Worst parking lot in Switzerland

class=”sc-29f61514-0 kHgAwW”>

“Observer” reader Lukas Z.* found a thick mail in his mailbox a few weeks ago. A debt enforcement threat from FDM Inkasso. Allegedly, Park & ​​Ride had not paid the additional parking fee request for Lyssach on time. It’s just: “I’ve never received such an invoice,” says Z., who has a different name but is afraid of being further disturbed by the parking lot operator.

Z. does not deny that he parked his car in the private parking lot without paying for it in March a year ago. “I looked for a parking meter but couldn’t find it,” he explains. “A quarter of an hour later I left again.” What was his downfall: Just eight minutes after he arrived, a security guard took a photo of his car—a sensor noted that no payment had been made, as the “observer” wrote.

Parking lot is poorly marked

There is a system behind this: With insufficient signaling, the parking lot operator takes advantage of the ignorance of non-local customers. They hardly realize that Park & ​​Ride Lyssach is a privately run car park right next to the car parks of the surrounding shops.

The operator therefore repeatedly submits additional requests for a parking fee of 40 francs. A report in “Kassensturz” last October shows that these are not isolated cases. In it, the operator argues that the signal is clear and “good visibility” of the two parking machines. Looking at Google ratings reveals a different picture: just one star was awarded more than 440 times, and a better rating was given only twice. Comments often read “robbery”.

Terrible compensation for wrong parking

“I heard that too and once I knew I parked there without paying for it,” says Lukas Z. “When this letter was in the mailbox more than a year later, I thought: Look, now you have it caught.” But there is something else that Z. finds in his letter: The parking lot operator, threatening execution, demands from Z. more than 300 francs, which he has to hand over within 14 days. That way, he could save himself the costs of a debt settlement or court hearing.

However, according to the trade registry, FDM Inkasso has no debt collection company. At the same address, there is FDM Gastro, where only the car park operator allegedly trades liquor. Additionally, a number of fees are listed in the letter: travel expenses, legal fees, more than two hours of time, and miscellaneous. All together 415 francs, which will be “claimed in a legal dispute”.

The car park operator is accommodating in the letter and demands a flat rate of 280 francs plus VAT. Lukas Z. announces in the letter that if he does not pay, additional costs will be charged and the case will be settled in court in the next step. The letter states, “In this case, too, we will charge additional costs.” And between 1000 and 3000 francs.

Most of those affected are probably giving up in the face of such announcements. “There are some fictitious prices being charged and threats of going to court,” Z says. “Anyone who doesn’t know how to defend himself pays.” This is also confirmed by looking at Google ratings. Many users state that they get the same letter as Z. Some even years after they parked in Lyssach. Some even received a penal order from the prosecutor’s office – along with the bill of 280 francs: a fine of 140 francs for parking on private land.

Despicable by the order of punishment

The parking operator apparently used such penalty orders to highlight their demands. The letter Lukas Z. and others received over the past few weeks also includes a “pattern” of criminal orders. It seems to be intended to make clear to those affected that this is what it might look like if they didn’t feel it.

But the operator goes too far with this. Because the “model” penalty order is real. It comes from Adrien F.*, who parked in the parking lot years ago. F. also has a different name because he does not want his sentence to be known by everyone. He explains to the “Beobserver” that he paid his request for the additional 40 francs at the post office counter. However, in January 2023, F. received a prosecution and sentencing order. “I couldn’t prove I paid the first claim that was written on my windshield,” he explains.

Long time ago. Still, Adrien F. has been getting phone calls from the police for the past few weeks. “Those affected repeatedly contact the police to draw their attention to the invasion of my privacy by this threat of sanctions.” His name and other personal data were only carelessly obscured on the “sample” sent by the parking operator. They can be easily deciphered. “Apparently the operator is running Schindluder on my warrant,” says F.

Adrien F. has therefore filed half a dozen criminal complaints against the operator since Easter – the outcome is still unclear. “At some point I realized: This is a company that makes money in questionable ways,” he says. “Most people can simply pay out because they’re afraid or don’t know the full legal situation.”

Parking lot operator defended himself

The “observer” confronts the operator with the assertions. This is self-defense. It is not true that threats of enforcement proceedings are sent without sending an invoice and a warning. However, the relevant reports of those affected speak a different language – many learn of their misfortune for the first time through the daunting threat of debt enforcement.

The parking lot operator also does not see the issue with the fictitious debt collection company and sends new stationery to the “observer”, where the FDM Gastro connection should be more visible. There is now a “collecting debt” department and Justitia’s silhouette is embroidered on the right side of the letterhead. The charges collected are also “fairly low” – but the parking operator says it’s ultimately up to a court to decide “whether the costs are justified”.

The parking operator is only understanding if the penalty order is not sufficiently anonymous. This is the “only true accusation”. It was a mistake and he regrets the incident. “We will no longer send this copy in the future.”

“Observer” reader Lukas Z. has no intention of paying for what he sees as a threat of unfair practice. However, he transferred the additional 40 francs requested, even though he did not have a valid invoice. “It’s all over for me,” he says.

*Names changed

Source :Blick