The senior refused to accept the fine for smoking wood. The case will go to court
The case of a senior living in Krakow's Bielany will go to court.
According to the “O2” portal, the senior living in Krakow heated her house by burning wood in the fireplace. She was fined twice for this. In both cases, she refused to accept the mandate. She proposed to the city authorities that her house be connected to the municipal network or that her property be moved to a nearby village where smoking is not allowed.
The pensioner refused to accept the fines
A senior living in Bilany on a daily basis did not accept the fines issued to her by the city guard. The first one was issued for the lack of a litter bin, the second for burning wood in the fireplace, which is not allowed in the area where the pensioner lives. The woman did not accept the penalties imposed on her.
“I did it because I have no other way to heat the house” – said the woman in an interview with journalists of “Gazeta Krakowska”. She assured that she burns high-quality wood, which is to be confirmed by her fuel bills.
The senior woman indicates that she applied for a subsidy to replace the tiled stove with a gas one, but her house does not have a connection to the gas network. The woman added that she was awarded 36,000. PLN subsidies for attic insulation, but the payment of money was made conditional on whether the woman replaced the heating source.
The woman went to the city hall
The woman indicates that she was at the city hall, where she proposed various ways out of the situation. The first assumed the possibility of burning wood, the second – moving her house to Kryspinów, where such smoking is not prohibited. This was not agreed.
The third proposal was that the woman's house would be connected to the municipal heating network. However, it turned out that even this is out of the question, because there is no such network on the street where she lives.
The woman's case has gone to court, where it is to be finally settled. The lawyer representing the pensioner said that she would invoke the state of necessity and hoped that the court would agree to it.
What do you think about the whole case?