Merseyrail Feet on Seats Query

[Camden]

For heaven's sake. The £50 is far less than someone is going to get if it went to court. It saves everyone time and money (including the courts).

It's not about cleaning the seat, it's about making sure the bad behaviour doesn't happen. It's a "penalty" for doing it. Plus you seem to ignore the cost overheads of enforcing the rules, the patrols, the cameras, the correspondence and so on.

The people finding themselves in this situation aren't picked at random, they've committed a transgression. If anyone believed themselves to be innocent then they can have their day in court, if that's what they want. There is zero evidence of this enforcement being used to profiteer, if that is what you are suggesting.

How about using common sense of rigidly following a rule book like some sort of super-pedant? The present system work for everyone, even for those caught out.

Most importantly, the system works for passengers who can largely go about their business travelling on clean seats, on safe trains. I'm on their side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For heaven's sake. The £50 is far less than someone is going to get if it went to court. It saves everyone time and money (including the courts).

Then decriminalise it. Either use the courts and due legal process or don't. I cannot support the idea of money changing hands to avoid the due criminal process. It'd be like someone assaulting me then me asking for 50 quid not to press charges.

 

[Camden]

An absolutely ridiculous analogy, I can't even be bothered to rant at how absurd what you've just said is.

No, the system works as it is and is properly balanced and perfectly common sense. If only more of the UK could use similar common sense to make things work as they should.

It doesn't require your support and you'll just have to be unhappy about it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An absolutely ridiculous analogy, I can't even be bothered to rant at how absurd what you've just said is.

In your opinion.

It doesn't require your support and you'll just have to be unhappy about it.

Of course it doesn't; nonetheless I do feel this kind of thing should not be legal; it is a workaround to the general legal principle that a fine can only be imposed by a Court, in a similar manner to the way parking companies do it - and that is unsavoury as well.

I support enforcement, but only by the proper legal means. "Give us 50 quid and we'll forget it" does not sit well with me at all. The amount is not relevant, it's the principle of it.

 

[trainophile]

Surely the point of the £50 fine is to deter people who would not be deterred by the prospect of a ticking off.

 

[Camden]

Well I support the enforcement they're doing at the moment, I think it's great.

I don't need any ridiculous analogies to back my statement up, I just travel on their much improved trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the point of the £50 fine is to deter people who would not be deterred by the prospect of a ticking off.

The threat is prosecution and a Court imposed fine. If the £50 was via a proper legal framework with a proper right of appeal I wouldn't mind it, FWIW, indeed I'd rather think that a good idea (and I have said before I would support an increase in the Penalty Fare[1]). But as it is it smacks of "give us 50 quid and we'll back off".

[1] I would suggest £80, reduced to £50 for prompt payment, plus the applicable walk-up single or return fare (Anytime or Off Peak) on top for the journey made, discounted if applicable. A higher and more deterrent base, plus removing the arbitrary nature of the level of it based on where the next station stop happens to be.

 

[Camden]

The threat is prosecution and a Court imposed fine. If the £50 was via a proper legal framework with a proper right of appeal I wouldn't mind it, FWIW, indeed I'd rather think that a good idea (and I have said before I would support an increase in the Penalty Fare[1]). But as it is it smacks of "give us 50 quid and we'll back off".

[1] I would suggest £80, reduced to £50 for prompt payment, plus the applicable walk-up fare (Anytime or Off Peak) on top for the journey made.

If you do something wrong, the prosecution isn't a threat, it's a fact.

If you want a "right of appeal", don't accept any offer of settlement (which is discretionary, not automatic, as made clear in their documentation), have your say in court. Which no-one is denying you.

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you do something wrong, the prosecution isn't a threat, it's a fact.

It's a threat, because it can be rescinded on payment of the settlement. Thus people are pressured into taking that settlement even if they feel the prosecution is unfair, as the Court case may result in them paying more if the appeal fails.

Personally I believe for such penalties there should be a statutory appeals process (like for parking tickets issued by Councils) which stops the clock and thus if it fails you still only pay the original penalty. Or it should always go to Court. An appeal should be easy to handle because Merseyrail enforcers use body cameras and trains have CCTV, so it should be easy to obtain a photograph of the accused with feet on seats (or not, if it's felt that it is a false accusation for whatever reason, e.g. the "offence" of "annoying an enforcer"[1]). For fares, obviously it's a little more complex.

