Fine merseyrail

[liza]

I have got fined for feet on seat. Was really tired and wearing uncomfy shoes, so took the shoes off, had white soles on my socks and put feet on seat and got fined. No people or passangers were around me, it was pretty empty coach. Any chance to appeal? I think I have broken 6.8 law about wllingfully causing discomfort to other people, but I really hope that I didn't. I didnt put dirty shoes or smth, it was white socks with clean soles, socks were fresh and stuff. And no one was around so I wasn't like kicking people.

merseyrail trains.

thanks for responses!

 

[AlterEgo]

Please upload any paperwork you were given with your name redacted. They're pretty hot on the whole feet on seats thing, though their interpretation of the law is sometimes a little suspect. Was the officer's bodycam on?

 

[liza]

The bodycam was on!
I got a ticket with Number of issue, my name, date, time, journey data and inspector number. I can give all of those info if needed. Also there is a general text about "You have been stopped and questioned today because you contravened a merseyrail byelaw. I think I was told it is 6.8 section about "No person shall molest or wilingfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on railway", which, hopefully, I didn't, as I had socks with white soles and no people were sitting or wanted to sit around me, as it was a pretty quiet trip.

 

[gray1404]

Keep your feet on the floor and you will not have a problem. However please upload the paperwork you received.

 

[liza]

Here it is

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2026 ==

The FAQ doesnt really work but I did find the byelaws:

 

[Watershed]

This will come down to the way that the Byelaw is interpreted. Does putting your socks on the seat 'interfere with the comfort or convenience' of anyone else? I can somewhat understand the argument when it comes to shoes since they have varying degrees of dirt on them, but with socks there really isn't a risk of you depositing any dirt on the seat.

Speaking as a random member of the public, shoes on seats definitely bothers me but socks on seats wouldn't. It's not something I would do, but it wouldn't really make me uncomfortable. In fact it's expected if you think about couchettes on sleeper trains for example.

I think Merseyrail would really be unreasonable if they brought a prosecution in this case, but experience suggests they don't particularly care about how they're perceived in bringing Byelaw 6(8) prosecutions. It's no skin off their nose bringing one more case when they usually hear tens or hundreds of cases in a court session - with most people pleading guilty or just not submitting any plea at all.

Does their website offer you the option of an out of court settlement if you enter your reference number on it? If so, how much is it? If it's not an extortionate sum then you might consider it the 'least worst' outcome to pay up.

That's particularly the case if you work in a job or profession where you have to undergo Extended DBS checks or security clearances, or if you're potentially going to be applying for a visa to another country. You are usually required to disclose all convictions when applying for a visa, and most countries don't have a concept of 'spent' convictions like we do here.

If there isn't a settlement available and/or you don't care so much about the risk of a (minor) conviction, you might want to consider whether you want to defend any prosecution that Merseyrail choose to bring. You can of course do so unrepresented, but you might have a better chance if you do get a solicitor.

Unfortunately that would be at your own cost as legal aid is highly unlikely to be available in a case such as this. Even if you won, the unfair part about the justice system is that you wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed to be able to claim back all of your costs.

 

[liza]

I emailed the enforcement department. That isbthe only thing I found to settle down the case before escalation.

Really don't want to spoil my DBS check, so will probably pay, if said so. And it will become more expensive if escalated.

I didn't get a letter with fine so far. And, hopefully, I won't.

Anyways, I have learned my lessons.

Thank you for extensive response!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I have got fined for feet on seat. Was really tired and wearing uncomfy shoes, so took the shoes off, had white soles on my socks and put feet on seat and got fined. No people or passangers were around me, it was pretty empty coach. Any chance to appeal? I think I have broken 6.8 law about wllingfully causing discomfort to other people, but I really hope that I didn't. I didnt put dirty shoes or smth, it was white socks with clean soles, socks were fresh and stuff. And no one was around so I wasn't like kicking people.

merseyrail trains.

thanks for responses!

If you haven’t already, google for something like 'Merseyrail feet on seats'. You'll see that this is something that Merseyrail pushes hard on. So unless you want to argue the point in court, by far the cheapest way out of this is to follow the link on the notice and pay now. I'd also add that even if you do argue your case in court, there's no guarantee that you will win.

 

[The exile]

This will come down to the way that the Byelaw is interpreted. Does putting your socks on the seat 'interfere with the comfort or convenience' of anyone else? I can somewhat understand the argument when it comes to shoes since they have varying degrees of dirt on them, but with socks there really isn't a risk of you depositing any dirt on the seat.

