope they don't get away with it." Nevertheless, she will pay for now. She wants to save herself further trouble.
(Original text: Ayla Jacob / Translation: Mareike Graepel)
