Fine for having your feet up!

Lawpf2001

A friend of mine has recently received a letter from Merseyside Rail about a trip he made 2 months ago. The letter is demanding he pay a fine of £50 or he could be taken to court. This was all due to the fact he was caught with his feet up on one of the seats.

Obviously its a bit discurtious putting feet up on a seat but I feel this is a tad disproportionate to the offence. As he is a student he does not wish to pay a £50 but neither does he want to be prosecuted.

Do you think there is anything he could do? Especially considering the length of time between offence and the notice of the fine. Or will he just need to suck it up and pay the fine.

anewman

Does the fine say it is issued under any particular law? I'd be in the camp that if there was no sign saying there would be a fine (like there usually is for smoking) then a fine is disproportionate and a telling off would have done.

I'd have got my £50's worth and kept my feet up.

timbo58

The offence is covered in the railway byelaws probably under the 'behaviour liable to injure or otherwise soil the railways property'.
It doesn't need to be signposted at all as it is part of the byelaws and regulations all rail users agree to on using rail stations and services.
(i.e. what it states in the small print on the back of the ticket, a full copy you can obtain from any station pretty much), there is pretty much a law covering everything.

If it states the actual byelaw they are considering prosecution for and all the details on the report is right then this 'fine' sounds actually like an offer of 'a settlement without going to court'.
It is entirely up to him whether he pays or not, but most train companies are more than happy to prosecute if he doesn't IME and the fine + costs would dwarf £50 is the risk he is taking possibly.

geri1965_2

Tell him to just pay the fine.

Do you think we want to sit on seats that have had people's skanky shoes and whatever is on the bottom of them all over them?

dori2o

This may be of interest

300 more face trial for feet on train seats

Jenny Booth

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color: rgb(0, 102, 204); } Three hundred more passengers are due to be prosecuted for putting their feet on the seats on Merseyrail trains, despite a ruling by magistrates yesterday against the train company in a similar case.
Kathleen Jennings, 19, was given an absolute discharge by Chester magistrates after she admitted putting her flip-flops up on the seat in front of her.
Lawyers branded the case a “ludicrous” waste of time and money, as a tearful Ms Jennings revealed that she had feared that a criminal conviction could wreck her prospects of becoming a maths teacher.
Today, however, Merseyrail confirmed that it was pressing ahead with 300 more prosecutions against passengers who dirtied the seats, as part of its campaign to vigorously enforce railway by-laws against "unacceptable behaviour". Joan Nice, a spokeswoman, said that the company did not accept that it had taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
"We decided to enforce the by-laws vigorously because of complaints from customers," said Ms Nice.
"We have a further 600 cases pending, and out of those possibly about 300 are for feet on the seats, although we cannot give an accurate figure until they have actually come to court.
"We have already prosecuted nearly 250 people for smoking, drinking and other forms of unacceptable behaviour since February and in every case the magistrates have found in our favour."
In a statement, the company said that it had had a lot of support from passengers since it started its campaign against smoking, drinking and dirtying the seats in February.
"We do not regard our campaign as draconian," said the statement. "We are responding to the demands of passengers who don’t want to sit on a seat covered in mud or dirt and the campaign has received widespread messages of support from passengers throughout the country.
"To date we have prosecuted some 240 people in the Magistrates Courts for putting their feet on the seats and other byelaw infringements such as smoking. All have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty by the Magistrates."
The train company has equipped its staff with with CCTV “head cams” which record high quality digital pictures and sound to gather evidence for possible prosecution of offenders. Prosecutions are based on the existing railway by-laws which apply across the UK under the section which covers “unacceptable behaviour” (By-law 6), after a specific protocol was agreed with Liverpool Magistrates Court.
In the case of Miss Jennings, a Cub Scout leader who also works with disabled children, although she removed her flip-flops from the seat as an inspector arrived, the company chose to pursue the matter through the courts.
Christine Abrams, the chairwoman of the magistrates’ bench in Chester, gave Miss Jennings an absolute discharge, meaning that no criminal offence will be recorded and she will suffer no penalty. There were no costs awarded.
Ms Abrams said: “The bench is united in feeling that while this may have been contrary to a by-law, Merseyrail should have a less draconian method for dealing with matters of this nature.” She advocated a more commonsense approach in the future. “A fixed penalty system may be more appropriate.”
As the bench delivered its decision, the teenager’s parents, Tony and Susan, broke into a round of applause. Outside court, Miss Jennings said: “I’m really relieved. I thought the worst. I thought they were not going to give me a discharge. It’s been very distressing, to be honest, getting a solicitor and going through all this, which I’ve never done before. It’s been a bit difficult.”
Earlier Kevin Jones, representing Merseyrail, told the court that, as a train inspector approached Miss Jennings, she took her flip-flops off the seat. He admitted there was no verbal warning but said that a notice in front of her warned passengers of a £100 penalty for resting their feet on seats.
Irwin Bamforth, for the defence, said: “I have to say that the general consensus is, this is ludicrous. All it would have taken was for the gentleman to say, ‘Please take your feet down.
“She took her feet down and that should have been the end of it. She was taken off the train extremely distressed. Her whole family have become involved and they are very distressed. She is a young lady with no previous convictions who has co-operated fully.
“To be punishing a promising young student who could end up with a criminal conviction is crazy.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2393944.ece

anewman

dori2o wrote: »

This may be of interest



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2393944.ece

I wonder if there's any newer news than that on cases? If that article is to believed the chances of it going further in court are non-existent - but that is from 2007 and if they are dishing out fines for it, one would believe they intend to take it further.

timbo58 wrote: »

It doesn't need to be signposted at all as it is part of the byelaws and regulations all rail users agree to on using rail stations and services.

Never seen this list. I guess it's hidden away in the train station on some poster with tiny print you can barely read. If smoking is sign posted, then anything else which may incur a fine which is not obvious, such as putting feet on seats, should also be signposted IMO.

This is what happens when you let private companies make and enforce law sadly. They're after the money, not keeping the seats clean. If they were after keeping the seats clean they'd be charging the cost of cleaning the seat, not fining for a transgression of law.

Wig

anewman wrote: »

I wonder if there's any newer news than that on cases? If that article is to believed the chances of it going further in court are non-existent - but that is from 2007 and if they are dishing out fines for it, one would believe they intend to take it further.

Seems they have taken on board the magistrates advice and started issuing fixed penalties. Perhaps in that case it wasn't a fixed penalty "pay up or we take you to court" but instead they took her directly to court.

passatrider

I have no sympathy for people who get fined for this offence. It makes my blood boil when I see this happening on buses and at cinemas too.

Pay up and shut up!

AHAR

Good manners cost nothing.

McKneff

It's not discourteous, it's pig ignorant.

Livingthedream

It's always more profitable for the Train Company to get you to pay up without going to court, hence why they offer a smaller penalty of £50. As stated by other posters this is a byelaw offence and the Train Company have a right to prosecute your friend, then the fine if found guilty would be a lot larger than the £50 penalty.

Your friend could try and phone them up, plead that he is a skint student and can't afford the £50 fine and see what they say or ask them, if he can again, as a skint student pay over a few months.

Or maybe the easiest way just pay the £50 and move on.