Criminals secretly emptied the lockers of several banks. For the injured customer the question now arises: Who is liable?
As reported, Austrian financial institutions were outwitted by a professional gang: The criminals had outsmarted the modern locker systems of some banks. These lockers have the advantage of not being tied to supervisors or bank opening hours. You enter the foyer, enter the code, a lift then brings the cash box in the locker from the vault in the basement directly to an output compartment. Then the customer can dispose of his assets, puts the cassette back in the elevator and the action is over. With this knowledge, a lot of IT know-how and the necessary precautions and preparations, unknown criminals emptied one locker after another in Mödling, Klosterneuburg and Vienna.
According to the VSV consumer protection association, self-service safes have these three safety barriers:
The safe room can only be entered with a magnetic stripe card. You can only get the safe box with a card and PIN code. The safe box is then opened with a key when it is automatically issued.
In the general terms and conditions of the banks, the bank's liability is limited to an amount between 3,000 and 4,000 euros. There is full liability only in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
“This is an old issue that has now been legally resolved for payment cards and where – if the customer was not grossly negligent – his liability is limited to 50 euros,” said Peter Kolba, chairman of the VSV, in a broadcast. “But that does not apply to safe systems. But there, too, the question arises of who is liable for the functionality of technical systems. If the system does not work, that has to be the bank that uses the system and thus generates sales.” He called on the Association for Consumer Information (VKI) to clarify this question in court with a representative action.
In Austria, only the social partners and the VKI are entitled to class action. In fact, according to Kolba, only the VKI and the Chamber of Labor lead such complaints. “This restriction is detrimental to consumer protection. I also demand legitimation for representative actions for independent consumer organizations such as the consumer protection association. Then there is no need for acclamations, but the SAAM itself could clarify the matter,” said Kolba.
