Brinek: Burgenland authorities base decision on internet information rather than on regulation

Burgenland authorities base decision on internet information rather than on regulation

ORF-Series "Bürgeranwalt" ( „Advocate of People“) – Broadcast of 12 September 2009

The 12 September broadcast reported on a dispute about a container in a trailer park near the city of Podersdorf in Burgenland. Neighbours as well as local authorities are complaining about a container home which according to their opinion does not meet the requirements of the respective Austrian act (Camping- und Mobilheimgesetz). The owners on the other hand gathered detailed information before setting up the container, just to make sure that all requirements of the trailer park were met. The project had been registered correctly, the construction plan was submitted to the local authorities in time. In 2006 an information note by the municipality referred exclu-sively to the container design of the mobile home. However in 2008 the responsible authority changed its mind and no longer interpreted the legal regulations but, all of a sudden, a definition published on Wikipedia. Which of the two has to be applied: the Austrian Act or the definition found on the internet? The container solution in question can be dismantled within two hours and therefore complies with the legal require-ments. Ombudswoman Brinek could not understand the reason for the abolition threatened by the mayor and made clear that the Austrian Ombudsman Board will make sure that the administration of the Burgenland province will observe the law.

Tenant is asked to pay 2400 Euro for car box that she stopped renting three years ago

The complainant rented for more than seven years an apartment in Vienna’s third district including a car box in the garage. The landlord was Wiener Wohnen which is responsible for the administration of more than 220.000 community-owned apart-ments in Vienna. In 2006 the complainant terminated the tenancy agreement be-cause she moved to another district and returned all keys, including the one to the garage. Three years later she received the demand to pay 2.400 Euro for a car box that she had stopped renting already years ago.

In Ombudswoman Brinek’s opinion, this case demonstrates various bureaucratic shortcomings: In order to terminate the tenancy agreement the complainant had to fill in a form which did not include a reference to the car box. In the direct communica-tion she emphasised several times that the termination of the tenancy agreement would include the car box as well, but apparently this announcement had never been registered correctly. When she did not pay the monthly rent for the car box, all re-minders were sent to the her old address although her new address was well known to Wiener Wohnen. Ombudswoman Brinek also criticizes that there was no docu-mentation on the handing over of the keys. Shortly before the broadcast Wiener Wohnen informed the Austrian Ombudsman Board that it would no longer demand the payment of the outstanding debits. In conclusion, Ombudswoman Brinek stated that this case was the result of careless working procedures. She reminded future tenants to carefully negotiate tenancy agreements. She also thanked Wiener Wohnen for its willingness to accommodate the complainant’s request in such an un-bureaucratic way.