Fixed penalty for feet on seats (metal frame)

FSF · 14 Feb 2020

Here is a somewhat unusual problem/penalty...
I was sitting in a Merseyrail train when I was approached by 2 people (?Wardens ? Security) who checked my valid ticket and then decided to write a report, as one of my feet was on a metal frame next to an empty seat. My foot never touched the actual fabric of the empty seat. Apparently, there is a sign somewhere on the train that says no foot on metal frames. I have taken pictures and videos from where I was sitting and the sign is no where to be seen. I suggested that they could simply ask me to put my foot down and that's all whats needed, however they insisted on writing a report and a potential penalty. I repeated on more than one occasion that I have no intent to cause any problem and simply I didn't know about their regulations. However they continued with the report. The whole scenario is very surprising. I never knew or realised that feet can't be rested on metal frames. I genuinely have no knowledge of their policy and the signs that were drawn to my attention then, are no where obvious unless they are brought to your attention and you stand opposite them. I wonder if any can advise?

RailUK Forums

PG · 14 Feb 2020

Are you able to post the pictures please?

Llanigraham · 14 Feb 2020

The seat is not just the cushion, but the whole construction, including the metal frame.
Merseyside seem to be justifiabley strict about this.
Pay up and don't do it again.

Fare-Cop · 15 Feb 2020

This has been the subject of much discussion on this forum in the past

It's probably worth reading through this thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-feet-on-seats-query.118373/

C J Snarzell · 15 Feb 2020

Merseyrail have a very robust policy on where feet are placed that this has been widely publised over the years in the local media.

All I will say is that feet should be kept on the floor space at all times. If footwear comes anywhere near other parts of the seating area where there is fabric, plastic or metal it doesn't make a blind bit of difference - they can still pot you for it!!!

With the role out of the new trains I would think Merseyrail will be even more strict about this policy to ensure all their fleet remain in an excellent condition.

I believe one lady still got done after removing her shoes and placing her bare feet somewhere on a seat. I agree the argument here is of course hygiene as there are plenty of infections that can be carried in toes & feet.

This is sadly a learning curve and one you will just have to take on the chin for the future.

CJ

gray1404 · 15 Feb 2020

What's likely to happen here is they will write to you asking you to pay an amount to settle out of court. This is usually around £75

cuccir · 15 Feb 2020

Llanigraham said:
The seat is not just the cushion, but the whole construction, including the metal frame.

Is this something you know to have been aruged in succesful prosecutions, or an opinion? I realise that sounds potentially sarcastic, but it is a genuine question.!

aye2beeviasea · 15 Feb 2020

Well, if you got on the train and found your reserved seat consisted of just the fabric parts, but it wasn't actually attached to anything because the frame and everything else besides was missing, would you be OK with that? After all, if the seat is only the cushion, then you've got your seat

PG · 15 Feb 2020

I've been on a few GA 317's where some seats were minus the cushions!

ainsworth74 · 15 Feb 2020

cuccir said:
Is this something you know to have been aruged in succesful prosecutions, or an opinion? I realise that sounds potentially sarcastic, but it is a genuine question.!

I mean I certainly wouldn't stop someone wanting to argue in court that the metal frame was not part of the seat but I would not be at all confident of that receiving anything other than gales of laughter from the court! Common sense I would suggest says that a seat is more than just the cushions! That is also in danger of missing that the offence that would be charged isn't "putting feet on seats" but as per Merseyrail Byelaw 6(8) which states:

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

It isn't as specific as saying "No person shall put their feet on any seat".

bramling · 15 Feb 2020

ainsworth74 said:
I mean I certainly wouldn't stop someone wanting to argue in court that the metal frame was not part of the seat but I would not be at all confident of that receiving anything other than gales of laughter from the court! Common sense I would suggest says that a seat is more than just the cushions! That is also in danger of missing that the offence that would be charged isn't "putting feet on seats" but as per Merseyrail Byelaw 6(8) which states:

It isn't as specific as saying "No person shall put their feet on any seat".

So does this notion of the seat frame extend to the legs which run down to the floor?

Some seats, for example those found on Networkers and 323s, seem almost deliberately designed with a bar running horizontally along the bottom of the seat bases, which is pretty much perfect as a footrest, so perfect that one wonders if it was designed that way. Would this count as part of the seat frame?

I’ve never quite got why people put feet on seats, to me it’s pretty uncomfortable. A footrest at a lower level, as described above, is far more natural and, IMO, comfortable.

ainsworth74 · 15 Feb 2020

bramling said:
So does this notion of the seat frame extend to the legs which run down to the floor?

