Merseyrail Feet on Seats Query

[Puffing Devil]

Correct, but in practice, what will the Legal Advisor who doesn't normally hear such cases do ?

In my experience they will normally ask the prosecutor if they can provide any assistance and what would I (if it were me) or any other prosecutor worth their salt refer to ??????

What would the Magistrates then be guided by ???

Where there is no guideline for an offence, it may assist in determining sentence to consider the starting
points and ranges indicated for offences that are of a similar level of seriousness.
When sentencing for the breach of any order for which there is not a specific guideline, the primary
objective will be to ensure compliance. Reference to existing guidelines in respect of breaches of orders
may provide a helpful point of comparison (see in particular page 43 (breach of community order) and
page 83 (breach of protective order)).
Consult your legal adviser for further guidance.

From my experience, when a court is faced with a Byelaws prosecution for fare evasion, they bench will normally refer to the RORA guidelines, in line with the advice from P147 which I have quoted above.

Legal Advisers in courts that see railway matters are normally experienced in identifying appropriate equivalent guidelines.

 

[Fare-Cop]

From my experience, when a court is faced with a Byelaws prosecution for fare evasion, they bench will normally refer to the RORA guidelines, in line with the advice from P147 which I have quoted above.

Legal Advisers in courts that see railway matters are normally experienced in identifying appropriate equivalent guidelines.

My experience is of Courts all across England & Wales from the far North to the South-west and I have frequently been asked to assist in this way with Legal Advisors and Magistrates stating that they do not often handle such cases.

You are right that in mainly metropolitan areas where high numbers of prosecutions are listed regularly, we do get experienced Courts & staff who are well versed in dealing with such matters.

We clearly have different experiences of the Courts, but that is a part of that rich tapestry they call life and does result in some widely different interpretations at times.

 

[chorleyjeff]

I was wondering if someone could help me, a 15 year old friend of mine was travelling on Merseyrail for the first time this morning and he accidently put his feet on the seat in front of him and unfournatly for him he got court by 2 Merseyrail enforcement offices who took down his details, the thing is he's quite worried and upset as he's never done it before and he's wondering what will happen next so I was wondering if someone in the know on here could help me in someway to explain to him what's going to happen next as I know he doesn't want a criminal record.

If it helps the enforcement officer said she wasn't going to caution or arrest him as he was under age

Accidentally put his feet on the seat in front of him?
How do you do that accidentally?
Straightforward anti social behaviour in a public place I think.
Does he accidentally put his feet on chairs at home and mindlessly did the same on a train?

 

[Puffing Devil]

You are right that in mainly metropolitan areas where high numbers of prosecutions are listed regularly, we do get experienced Courts & staff who are well versed in dealing with such matters.

We clearly have different experiences of the Courts, but that is a part of that rich tapestry they call life and does result in some widely different interpretations at times.

Completely agree - which is perhaps why we see a bench in Chester throwing their collective hands in the air and going with an Absolute Discharge, where other courts may land on a band A or B fine for the same offence.

Unfortunately it is a low volume matter and is unlikely to get a formal guideline - though perhaps the matter could be raised via the Justices' Clerk for the region, which includes the Merseyrail area and an informal guideline produced?

 

[First class]

Also of note is that the young lady who appeared at Chester Magistrates plead guilty to the offence.

At court, she admitted a charge that she "did molest and wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway by putting your feet on the seat while on a rail journey to Chester".

The court accepted that plea, and she was given an Absolute Discharge. I suspect if she had plead "Not Guilty", it would have had a different outcome.

She was not found to be "Not Guilty" etc.

Those Magistrate's in my opinion were woefully out of touch with reality of how minor anti social behaviour can create a wider, more serious ASB environment. Last I heard, was that Merseyrail's statistics suggested that their customers who put their feet on a seat were far more likely to commit other, more serious offences on the railway, (intentional fare evasion, assault, trespass etc).

Liverpool/Sefton/Wirral seem to have a better view on the issue, and continue to sentence appropriately, which I believe is normally a fine of between £200-£300.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Liverpool/Sefton/Wirral seem to have a better view on the issue, and continue to sentence appropriately, which I believe is normally a fine of between £200-£300.

That's a Level 3 fine imposed for conviction of a first offence assuming a RWI of £400 and set in accordance with Band 'A' of sentencing guidelines

Those Magistrate's in my opinion were woefully out of touch with reality of how minor anti social behaviour can create a wider, more serious ASB environment.

I am aware that a formal request for explanation has been made in relation to another Court not too distant from Chester, but where what was perceived to be 'unduly lenient' responses were also given in several cases although none of them for this offence.

Completely agree - which is perhaps why we see a bench in Chester throwing their collective hands in the air and going with an Absolute Discharge, where other courts may land on a band A or B fine for the same offence.

