Free aid

Krzysztof

Krzysztof is 33 and single. He used to work as a baker after graduating from a vocational school, but was fired because of his heavy drinking. Since he was unemployed and had no revenues, Krzysztof stopped paying the rent of his public housing flat. In the end he got evicted. A couple of months ago he was taken to hospital in critical condition and ended up staying there for a few weeks. After leaving the hospital, he decided to fight his addiction and started therapy. He is in a poor condition, had a stroke, and has to use crutches because of the thrombosis in his legs. He was assessed with a moderate level of disability.

After the eviction, Krzysztof stayed at a homeless shelter, where he first heard about citizens advice. He showed up at the facility on the day of his consultation. At the beginning, he was presented with an action plan, with a potential solution for his debt, and then, together with the adviser, they looked for a way for Krzysztof to become financially independent by asking for a permanent allowance from a social welfare centre. They then discussed the options for him to get a job and find a place to live.

Krzysztof managed to obtain the necessary documents, received a permanent allowance from a social welfare centre, and his consumer bankruptcy declaration was approved. Throughout the whole process, Krzysztof was assisted by the advisor, who motivated him to keep going. Krzysztof applied to an activation project for people with disabilities, consisting of physical therapy and professional reactivation.

Wiesława

Eighty-year-old Wiesława came to an unpaid citizens advice consultation convinced that she had to transfer her assets to her children. Her son and daughter have a very conflictual relationship, and they asked Wiesława to transfer them her assets during her lifetime, which she finally did in her will, convinced that she had to.

The lawyer explained to Wiesława the will regulations, pinpointing that a will could always be changed or fully revoked. He also explained what testamentary provisions and reserved portions were and informed her that she had no legal obligation to transfer her assets to her children. She could only do so if she wished.

Wiesława was surprised to discover that she did not have to appoint her children as her successors. Had she decided to transfer her assets during her lifetime, she could make a donation while maintaining personal servitude until her death, and imposing certain obligations on the beneficiaries. She was even more surprised to learn that she could actually cash in her assets during her lifetime.

At the end, the advisor asked Wiesława about the relationship in her closest family. Wiesława gained new insights on her situation and decided to talk to her children to solve their issues, so that she would both feel comfortable with the final results and protected financially.

Anita

Anita, a middle-aged woman, showed up at a consultation worried by a contract she signed with a private financial entity offering quick-cash loans. Unfortunately, a thorough analysis of the contract revealed that there were many strings attached in the form of liabilities.

Anita realised that she was lured into placing her money on a shadow-banking account with supposedly more lucrative interest rates. She did not realise that shadow-banking entities were not entitled to run saving accounts. Instead of getting awfully rich as promised, her account was wiped out.

At the citizens advice consultation Anita was informed that there was no obligation to sign a given contract and that she could chose its form. Furthermore, she was shown that the contract she had signed was at her disadvantage: there was a huge disproportion between her rights and obligations. The contract included prohibited clauses, violating the broadly understood principles of social cohabitation.

Anita understood how important it was to diligently read any contract before signing, and in case of doubts, ask a lawyer for advice, for example through the free legal aid or citizens advice.

 

Maria and Kazimierz

Maria and Kazimierz lived with their daughter Magda and their four-year-old granddaughter Zosia. Zosia’s father has always been absent; he left Magda when she informed him about the pregnancy. Zosia has always lived at her grandparents’; they were taking care of her when her mother was working.

One summer, Magda decided to do a seasonal job abroad. She asked her parents to take care of Zosia until her return. At the end of the summer, Magda called her parents to tell them that she was offered a permanent job abroad, so she wouldn’t be coming back to Poland. She also concluded that it would be better for Zosia to stay in Poland with them. Maria and Kazimierz accepted to take care of their granddaughter, however they immediately encountered technical problems as they were not her legal guardians.

Maria confided into her neighbour that she had no idea how to solve the situation. She and Kazimierz were elder, had modest pensions, and couldn’t afford a lawyer. Their neighbour told them about free legal aid at the City Hall. Maria and her husband made and appointment with a lawyer, who informed them about their rights and obligations, helped them fill in the necessary forms, prepared a list of all the needed documents, and walked them through the subsequent steps. Their case is currently being examined by a judge and they should soon become the legal guardians of their granddaughter.