Some seats, for example those found on Networkers and 323s, seem almost deliberately designed with a bar running horizontally along the bottom of the seat bases, which is pretty much perfect as a footrest, so perfect that one wonders if it was designed that way. Would this count as part of the seat frame?

I mean yeah of course it does but that is unlikely to be an offence as I'm not sure using a footrest would "molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway" which is what the offence that's being argued would be.

some bloke · 15 Feb 2020

FSF said:
one of my feet was on a metal frame next to an empty seat.

Depending on exactly where the frame was, where the foot was and maybe other circumstances, you might have a case for saying you didn't break the byelaw because any interference with other people's comfort or convenience wasn't "wilful".

By the way, Merseyrail seem to have invented an offence.

"Enforceable offences...

Any person discovered by an authorised person to have their foot/feet on a train seat/seat structure."

https://www.merseyrail.org/about-merseyrail/revenue-protection-policy.aspx

Hadders · 15 Feb 2020

PG said:
I've been on a few GA 317's where some seats were minus the cushions!

Sounds like the ironing board seats on the 700s :lol:

Bletchleyite · 16 Feb 2020

With the new units they solved it a different way - mostly airline seating.

Stigy · 17 Feb 2020

ainsworth74 said:
I mean I certainly wouldn't stop someone wanting to argue in court that the metal frame was not part of the seat but I would not be at all confident of that receiving anything other than gales of laughter from the court! Common sense I would suggest says that a seat is more than just the cushions! That is also in danger of missing that the offence that would be charged isn't "putting feet on seats" but as per Merseyrail Byelaw 6(8) which states:

It isn't as specific as saying "No person shall put their feet on any seat".

Or “soiling” the railway. The joy with Byelaws is that they are wholly interpretable and often not very specific.

Bletchleyite · 17 Feb 2020

For the record the "metal frame" being discussed here is I think a bit in the middle between the two seats which is where the armrest would be on most other 2+2 layouts, I believe, which does feel like "on the seat"? It's not like putting your foot on the heating conduit, which is quite common (and 50x don't have, don't know about the 777s though, I think they are going for underfloor?)

It's certainly part of the seat which clothing would come into contact with. I don't think they are prosecuting people for putting a foot against the actual seat leg on the floor.

I'm finding it hard to find a decent photo showing it, but this (small) one seems to show the part concerned above the seat base height, it continues down and round to the front of the seat base which I believe is the bit we're talking about, though I'll admit I thought it was made of wood!

Class 507/508 interior

C J Snarzell · 17 Feb 2020

There has to be common sense with all this.

Would you go into a coffee shop, find one of the leather couches they have and sprawl your feet across it as if you were at home watching a late night flick or a footy game?

Would you slouch and put your feet up on other chairs in the waiting room of a doctors or dentist?

I can understand why Merseyrail target people for this as it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere!

CJ

Bletchleyite · 17 Feb 2020

C J Snarzell said:
There has to be common sense with all this.

Would you go into a coffee shop, find one of the leather couches they have and sprawl your feet across it as if you were at home watching a late night flick or a footy game?

Would you slouch and put your feet up on other chairs in the waiting room of a doctors or dentist?

I can understand why Merseyrail target people for this as it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere!

I certainly do often, in a setting like a pub, sit with one foot up on the "crosspiece" of the legs of an adjacent chair (if you see what I mean), which is bordering on being comparable. I've always considered those bits intended to put your feet on, though, they certainly are on stools. Or on trains, if there's a large heating conduit my foot tends to go on it.

I'm not entirely sure why the piece of the Merseyrail seats under discussion even exists, it seems to serve no useful purpose other than accumulating dirt and doesn't appear to be structural (that's true of any crime - the best way to prevent crime is to design out elements which encourage or provide for its commission, e.g. not to have dark corners where people might be vulnerable to attack). The best way to avoid this kind of problem is not to have the offending part of the seat at all. Of course, as I said the new trains avoid it by having mostly airline seats.

Islineclear3_1 · 17 Feb 2020

Let's hope these "wardens" don't come to South or Southeast London then...

Kite159 · 17 Feb 2020

Islineclear3_1 said:
Let's hope these "wardens" don't come to South or Southeast London then...

Shame they don't do something similar, they would rack up the money from the anti-social behaviour of putting feet on seats.

jon0844 · 17 Feb 2020

Kite159 said:
Shame they don't do something similar, they would rack up the money from the anti-social behaviour of putting feet on seats.