[1] This is like the "offence" of annoying a police officer, whereby they'll find something to charge you for. I refer you to the thread on the misuse of cleaning power sockets on LO.

What is so hard to understand about that?

I perfectly understand it. I just dislike it.

 

[Camden]

As you admit, the evidence is plentiful. Either you've committed an offence or you haven't, and if you have encountered Merseyrail's enforcement officers as the OP's friend has then clearly you have.

There is no "pressure", only a potential opportunity to save yourself a higher bill on the understanding you won't do it again. An innocent person will never feel "pressure" to settle, because A) they won't have been stopped in the first place, and B) if they are innocent then they will want to ensure the prosecution fail in their bid to prosecute them, and seek the opportunity to clear their name. Since the evidence is obvious, the lack of it will be similarly obvious.

This is opposed to the route you would have where everyone will be sent to court for larger fines.

I re-iterate, there is no suggestion of any evidence that Merseyrail use this to profiteer. I've seen several people taken to task on the Merseyrail network - every last one of them fully justified.

We could create a Britain where every molehill is turned into a mountain, where pedantry rules and there is no discretion or common sense exercised, or in this case we could recognise an excellent system that works and give the people running it a pat on the back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We could create a Britain where every molehill is turned into a mountain, where pedantry rules and there is no discretion or common sense exercised, or in this case we could recognise an excellent system that works and give the people running it a pat on the back.

Or we could introduce a proper system with the proper legal safeguards, which could be used throughout the network for all Byelaw offences perhaps, including pulling the cord/door release etc as well as basic level fare evasion of the "I'll pay if I'm challenged" variety. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[Camden]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The system clearly is broken outside of Liverpool (as evidenced by the state of seats and bad behaviour), and the system is clearly not broken inside it (as evidence by the better standard of behaviour and clean seats).

So which needs to change. Clue: The answer isn't the system operated in Liverpool.

As for "proper legal safeguards", you can have your day in court if you want to. What can be more of a legal safeguard than that!

 

[Puffing Devil]

Or we could introduce a proper system with the proper legal safeguards, which could be used throughout the network for all Byelaw offences perhaps, including pulling the cord/door release etc as well as basic level fare evasion of the "I'll pay if I'm challenged" variety. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

The legal safeguards are there..... If you don't agree with the administrative penalty, you can opt to go to court. If you get lucky at court you may well walk away with an absolute discharge, which started this entire thread.

If you find yourself in front of a more robust bench and plead guilty, the minimum you'll face as a financial penalty is you're on benefits is:

Band A Fine £35
Victim Surcharge £20
Prosecution Costs £85*
Criminal Courts Charge £150
Total £290

*Costs low end estimate.

As the current government is intent on cutting court expenses, you can expected to travel a long way to attend a court and be stung with ever increasing costs disproportionate to the fine imposed.

Makes a £50 fee/penalty/admin payment seem an attractive alternative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Makes a £50 fee/penalty/admin payment seem an attractive alternative.

And thus may make going to Court unaffordable for those who wish to challenge it. Harder for feet on seats, but certainly relevant for some of the fare evasion edge cases.

 

[Camden]

Which AGAIN is another absolute. Merseyrail is a penalty fare system, you either have a valid ticket or you don't. There are no "edge" cases.

Court isn't made "unaffordable" by the existence of Merseyrail's enforcement, it's always been that way. If you're innocent of what you've been accused of then the costs are irrelevant as you won't be paying them.

You seem determined to try and give this a negative slant, regardless of the clear benefit the system has to passengers, how well supported it is and how much it has raised standards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which AGAIN is another absolute. Merseyrail is a penalty fare system, you either have a valid ticket or you don't. There are no "edge" cases.

There are and will be edge cases or cases that need handling properly until Merseyrail gains full independence from the national network as I suspect it eventually will, and fits TVMs/PERTIS at every station. Things like:-

1. Routeing disputes.
2. Staff popping out for a second to the loo etc and not reporting this in.

Merseyrail's ticketing policy is not absolute, unlike Manchester Metrolink where it is (if the TVM is broken the station is effectively closed unless you telephone customer services and obtain a reference number to quote to RPIs).