Maria

Maria is married, she graduated from a vocational school, and works in commerce. Her two adult children are university students. They all live in a two-bedroom flat. Maria’s husband has been struggling with mental disorders (he is a so called “collector”) for years. He is unfit to work and receives an ill health pension. Since he collects any kind of objects and garbage, their flat is invaded by insects. However, her husband reacted aggressively every time she was suggesting a change in behaviour or treatment.  

Maria found out, at an free legal aid consultation, that she could file for the legal incapacitation of her husband, since he was a threat not only to the family, but also to himself. She was given a template and was walked through all the required steps. She filled in the form alone, modified certain elements with the help of a lawyer, and then filed it.

A few months later, she reached us to inform that her husband had been incapacitated and referred to psychiatric treatment. Together with her children she is planning to clean and restore the flat.

Genowefa

Genowefa’s life could be made into a film. When she was young, she married a rich man, whom she loved a lot. Over the years, they accumulated a lot of wealth and raised a daughter, Ania. Many years later, Genowefa’s husband fell very sick and was diagnosed with cancer. The only promising treatment was available abroad and it was horrendously expensive. Genowefa and Ania sold everything they had and took multiple loans at banks and from other people. In spite of the treatment, Henryk unfortunately passed away. Genowefa and Ania started getting contacted by creditors. And then another tragedy happened: Ania died tragically in a car accident. Genowefa was afraid that she wouldn’t be able to pay off all the debts. She wanted to settle them all and to make sure her grandson, whose legal guardian she was, had a good life.

The lawyer suggested Genowefa filed for personal bankruptcy, presenting her its advantages and disadvantages. A judge could, but did not have to, fully or partially write off her debt. Genowefa was also advised that any of the assets she still had would get seized, and that the deductions from her state pension would carry on. After a couple of meetings, they filled out the application form for personal bankruptcy and for appointing a court assigned attorney.

Genowefa came back some time later to thank the lawyer for all the support and assistance. The judge had approved her request and most of her debts had been written off.

 

Robert

Robert lives in a little village and runs a small farm, providing for his family with what he makes with the crops. He accidentally damaged his neighbour’s fence when working. To avoid conflict, he offered the neighbour to pay for the reparations of the fence, however, according to Robert, the neighbour was asking for too high a compensation. Robert felt offended thinking that the neighbour wanted to rip him off, after all it was just an old wooden fence.

Robert asked for an free legal aid consultation and learnt from the lawyer, who suggested a mediation to resolve the conflict, what liability for damages was. The lawyer also explained how mediations worked, emphasised that they were voluntary, and that both parties needed to agree to them.

Robert called his neighbour and suggested taking part in an free mediation. The neighbour agreed and the lawyer made the appointment.

The mediation helped the neighbours to reach a settlement and to avoid conflict.

Katarzyna

Katarzyna’s husband had moved out a couple of years earlier, after a fight when he was under the influence. For religious motives, she did not wish to divorce. She asked a lawyer what she could do to get child support without divorcing and was offered two solutions: filing for separation with child/spousal support or filing only for child/spousal support. The lawyer also mentioned that she could undergo free mediations to work out a compromise.

Katarzyna had no idea that a separation could be so similar to a divorce. Separated spouses were not longer liable for each other’s debts once the separation was announced, and it could also regulate child support and access to minor children, without the official dissolution of the marriage. Katarzyna gathered all the requested documents and filed for separation. She was happy to have an option that could improve her situation. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out, because her husband refused to take part in the mediation.

Jan

Jan, together with his ex-wife, had already undergone mediations to determine what was the best for their son: child support, joint custody, residency (at the mother’s), and access to the parent he did not live with.

Although Jan agreed for his son to travel abroad, the judge, when approving the settlement agreement, did not approve the travel permissions. The mother had already previously tried to limit the access to the father by wilfully taking the son abroad for a couple of months.

She was warned by the judge that such behaviour was inadmissible and that it could even result in limiting her parental authority.

A few months later, the mother requested a limitation of the father’s authority and then went again abroad with the son, without informing the father. Jan decided to inform the court and filed for a modification of the settlement agreement. He did not think that constant changes of the place of residence were good for his son. At the same time, he declared that he and his current spouse were willing to ask for full custody. After the unpaid help consultation, Jan filed for full custody and is awaiting the final decision.