We could fund the NHS with it!

Stigy · 17 Feb 2020

Islineclear3_1 said:
Let's hope these "wardens" don't come to South or Southeast London then...

Why not? Some parts of Liverpool are just as challenging. Other operators do similar things in and around London quite successfully.

Islineclear3_1 · 17 Feb 2020

Because they will certainly get more than what they bargained for - unless they go for the "soft" targets...

I have often seen and heard RPIs getting told to f&*k off and they retreat to safety rather than put themselves in danger and deal with these unruly people

Fawkes Cat · 17 Feb 2020

Islineclear3_1 said:
Because they will certainly get more than what they bargained for - unless they go for the "soft" targets...

I have often seen and heard RPIs getting told to f&*k off and they retreat to safety rather than put themselves in danger and deal with these unruly people

It's perhaps worth thinking about the Merseyrail experience. Go back twenty years, and there were problems on the trains (I got a rather fetching black eye on one occasion, although as everyone pointed out it was my own fault for getting involved*). But since then (and not as a consequence of my black eye) there has been a concerted effort to make the system a safe place to be. In part this means sending crews of security staff out - but in general they're not looking to break up fights: they're looking to stop trouble before it begins - and that means dealing with the small issues such as - in this case - feet on seats. And it works. Trains are a safe place to be. They don't stink of tobacco, or weed, or wee. The trains do their job, and are generally respected.

If it can be made to work in Merseyside, it can be made to work in London.

*And being Merseyside, everyone also suggested that I should put in a claim for compo. I didn't.

Bletchleyite · 17 Feb 2020

Kite159 said:
Shame they don't do something similar, they would rack up the money from the anti-social behaviour of putting feet on seats.

I think most people support them being there. They have turned late-evening Merseyrail from a bit of a wild west with the guard hiding in the back cab (so a feel rather like the south London DOO routes) to a much safer-feeling thing. Very similar to the effectiveness of the NYC Subway "zero tolerance" approach.

FWIW, I'd like to see them starting to enforce the one about not playing music out loud, it annoys me far, far more than feet on seats.

This "bit of the seat that isn't the seat" is a bit of poor design which will go away with the 777s, and it does seem that it is the only thing that brings any kind of controversy with regard to the approach.

Fare-Cop · 17 Feb 2020

Islineclear3_1 said:
Because they will certainly get more than what they bargained for - unless they go for the "soft" targets...

I have often seen and heard RPIs getting told to f&*k off and they retreat to safety rather than put themselves in danger and deal with these unruly people

We used to get a fair bit of this in London as RPIs back in the 1980s. It never bothered me as there was always another one and another day.

If outnumbered it was always most sensible to back off, leave the space-wasters to think they'd won, call ahead and have BTP, or depending on location it might be Home Office Police, meet them at their destination

With reduction in Police numbers and other pressures now it is questionable how often that would work today, but for the 'lout' it's much like a game of Russian roulette.

Stigy · 17 Feb 2020

Islineclear3_1 said:
Because they will certainly get more than what they bargained for - unless they go for the "soft" targets...

I have often seen and heard RPIs getting told to f&*k off and they retreat to safety rather than put themselves in danger and deal with these unruly people

I have upheld railway Byelaws in and around London for years. I rarely got any grief. I was told to f@&k off a few times but usually won (even after being told to F off.....I just done them for that too).

Kite159 · 17 Feb 2020

Stigy said:
I have upheld railway Byelaws in and around London for years. I rarely got any grief. I was told to f@&k off a few times but usually won (even after being told to F off.....I just done them for that too).

I wonder what the impact of equipping the members of staff with body cams has had on reducing the grief given

C J Snarzell · 17 Feb 2020

Body cams are the true weapon against idiots on trains I reckon.

I'm not too sure if many of the rail staff are issued with them yet but I can tell you know as an ex-cop who used one - if you do get an awkward 'customer' activate the camera, politely tell them they are being recorded for evidential purposes and your own professional integrity and see what happens!!!

At least 90% of troublemakers or fare evaders will consider the error of their ways and generally rail staff shouldn't encounter any aggression or violence. There will of course be the odd exception when a passenger is beyond all reasoning and common sense and more than likely alcohol or drugs are a factor.

I often switched my camera on loads of times during the last couple of years of my service and its quite surprising how confrontational people back down once they realise they are on camera.

CJ

Fixed penalty for feet on seats (metal frame)

New Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member