Unfortunately it is a low volume matter and is unlikely to get a formal guideline - though perhaps the matter could be raised via the Justices' Clerk for the region, which includes the Merseyrail area and an informal guideline produced?

I agree, or if not via MoJ

 

[Ritson]

Liverpool/Sefton/Wirral seem to have a better view on the issue, and continue to sentence appropriately, which I believe is normally a fine of between £200-£300.

What happened to Rail Staff being reasonable and simply asking someone to remove their feet?

 

[timbo58]

'what happened to passengers being reasonable and respecting other people and other peoples property?'

To be fair I never had any issue with people putting clean feet in stockings/socks into seats which were not needed for passengers provided they moved them the moment the seats were needed and they didn't have shoes/other footwear on.

I DID however have an issue with dirty items of any nature being placed on seats as it is disrespectful to everyone else and the same sort of people that do this are exactly the same who would scream blue murder if their own clothing was damaged by dog mess etc (the sort of stuff someone might very well have on their shoes) left on a seat.

Would that person then think this was the TOC's fault? you bet they would!

Therefore the TOC has the right to protect their property from this sort of anti social behaviour, whether that is by carelessness, practice allowed elsewhere, or by deliberate act.

 

[Ritson]

Well, if only rail staff would show such diligence at rush hour when people place their bags on seats!

 

[timbo58]

I would also agree with that, again though this isn't the staffs fault, it is the anti social passenger and also likely to soil the seats IME.

 

[Ritson]

I would also agree with that, again though this isn't the staffs fault, it is the anti social passenger and also likely to soil the seats IME.

Didn't actually say it was the fault of the staff though, did I?
Merely pointed out that there is no need for *some* Rail Staff to be so zealous - I reiterate: surely a "Excuse me, Sir, would you mind taking your bag/feet off the chair? Many thanks"

 

[Antman]

Technically the Merseyrail byelaws, as the NR byelaws do not apply on Merseyrail. (The end result is the same though.)

Didn't actually say it was the fault of the staff though, did I?
Merely pointed out that there is no need for *some* Rail Staff to be so zealous - I reiterate: surely a "Excuse me, Sir, would you mind taking your bag/feet off the chair? Many thanks"

I can't see any problem with baggage on seats, provided nobody wants to sit there, but feet on seats is just another sign of the yob culture in this country and it's nice to see something being done about it.

 

[bb21]

Didn't actually say it was the fault of the staff though, did I?
Merely pointed out that there is no need for *some* Rail Staff to be so zealous - I reiterate: surely a "Excuse me, Sir, would you mind taking your bag/feet off the chair? Many thanks"

Why does anyone need to put their dirty shoes up on a seat?

Disgusting behaviour.

Much different to bags on seats (unless heavily soiled).

 

[transmanche]

What happened to Rail Staff being reasonable and simply asking someone to remove their feet?

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

 

[Temple Meads]

What happened to Rail Staff being reasonable and simply asking someone to remove their feet?

Because in most cases they just put their feet straight back up on the seat again as soon as the member of rail staff is out of sight.

Great to see a stance being taken against such behaviour IMO.

 

[Antman]

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

That's been my experience too although I'm only an occasional user of Merseyrail services, shouldn't other TOC's be doing the same?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's been my experience too although I'm only an occasional user of Merseyrail services, shouldn't other TOC's be doing the same?

Those TOCs with an antisocial behaviour problem might do well to look at it. Though court action is quite heavy and expensive for some of the crimes. Perhaps there needs to be a Byelaw change to allow for fixed-penalties (£50 maybe) for some of the relevant offences, e.g. littering, feet on seats[1], misuse of the communication cord, playing music without headphones etc.

[1] Only seats. I think Merseyrail's penalising people for putting feet on seat supports which your seated body doesn't come into contact with is unnecessarily excessive.

 

[Camden]

It's to avoid the inevitable micky taking responses and pleadings. A necessary definition if you're going to enforce the rules, which makes it totally straightfoward and non arguable. If your feet are up, you've fouled.

 

[transmanche]

It's to avoid the inevitable micky taking responses and pleadings. A necessary definition if you're going to enforce the rules, which makes it totally straightfoward and non arguable. If your feet are up, you've fouled.

And again, posters I've seen on Merseyrail make it very clear that the seat frame is included in the ban.


Feet on Seats by George, on Flickr

 

[Antman]

Those TOCs with an antisocial behaviour problem might do well to look at it. Though court action is quite heavy and expensive for some of the crimes. Perhaps there needs to be a Byelaw change to allow for fixed-penalties (£50 maybe) for some of the relevant offences, e.g. littering, feet on seats[1], misuse of the communication cord, playing music without headphones etc.

[1] Only seats. I think Merseyrail's penalising people for putting feet on seat supports which your seated body doesn't come into contact with is unnecessarily excessive.

Yes I would think a fix penalty rather than a court appearance would be appropriate although the person can take it to court should they wish to do so but surely if their feet were on the seats then they are guilty?