Speaking as a random member of the public, shoes on seats definitely bothers me but socks on seats wouldn't. It's not something I would do, but it wouldn't really make me uncomfortable. In fact it's expected if you think about couchettes on sleeper trains for example.

Speaking as a different random member of the public, it definitely does bother me - and that’s why the only defensible positions are “all” or “nothing”. There are lots of cases where someone removing their (clean) shoes to put their socks on the seat would be considerably more offensive to their fellow passengers - but applying a “sniff test” or similar would be impractical.
Incidentally - couchettes provide some kind of sheet to put under (as well as over) you.

 

[KNN]

There are signs everywhere on Merseyrail trains, I, and many others, wish the industry as a whole enforced this as well as Merseyrail.

 

[gray1404]

How much are they asking for when you go online and enter your reference number to settle?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is no Byelaw preventing you from putting your feet on the seats. There should be- it wouldn't be a difficult Byelaw to frame. But there isn't.

Merseyrail's interpretation of their own Byelaw is therefore suspect at best.

The two Byelaws they use to justify their enforcement on feet on seats are Byelaws 6.4 and 6.8:

6.4 No person shall soil any part of the railway

6.8 No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

If you put shoes on the seats there is a reasonable argument that you have soiled the railway, even if your shoes were relatively clean. But you didn't have shoes on.

Ironically, 6.8 is the weaker Byelaw but the one they tend to use more: if nobody is sitting in the seat when you put your feet on them, how can you be said to have interfered with their comfort or convenience? My view is that this doesn't- can't- cover any hypothetical person who might sit on the seat later and might hypothetically be inconvenienced by a seat with scuff marks on it.

Merseyrail are, generally, not open to negotiation on this point though. Their view is very black and white, if you don't pay the settlement then they will prosecute you.

There have been cases where the Magistrates have agreed that the law hasn't been broken but there have also been cases where the Magistrates have agreed that the law has been broken. So what you do now is largely down to your appetite risk. If the DBS is important to you then the best way of making it go away is to pay the settlement.

Speaking as a different random member of the public, it definitely does bother me - and that’s why the only defensible positions are “all” or “nothing”.

This is where it all gets subjective though. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive if it is on the floor? If the issue is the smell, that's the same wherever it is. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive than someone sitting on a seat in a pair of those really skimpy Nike Pro shorts that barely cover the buttocks? Lots of things interfere with my comfort- people whistling and people eating with their mouths open, for starters- but they're not enforced.

There are signs everywhere on Merseyrail trains, I, and many others, wish the industry as a whole enforced this as well as Merseyrail.

I agree about the enforcement, but my opinion is that their own Byelaws don't actually support the stance they take. It is such an easy Byelaw to frame, too: don't put your feet (irrespective of the wearing of footwear) on the seat or the frame of the seat.

I find it odd that they're so determined to enforce this but can't be bothered to take the time to amend their Byelaws to reflect their stance.

 

[tutacre]

There is no Byelaw preventing you from putting your feet on the seats. There should be- it wouldn't be a difficult Byelaw to frame. But there isn't.

Merseyrail's interpretation of their own Byelaw is therefore suspect at best.

The two Byelaws they use to justify their enforcement on feet on seats are Byelaws 6.4 and 6.8:



If you put shoes on the seats there is a reasonable argument that you have soiled the railway, even if your shoes were relatively clean. But you didn't have shoes on.

Ironically, 6.8 is the weaker Byelaw but the one they tend to use more: if nobody is sitting in the seat when you put your feet on them, how can you be said to have interfered with their comfort or convenience? My view is that this doesn't- can't- cover any hypothetical person who might sit on the seat later and might hypothetically be inconvenienced by a seat with scuff marks on it.

Merseyrail are, generally, not open to negotiation on this point though. Their view is very black and white, if you don't pay the settlement then they will prosecute you.

There have been cases where the Magistrates have agreed that the law hasn't been broken but there have also been cases where the Magistrates have agreed that the law has been broken. So what you do now is largely down to your appetite risk. If the DBS is important to you then the best way of making it go away is to pay the settlement.


This is where it all gets subjective though. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive if it is on the floor? If the issue is the smell, that's the same wherever it is. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive than someone sitting on a seat in a pair of those really skimpy Nike Pro shorts that barely cover the buttocks? Lots of things interfere with my comfort- people whistling and people eating with their mouths open, for starters- but they're not enforced.