Court isn't made "unaffordable" by the existence of Merseyrail's enforcement, it's always been that way.

People may feel pressured to take the lower settlement rather than defend their case if they feel it is in the wrong.

You seem determined to try and give this a negative slant, regardless of the clear benefit the system has to passengers, how well supported it is and how much it has raised standards.

On that we must agree to disagree; I think a fairer system could be used while retaining all those benefits.

 

[Camden]

I don't agree to disagree. I just think you're plain wrong.

I'm firmly on the side of the right of passengers to travel in safety and comfort and I absolutely applaud Merseyrail for their efforts to find ways of making this happen. Ways which I believe are completely fair and in fact superior to "statutory fines".

You base your arguments on hypothesis (you haven't provided any real-world examples to back up the "concerns" you have) yet there are plenty of real world examples to show that it's a fair way of handling things. Not least the OP's friend if they happen to be offered the £50 penalty. There's not a jot of evidence anywhere to suggest that anyone has ever been treated unfairly by this enforcement, let alone "pressured" into accepting any offer than defend their innocence. Funny you should mention Manchester's Metrolink. If there is one place where I would single out for contrast it's there, yet they do operate a penalty fares system, do they not. I use taxis in Manchester these days, rather than use it.

It's little wonder that Britain is the way it is, with our ability to have the fair society most of us crave so often thwarted by "you can't do tha-a-at" types. It gives me some measure of hope that there is a little pocket of the rail network that thumbs its nose at such "can't do" attitudes and which just gets on with it. Long may it continue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't agree to disagree. I just think you're plain wrong.

And I think you are as well. I suspect we'll be forced to "agree to disagree" because the thread will be locked soon enough. But if you won't accept that others may differ from you in views...

I'm firmly on the side of the right of passengers to travel in safety and comfort and I absolutely applaud Merseyrail for their efforts to find ways of making this happen. Ways which I believe are completely fair and in fact superior to "statutory fines".

I agree completely on the first sentence. I could not disagree more on the second. Laws don't just exist for enforcement, they exist to prove the relevant checks and balances. I disagree with all privately imposed penalties that do not have the appropriate independent, legal checks and balances in all forms. (I'd go as far as to say that IPFAS is inadequate because it's contracted to Go-Ahead Group - it should be a State-run setup in my view).

It's little wonder that Britain is the way it is, with our ability to have the fair society most of us crave so often thwarted by "you can't do tha-a-at" types. It gives me some measure of hope that there is a little pocket of the rail network that thumbs its nose at such "can't do" attitudes and which just gets on with it. Long may it continue.

Or how about we do some proper legislation and implement a fair system of penalties with a fair system of statutory appeals, such as that used by Councils (as distinct from private cowboys) for parking control?

 

[Camden]

ISTR that when Merseyrail introduced its 'zero-tolerance' policy regarding feet-on-seats they had posters explaining that their approach was based on feedback from passengers: that they'd had lots of complaints about low-level anti-social behaviour and that passengers wanted a clampdown. So they started employing the byelaw enforcement officers.

And it's made a difference. Travelling on Merseyrail is a far more pleasant experience than it used to be. And much nicer than many comparable urban railways

Exactly.

 

[najaB]

It'd be like someone assaulting me then me asking for 50 quid not to press charges.

Happens all the time. Why bother with a court case - with all the costs that will entail - if the injured party doesn't want one and feels that justice has been done and they are recompensed for their pain and suffering?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Happens all the time. Why bother with a court case - with all the costs that will entail - if the injured party doesn't want one and feels that justice has been done and they are recompensed for their pain and suffering?

Because a crime has been committed which is a criminal offence. I don't believe the victim should necessarily get to decide on whether the due legal process is followed, least of all by way of deciding their own punishment when the law prescribes what the punishment should be. (I can see why they should possibly be able to let them off entirely, though I'm unsure of even that, but specifying an arbitrary settlement seems to be a bit off to me).

Indeed in something like an assault case, a victim may be pressured not to press charges by intimidation, or because they didn't want to upset a neighbour etc. Not allowing the victim the choice would prevent this; if it's reported and there's evidence, off it goes to Court.

 

[AlterEgo]

Depressingly unsurprised to read the predictable responses to this thread.