I must say that on my occasional trips on Merseyrail I've not seen anybody with their feet on the seats so it seems to be working.

 

[trainophile]

I recently asked a guard on another (not Merseyrail) TOC's train what the policy re. feet on seats was, as at the time I was speaking to him there was a woman across the aisle with her booted feet up on the seat next to where her bottom was parked, with her back against the window frame, phone in hand, headphones on and eyes shut, clearly oblivious to anything in her environment.

His considered reply was that if the shoes look dirty he would say something, but if they look okay he would let it go. I didn't press the issue of the adjacent fellow traveller (who he had obviously seen) as I didn't want to put him on the spot. He moved on down the carriage without further comment.

I know confrontation avoidance is a factor in their job, but their blatantly ignoring this anti-social behaviour is extremely annoying for everyone else.

I wish they would extend the ban to wheeled trolley cases - many a time I've seen people plonk one of those on the adjacent seat. Sometimes the wheels look quite dirty. Come to think of it, I've seen people drag non-wheeled bags along the ground then dump them on the seats too.

 

[bb21]

It's to avoid the inevitable micky taking responses and pleadings. A necessary definition if you're going to enforce the rules, which makes it totally straightfoward and non arguable. If your feet are up, you've fouled.

Yes, I agree.

While banning shoes on the seat support may seem excessive, banning it altogether makes the message clear and enforcement more straight forward. After all, there is no reason for anyone to put their feet up there. It is anti-social and totally unnecessary.

 

[timbo58]

I do have to say however how many people KNOW or check their footwear is clean before they place them on a seat?

I'd wager to say -very few.

I can sympathise with those staff who judge each case on their merits (whether the seat IS actually soiled or not) but to my mind this just confuses the issue -

i.e. if dirt is found -it wasn't me..... it isn't THAT bad.... etc.

Far easier and simpler to stick to the rule, although I have some sympathy a PF/OTS fine would be more appropriate than expensive court action.

 

[transmanche]

Far easier and simpler to stick to the rule, although I have some sympathy a PF/OTS fine would be more appropriate than expensive court action.

Merseyrail do sometimes offer an administrative penalty (it says £50 in this FAQ[*]) for byelaw 6(8) offences, instead of prosecution.

* Although I think I might have seen £70 quoted in some press reports.

 

[furlong]

Merseyrail do sometimes offer an administrative penalty

The penalty is £50.00 for a breach of a byelaw, and £75.00 for a Railway Regulation Act 1889 section 5 offence.

If you accept the warning plus Administrative Penalty,

A fixed "penalty"? "Administrative Penalty"? Oh dear...

 

[island]

A fixed "penalty"? "Administrative Penalty"? Oh dear...

I'm not sure what you're implying here, but if it's that the use of the word "penalty" somehow makes the whole process invalid, you're probably not right.

 

[Camden]

A fixed "penalty"? "Administrative Penalty"? Oh dear...

Don't really know what you're getting at. If you're an offender then there is no requirement for you to take up any generous out of court settlement offer (regardless of how it's worded), you can opt to have your day in court instead.

Where I'm sure the company would, upon conviction, point out the accused had also turned down the offer of settling the matter informally, meaning any application for costs is more likely to be awarded.

I find myself bemused at some of the responses to this thread. If the rule enforcement engenders better behaviour on this part of the railway (and it does) and it's supported by the people in whose city it operates (and I know it overwhelmingly is, and has been run like this for many years now), just what is anyone else's beef with it being done like this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find myself bemused at some of the responses to this thread. If the rule enforcement engenders better behaviour on this part of the railway (and it does) and it's supported by the people in whose city it operates (and I know it overwhelmingly is, and has been run like this for many years now), just what is anyone else's beef with it being done like this?

I have an objection to non-statutory penalties, personally. However, it doesn't mean I object to that approach being used, I just think Merseyrail (and for that matter car park operators) need to be given the right to issue statutory fixed-penalty fines (but not to keep all the money themselves).

I dislike the bribery-style aspect of these out of court settlements; if someone has broken the law they should be tried and convicted in accordance with it, it should not be legal to bribe someone not to press charges, which is effectively the situation.

 

[Elecman]

Just how is an offer by the train company to settle a matter out of court a bribe?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just how is an offer by the train company to settle a matter out of court a bribe?

Would it be OK if a policeman said "Here, give me £50 and I won't arrest you"?

I have no issues with claiming the actual cost of the damages, but it doesn't cost £50 to clean a seat, and I bet they don't actually bother anyway. "Fines" over and above that should not go to the TOC, but to the more general pot where other fines go when issued by Courts. So the due process should be followed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In my view an out of court settlement should not be applicable because it is not a civil case of sueing for damages, it is a criminal case. Therefore due process should be followed in accordance with the relevant (bye)laws.