I agree about the enforcement, but my opinion is that their own Byelaws don't actually support the stance they take. It is such an easy Byelaw to frame, too: don't put your feet (irrespective of the wearing of footwear) on the seat or the frame of the seat.

I find it odd that they're so determined to enforce this but can't be bothered to take the time to amend their Byelaws to reflect their stance.

Merseyrail has been prosecuting thousands under this Byelaw for over a decade - including cases that have been appealed from Magistrates'.

Their argument, which has been accepted by the courts, is that the member of staff reporting the matter is entitled to be the one who is inconvenienced according to Byelaw 6(8) - as it states "any person".

You would therefore have to prove, as a defendant, on the balance of probabilities, that such person was not inconvenienced or had their comfort molested.

The wilful / intentional bit is fairly clear really - it's not like you can accidentally remove your shoes and place them on a seat. It is an intentional act. Another passenger seeing that, let alone a member of enforcement staff, would usually be pretty unhappy at that situation, and would likely be inconvenienced, as they clearly would not want to sit there, even if you removed your feet for them to do so. Even having to contemplate asking another passenger to remove your feet from a seat that I may want to occupy is unacceptable in my view!

 

[liza]

I wouldn't make anyone to ask me. If I saw anyone who may want to seat somewhere around I would sit down

The people who fined me said that it is not them who are uncomfortable, but people who may see me in the window

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2026 ==

It is 60 pounds

 

[Tetchytyke]

Merseyrail has been prosecuting thousands under this Byelaw for over a decade - including cases that have been appealed from Magistrates'.

Their argument, which has been accepted by the courts, is that the member of staff reporting the matter is entitled to be the one who is inconvenienced according to Byelaw 6(8) - as it states "any person".

It's been accepted by some Magistrates but by no means all. I have read about acquittals where someone has defended themselves. But it is often pot luck with Magistrates.

In reality the overwhelming majority of people simply don't defend the prosecution and so it goes through as a rubber-stamping exercise. The staff member is certainly on the railway but are they inconvenienced or do they have their comfort interfered with? Answers on a postcard.

Another passenger seeing that, let alone a member of enforcement staff, would usually be pretty unhappy at that situation, and would likely be inconvenienced, as they clearly would not want to sit there, even if you removed your feet for them to do so. Even having to contemplate asking another passenger to remove your feet from a seat that I may want to occupy is unacceptable in my view!

Again, this is where it all gets too subjective for my liking. If you take your shoes off first you're trying to avoid soiling the seat, so have you wilfully interfered with someone's comfort or convenience, or is it actually the opposite?

You may have a distaste for socked feet but is that a reasonable dislike? What about someone sitting in a pair of sweaty leggings?

It may be inconvenient for someone to ask you to move your feet, but is it any more inconvenient than asking someone to shift their handbag, or asking to squeeze past you into the window seat?

It's why I'm perplexed as to why Merseyrail/Merseytravel don't simply update their Byelaws to make it explicit that you can't put your feet on the seats. It's not hard.

It is 60 pounds

As above, it really comes down to your tolerance of risk. £60 makes it all go away. Merseyrail don't tend to negotiate and don't tend to accept people pushing back on them. You might win at Court but, equally, you might not- depends on the Magistrate. Personally I'd pay up and chalk it to experience, but it's your choice not mine.

 

[AlterEgo]

Merseyrail has been prosecuting thousands under this Byelaw for over a decade - including cases that have been appealed from Magistrates'.

Their argument, which has been accepted by the courts, is that the member of staff reporting the matter is entitled to be the one who is inconvenienced according to Byelaw 6(8) - as it states "any person".

What a stupid argument.

(them, not you!)

 

[Djgr]

It is well known that Merseyrail has zero tolerance for this and other deemed anti-social behaviour. Sometimes you have to accept "It's a fair cop".

 

[Watershed]

It is well known that Merseyrail has zero tolerance for this and other deemed anti-social behaviour. Sometimes you have to accept "It's a fair cop".

Them having a particular policy doesn’t automatically make it the law. They have their own Byelaws so they could have made it the law that putting your feet on seats is automatically an offence. But they haven’t, instead they have to prove inconvenience. Which is not entirely apparent in this case.

 

[furlong]

I wonder what legal basis they are using to usurp the courts and charge their own penalty for a byelaw breach? Are they handing over all the £60s to the inspectors perhaps as compensation for the inconvenience caused to them?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder what legal basis they are using to usurp the courts and charge their own penalty for a byelaw breach?

