Brinek: Garage flooded
On 13 May 2010, parts of Vienna were affected by torrential rains: roads were under water, the damage was immense. A garage in a council housing in Vienna was flooded, the cars parking there have suffered total losses.
Is this "fateful coincidence" or can the operator of the garage (“Wiener Wohnen” – Viennese Housing) be held accountable? According to Wiener Wohnen it was "force majeure", the water was spilled from the flooded road and in the garage, there would be no outlet where the water could have come from. Therefore, there would be no right to claim for compensation. The Austrian Ombudsman Board, however, counted three outlets and eight covers. It criticized in this context that Wiener Wohnen did not start and research on the causes of the flooding or offer emergency aid.
Only immediately before the broadcast, a letter to those affected announced that 50 % of the damage will be covered by the disaster relief fund. The present Technical Director of Wiener Wohnen apologized for the faulty information about the outlets and channels. At the moment, Wiener Wohnen would review more garages to avoid errors in the future. Wiener Wohnen could not entirely exclude the possibilty that the water came from the channel and that therefore, the flooding of the garage was so drastically. They would have to estimate where the water came from – and according to that information, compensation would be paid.
Ombudswoman Brinek: "Wiener Wohnen failed to consider the facts in time. Six months later, the causality is difficult to determine. In my opinion, the promised compensation from the Disaster Relief Fund is not sufficient and Wiener Wohnen should also provide compensation."
Banking secrecy protects thieves?
When withdrawing money in the foyer of a bank, Mr. N.N. forgot 100 € in the cash machine. When he realized his mistake shortly afterwards, he inquired at the bank counter whether the money might have been taken by the machine or if it was handed in by a subsequent bank customer. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
The statements from the surveillance camera photographs clearly showed a suspect who had taken the money after he himself had withdrawn money. An identification of the person did not take place due to the bank secrecy. In principle, the bank secrecy shall not apply if a crime is committed, which falls within the competence of the state courts.
However, as for thefts worth up to € 3.000, - charge the district court is competent, the victim cannot get anything.
Ombudsperson Brinek: "We find ourselves with the question: Does the banking secrecy protect thieves? If I just take the money, I am a thief. If withdraw money immediately afterwards, I am protected by bank secrecy. This is an unsatisfactory legal situation. I urge that the jurisdiction of the courts provides clarity or that clarification is made by the legislature.”