Unauthorised parking on private car parks: what operators can do

A driver who parks illegally on a public road gets a ticket from the local authority. A driver who parks without authorisation in your customer car park gets: nothing. On private land there is no official fine, no authority steps in, and the police as a rule do not tow. Operators who do not act themselves end up subsidising outside parkers with their most expensive resource: spaces that should belong to customers, patients or guests.

The good news: German civil law gives operators effective tools, from immediate towing to contractual penalties. This guide compares every option in terms of cost, legal risk and scalability, backed by current rulings of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

The key points at a glance

• Unauthorised parking on private land is unlawful interference with possession (§ 858 BGB, the German Civil Code), but not a regulatory offence. The operator has to act under civil law.
• Towing is permitted immediately (BGH, V ZR 144/08), but the operator pays up front and carries the cost risk if invoices are excessive.
• Contractual penalties of 30 to 50 euros based on signage are the scalable route – and since the BGH ruling on the secondary burden of pleading (XII ZR 13/19) they can also be enforced against the registered keeper.
• Blocking a vehicle in or holding on to it is criminal coercion (§ 240 StGB), and wheel clamps carry a high legal risk.
• Where outside parkers are a recurring problem, individual measures do not scale. Complete documentation of every violation is the precondition for any enforcement.

The legal position: why nobody steps in for you on private land

Anyone who parks a vehicle on someone else's private land without authorisation commits unlawful interference with possession under § 858 (1) BGB. This is a disturbance of possession that the possessor of the area may defend against – and that includes tenants or lessees, not only the owner (BGH, V ZR 144/08).

What follows from this surprises many operators: there is no official fine. The police can identify the registered keeper and ask them to move the vehicle, and they will intervene physically where emergency routes are blocked. But enforcing claims, arranging the tow and recovering the costs are the operator's private responsibility.

6 courses of action compared

Option 1: towing – permitted immediately, but with a cost risk

The BGH settled the principle back in 2009: the possessor may have a vehicle parked without authorisation towed immediately by way of self-help (§ 859 BGB) – no waiting period, no prior warning, even if other spaces are free (V ZR 144/08). The offending driver has to reimburse the costs as damages.

In practice there are three catches, all decided at the highest level:

On top of that, the operator pays the towing company first and then recovers the money from the offender, through the courts if necessary. Towing is the right instrument for an individual case; as a permanent solution for a site with hundreds of spaces it is too expensive and too slow.

Option 2: contractual penalty via signage – the scalable route

With clearly visible signs at every entrance, parking a vehicle automatically concludes a usage contract, including a contractual penalty for breaching the rules (BGH, XII ZR 13/19). Courts usually accept 30 to 50 euros, and the BGH has expressly approved 30 euros.

The historic weak point of this model was enforcement: the contract binds the driver, not the registered keeper, and the operator does not know who was behind the wheel. This is precisely where the BGH tightened the rules in 2019: the keeper can no longer simply claim not to have been driving. If they do not name the person who parked the vehicle, their denial is disregarded and they are liable themselves (secondary burden of pleading, XII ZR 13/19). The operator identifies the keeper through a request for information under § 39 StVG to the vehicle registration authority.

For persistent repeat offenders, the warning letter comes on top: after the very first violation, the operator can hold the keeper liable as a disturber of the state of affairs and demand an injunction backed by a contractual penalty undertaking (BGH, V ZR 160/14).

All of this depends on sound evidence: which vehicle was parked when, for how long and where? Without robust documentation of every violation, any claim comes to nothing.

What you as an operator must not do

• Blocking a vehicle in or holding on to it: anyone who blocks the offending driver until they pay commits coercion under § 240 StGB, which carries a fine or up to three years' imprisonment.
• Fitting a wheel clamp: legally high-risk, and treated in case law as anything from coercion to attempted extortion. It is strongly advised against.
• Making excessive claims: towing costs above local standard rates, inflated storage fees or debt collection fees passed on to the offender do not hold up in court (V ZR 229/13, V ZR 192/22, V ZR 30/11) and can even attract a warning letter as a misleading commercial practice.

The real problem: outside parkers are a permanent state, not an exception

The supermarket car park next to the railway station that commuters occupy. The hospital site where local residents park all day. The customer car park that turns into a residents' garage in the evening. Germany is a country of parking offenders: back in 2017, the INRIX study found that more than half of German drivers received at least one parking ticket a year – roughly twice as many as in the United Kingdom or the United States – and put the time spent searching for parking at 41 hours per driver per year in German cities.

For operators this means that every permanently occupied space is one that paying or revenue-generating users do not get, and that individual measures such as notes on the windscreen or the occasional tow do nothing to change the pattern. Solving the problem structurally takes three things: clear contractual terms, complete documentation, and a process that works without staff effort in each individual case.

How digital parking enforcement automates the process

Those three building blocks are exactly what digital parking management with licence plate recognition delivers: cameras at the entrance and exit record every parking transaction, parking duration is calculated automatically and matched against payments, customer status or permissions. Every violation is therefore documented, with licence plate, time stamp and parking duration – precisely the evidence that BGH case law requires for enforcement against drivers and keepers.

The commercial side effect: enforcement costs, which according to the BGH nobody reimburses anyway, are almost entirely eliminated because patrols are no longer needed. Our practical projects show how this adds up for sites ranging from retail and hospitals to local authorities.

Frequently asked questions about unauthorised parking on private land

What does unauthorised parking on a private car park cost? There is no official fine. Contractual penalties of 30 to 50 euros as stated on the signage are standard, and towing costs of roughly 150 to 300 euros may be added on top, depending on the region.

My private parking space is blocked – can I call the police? The police can identify the registered keeper and ask them to move the vehicle, but as a rule they do not tow on private land. The operator commissions the tow themselves.

When may a vehicle be towed from a private car park? Immediately. The BGH requires neither a waiting period nor a prior warning (V ZR 144/08). The offending driver bears the costs, but only at locally standard rates.

Is the registered keeper liable if someone else was driving? They are liable for the contractual penalty if they do not name the driver (BGH, XII ZR 13/19). They can also be subject to an injunction (BGH, V ZR 160/14).

May I fit a wheel clamp or block the offending vehicle in? No. Both count as coercion, and with a wheel clamp there is even the prospect of a charge of attempted extortion.

Conclusion: from case-by-case annoyance to a system

Towing resolves the acute case and contractual penalties impose discipline, but only complete, automatic documentation turns individual measures into a working system. Case law has sharpened the tools; it is up to the operator to use them.

‍