Their own policy has a fixed fee of £60 to prevent a prosecution for this type of Byelaws breach. I suppose they don't really need a legal basis for "pay up or we'll prosecute you", but I think we've seen from several cases on here over the last few years that Merseyrail's prosecutions team wouldn't really care about such technicalities anyway.

 

[The exile]

This is where it all gets subjective though. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive if it is on the floor? If the issue is the smell, that's the same wherever it is. Is a socked or bare foot more or less offensive than someone sitting on a seat in a pair of those really skimpy Nike Pro shorts that barely cover the buttocks? Lots of things interfere with my comfort- people whistling and people eating with their mouths open, for starters- but they're not enforced.

Although I agree with virtually all of that it is, with respect, irrelevant. The issue at hand was the suggestion that “shoes on seats” is not OK, but shoes off then feet on seats is. My point was that some people’s socked feet can be just as unhygienic as other people’s shoes so the approach to feet on seats has to be all or nothing.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Although I agree with virtually all of that it is, with respect, irrelevant. The issue at hand was the suggestion that “shoes on seats” is not OK, but shoes off then feet on seats is. My point was that some people’s socked feet can be just as unhygienic as other people’s shoes so the approach to feet on seats has to be all or nothing.

Also, in terms of practical compliance and enforcement 'no feet on seats' is simple to understand and abide by and to enforce. 'No shoes on seats' is more complex.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also, in terms of practical compliance and enforcement 'no feet on seats' is simple to understand and abide by and to enforce.

The issue at hand was the suggestion that “shoes on seats” is not OK, but shoes off then feet on seats is. My point was that some people’s socked feet can be just as unhygienic as other people’s shoes so the approach to feet on seats has to be all or nothing.

The fundamental issue is that the Byelaws don't say you're not allowed to put your feet on the seats. The Byelaws say that you're not allowed to interfere with someone's comfort or convenience. So all the subjectivity about what that actually means in practice does come into play.

The legal test isn't whether I have my feet on the seat, the test is whether having my feet on the seat is causing someone else discomfort or inconvenience. Shoes on, very probably. Shoes off? My personal subjective test is always "would you do that at home?" and yes, I do take my shoes off before putting my feet up on my sofa.

The legal test for the mens rea for an offence is whether a reasonable person would consider that behaviour to be unreasonable. And for this Byelaws breach there has to be the mens rea: you have to molest or wilfully interfere with someone else's comfort or convenience. As we've seen on this thread, most people agree that shoes on the seats is unreasonable behaviour, but there's no agreement about not wearing shoes.

Some socks are as unhygienic as some shoes, indeed some shoes may be more hygienic than some socks. But this applies to all sorts of situations: if someone has been to the gym and is all sweaty and wearing very tight leggings or yoga pants, is that a Byelaws breach too? What about the young women on a night out wearing the shortest of short skirts? What about the young men who wear their jeans somewhere around their knees and effectively sit there in their boxer shorts? What about the labourer on his or her way home from work who desperately needs a shower after a day's hard physical labour?

Given Merseyrail's appetite for penalising people who put their feet on the seats, I am very surprised that they haven't updated their Byelaws. Unlike the rest of the industry, they're in the privileged position where their Byelaws can say what they want them to say. They could make the Byelaws say very clearly that you're not allowed to put your feet on the seat. It is interesting that they haven't done so.

 

[SuspectUsual]

My personal subjective test is always "would you do that at home?" and yes, I do take my shoes off before putting my feet up on my sofa.

Would you put your feet up on a friend’s sofa?

 

[duffield]

Personally I think the shoes/no shoes/bare feet discussion is a red herring. Any or these could be perfectly clean or quite obnoxious depending on the individual and expecting Merseyrail to make any distinction is unreasonable. Also bringing other body parts (a sweaty back for example) into the discussion is irrelevant if those are parts that would be in contact with the seat when sitting in a "normal" position. Putting feet on a seat with or without shoes is a very specific choice to do something that most reasonable people would find unacceptable on public transport and generally I would fully expect the courts to agree.

Given that Merseyrail *could* easily have a very specific bylaw about this and have chosen not to, clearly they don't think they have an issue with enforcing it as the bylaws stand.

 

[cool110]

The discussion about the byelaws is also a red herring. They've had the policy and been successfully prosecuting people for many years before they switched from the national byelaws to the hybrid of those and TfL's, so it was a case of not fixing what isn't broken