BRINEK: FORGOTTEN TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF CASH MASHINE

Gertrude Brinek: TV-SHOW, 21 May 2011

Forgotten to take money out of cash mashine

In the foyer of a Viennese bank a bank customer withdraws 100 € but forgets to actually take the money. Shortly afterwards, she detects her error, returns – but the money was already taken. She immediately makes her loss known at the branch bank and promptly complains to the police. She is told by a bank employee, that there allegedly exist video tapes from the surveillance camera. Upon request of information by the public prosecutor weeks later, the bank, however, denies that.

Ombudswoman Brinek criticises in particular the conduct of the investigation authorities. According to her, the video footage should have been instantly ordered. The potential questioning of witnesses was disregarded altogether. In any case rapid action is necessary due to the mere fact that surveillance records have to be destroyed within a certain period of time for the exigency of data protection.  

Following the inquiry by the Ombudsman Board, Paylife consented to conduct further research and, indeed, found picture proof of the incident.

Ombudswoman Brinek now expects Public Prosecution to get active again, analyse the footage and question witnesses. Comments Brinek: “There is yet the chance that the person can be traced and that the wronged party will still get the money back. At least, now every possible step will be taken.”

Money forgotten – proceedings stayed according to the de minimis principle

Another case also deals with money forgotten in a cash dispenser. The TV show already featured it last December. At the police station the bank customer in question could even watch pictures showing clearly how his successor at the cash machine first put the forgotten money down, proceeded to retrieve some himself and then pocketed all in one. The investigation was, however, stayed due to the de minimis principle.  

In the meantime a change in the law had come into effect. As of today, also in the event of minimal amounts of money, footage can be ordered and analysed. In the case at hand the suspect could thus be found, and the complainant got his money back.

Follow-up: how mobile is a caravan?

The dispute over the organisation and decoration of a mobile home in Podersdorf has been on the show for a number of times already. Residents and authorities both object against a caravan, that in their view infringes the Burgenland Provincial Act on Camping and Mobile Homes. The Municipality of Podersdorf had finally brought an action for removal, and the Provincial Court Eisenstadt now ruled in favour of the proprietors of the mobile home.

Ombudswoman Brinek declares herself satisfied but criticises the approach of the Municipality: “The legal step of an action for removal was unnecessary. Podersdorf, thereby, only provoked needless tension and wasted public money."