People wearing head-cameras to catch their employer's customers with feet on their seats? This is, and always has been an absurdity. It is wholly un-British.

We aren't a police state.

 

[Fare-Cop]

This is, and always has been an absurdity. It is wholly un-British.

What I find 'wholly un-British' is some people's lack of respect for others, their comfort and property and the inability to accept and abide by a simple rule.

 

[najaB]

Indeed in something like an assault case, a victim may be pressured not to press charges by intimidation, or because they didn't want to upset a neighbour etc. Not allowing the victim the choice would prevent this; if it's reported and there's evidence, off it goes to Court.

Scenario - two best friends who have known each other for twenty years get into a fight over a mis-understanding, one punches the other and it's seen by a police officer who is passing by. The police officer intervenes and while asking questions about what it's all about the friends realise that it's just a misunderstanding. The person who has been punched gets a black eye and a cut that needs a couple of stitches, but twenty minutes afterwards they're back enjoying a pint together.

There's evidence, it's been witnessed by a police officer (who has to file a report) and the injury means that it is assault. Are you saying that it should go to court regardless of the fact that the 'victim' and 'assailant' are happy to let it go?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's evidence, it's been witnessed by a police officer (who has to file a report) and the injury means that it is assault. Are you saying that it should go to court regardless of the fact that the 'victim' and 'assailant' are happy to let it go?

I see your point there - but one certainly shouldn't be able to pay-off the other (or request a pay-off) to let it go.

 

[anme]

Scenario - two best friends who have known each other for twenty years get into a fight over a mis-understanding, one punches the other and it's seen by a police officer who is passing by. The police officer intervenes and while asking questions about what it's all about the friends realise that it's just a misunderstanding. The person who has been punched gets a black eye and a cut that needs a couple of stitches, but twenty minutes afterwards they're back enjoying a pint together.

There's evidence, it's been witnessed by a police officer (who has to file a report) and the injury means that it is assault. Are you saying that it should go to court regardless of the fact that the 'victim' and 'assailant' are happy to let it go?

Another way to look at it is that we have a violent criminal on the loose - someone who is prepared to punch someone else, send them to casualty and give them probably a permanent scar, over a *misunderstanding*!

Don't you think that person should be punished and taken off the streets, for the protection of others?!

Having said that, I'm not picking sides in the out-of-court settlement argument, except to say that I thought one "British value" (whatever the hell that means - if politicians can make up this kind of nonsense then so can I) was respect for those whose opinions many be different to yours.

 

[trainophile]

What I find 'wholly un-British' is some people's lack of respect for others, their comfort and property and the inability to accept and abide by a simple rule.

Post of the thread ^ .

 

[najaB]

Having said that, I'm not picking sides in the out-of-court settlement argument, except to say that I thought one "British value" (whatever the hell that means - if politicians can make up this kind of nonsense then so can I) was respect for those whose opinions many be different to yours.

I'd like to think that all of my posts adequately show the respect that I have for other posters - if not, then the fault is mine alone.

Another way to look at it is that we have a violent criminal on the loose - someone who is prepared to punch someone else, send them to casualty and give them probably a permanent scar, over a *misunderstanding*!

Don't you think that person should be punished and taken off the streets, for the protection of others?!

The way I look at it, if the 'victim' is happy to let things lie, then why should society stick its neck in? Of course, if the crime is particularly greivous then it serves society's interest to prosecute even if the victim doesn't want to (or is unable to) press charges.

 

[furlong]

Companies offering these out-of-court settlements tread a fine line and I think the wisest ones limit themselves to recouping losses and/or costs they believe they can attribute directly to the incident concerned. This offers a clear and simple position that is easy to explain and justify.

On a completely different scale we have cases like Perotti v Iliffes Booth Bennett (A Firm) & Ors [2003] EWHC 2497 (Ch) (28 October 2003):

In the second paragraph they observed that the request for £30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Pounds) in return for agreement not to commence a private prosecution was tantamount to blackmail. It might not be blackmail, but it certainly would have rendered the agreement unenforceable on public policy grounds.

 

[anme]

Of course, if the crime is particularly greivous then it serves society's interest to prosecute even if the victim doesn't want to (or is unable to) press charges.

That was exactly my point.