Woman Gets £480 Bill For Putting Feet On Seats.

[Envoy]

I see that a woman has ended up with a £480 bill for putting feet on seats on Merseyrail train. (She did not pay the initial penalty).

I see from the comments that most members of the public are pleased that action was taken to stop this filthy habit of soiling the seats.

Woman gets 'ridiculous' £480 bill for putting foot on train seat

She is one of several passengers from Wales who have received hefty court bills for breaching a byelaw on an English rail network

www.walesonline.co.uk

A woman from Wales was astonished to receive a court bill of £483 for putting her foot on a train seat. Kim Brown is one of many passengers to have been taken to court by a Merseyside train operator for breaching a railway byelaw by resting a foot on a seat — and she described the way her case was dealt with as "ridiculous".

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing I'd like to know is if Merseyrail see the seat cantilevers and the lip on the sidewall as "on the seats" as they are much less obviously so than the middle frame piece of the old seats on the 50x.

However, feet on the actual seat is a filthy habit - just don't! You'd not do it at home without removing your shoes, don't do it on a train either. Filed under littering in the "optional antisocial idiot tax" bucket.

(To get to £480 she will have had to ignore any settlement offer, too...they usually offer the £100ish settlement for this unless a repeat offender, they have said before they'd like to be able to issue a Penalty Fare style fixed penalty instead but there's no framework for them to do that)

 

[1D54]

Her fault for ignoring initial payment but surely a warning is what should be given before details are taken.

I'm glad this has been in the papers, maybe people will give false details to avoid paying now!

 

[YorkRanger]

One thing I'd like to know is if Merseyrail see the seat cantilevers and the lip on the sidewall as "on the seats" as they are much less obviously so than the middle frame piece of the old seats on the 50x.

I've seen people getting fined for having their feet on the bit between the seats too. Sometimes the revenue protection team do just warn you to take you foot off it though (has certainly happened to me - I was sat with 1 leg over the other and the end of my shoe was lightly touching the front of the gap between seats ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've seen people getting fined for having their feet on the bit between the seats too. Sometimes the revenue protection team do just warn you to take you foot off it though (has certainly happened to me - I was sat with 1 leg over the other and the end of my shoe was lightly touching the front of the gap between seats ).

The lip between the seats on 50x is something clothing will come into contact with (so you don't want the dog dirt on the person's shoes on there). The cantilever below them on the 777 very much isn't, by contrast.

 

[Horizon22]

"Woman gets £60 fine for putting feet on seats which then escalated to £483 after non-payment" would be more valid a title

 

[infobleep]

"Woman gets £60 fine for putting feet on seats which then escalated to £483 after non-payment" would be more valid a title

They would even do that being owned by Reach.

What I want to know is why so many people didn't enter pleas.

The following also interested me

We asked Merseyrail whether, in a cost of living crisis, three weeks is enough time for people to pay a penalty before it brings a court charge. We also asked how it allocates the money from feet-on-seats fines. The operator did not answer those questions.

I don't agree with people putting feet on train seats and may be other operators should take it seriously too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

"Woman gets £60 fine for putting feet on seats which then escalated to £483 after non-payment" would be more valid a title

It may seem pedantic - but yes- you are correct.

 

[Starmill]

It seems to me it would be better if a Penalty Notice for Disorder applied at fixed £60/£90 bands for this kind of offence. It's a shame the framework for these can't be extended to minor Byelaw infractions such as this.

For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying it's justifiable by calling it minor, it shouldn't be happening at all, people should be able to take reasonable care of public seat cushions that they themselves are using.

 

[The exile]

About time too!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Good old Serco, ripping people off.

Shame their fraud with their contracts in the prisons sector wasn’t penalised so robustly.

Serco to pay £23m after Serious Fraud Office probe into MoJ electronic tagging scandal

Agreement reached as Deloitte fined £4.2m over its auditing of the outsourcing giant during the scandal

www.civilserviceworld.com

Outsourcer Serco has agreed to pay £22.9m and admitted responsibility for three offences of fraud and two of false accounting related to its work to deliver an electronic tagging scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

 

[Enthusiast]

However, feet on the actual seat is a filthy habit - just don't! You'd not do it at home without removing your shoes, don't do it on a train either.

Probably not. But this response from Ms Brown makes me wonder:

"It is ridiculous. I didn't know about the rule because I hadn't been on a train in years. I do see the deterrent side of things but as someone who drives a lot, I hadn't got a clue.

So it seemed she needed to be shown a "rule" which says you don't put your dirty boots on a seat where others are going to sit. So with that in mind, one has to wonder whether or not she does do it at home. Or perhaps she has a list of rules posted up in her lounge which includes "do not put shod feet on the furniture".

What I want to know is why so many people didn't enter pleas.

I couldn't be sure but possibly because, as with the fixed penalty offer, they probably thought "Nah, sod that, they can go and do one."

 

[The exile]

Good old Serco, ripping people off.

Shame their fraud with their contracts in the prisons sector wasn’t penalised so robustly.

Why is fining someone for being thoroughly anti-social “ripping off”? If she ignored opportunities to pay that’s her fault. If she couldn’t afford to pay she shouldn’t have done in it the first place. (Nor should she if she could afford it, of course! Perhaps we should add an entire weekend cleaning trains as part of the penalty as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I couldn't be sure but possibly because, as with the fixed penalty offer, they probably thought "Nah, sod that, they can go and do one."

So they indeed did go and do one - the "one" in question being a prosecution, which was successful.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why is fining someone for being thoroughly anti-social “ripping off”?

I feel that should be obvious.

I also wonder whether the initial penalty included “administration charges” which are also nothing short of ripping people off.

Given how the Courts are struggling to deal with caseloads, I’d also question the public merit in clogging up a court with matters such as this.

Yes, putting feet on seats is unpleasant, but it’s not £500 unpleasant. But Serco’s director bonuses don’t pay themselves.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The original penalty was £60.
Note how Wales Online plays the nationalism card, even though the woman lived in Sealand, right next to the border.
I expect the Liverpool Echo would complain if a scouser was caught with feet on seats on TfW's new 397s (or any "Welsh" train).

 

[jon81uk]

I feel that should be obvious.

I also wonder whether the initial penalty included “administration charges” which are also nothing short of ripping people off.

Given how the Courts are struggling to deal with caseloads, I’d also question the public merit in clogging up a court with matters such as this.

Yes, putting feet on seats is unpleasant, but it’s not £500 unpleasant. But Serco’s director bonuses don’t pay themselves.

The original penalty was £60, if that had been paid it wouldn't have gone to court. Nothing to do with "administration charges".

 

[skyhigh]

Yes, putting feet on seats is unpleasant, but it’s not £500 unpleasant. But Serco’s director bonuses don’t pay themselves.

And seeing as it's a court conviction, how much of that £500 actually goes to pay "Serco's director bonuses"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, putting feet on seats is unpleasant, but it’s not £500 unpleasant. But Serco’s director bonuses don’t pay themselves.

It would only have been £60 unpleasant (which seems about right to me) if she'd coughed up.

 

[John Luxton]

I really don't know why people find the need to put their feet on seats and have no sympathy with the person prosecuted.

However, to help get the message across perhaps some small stickers on windows might be in order. Its a few years since I have travelled on an Iarnrod Eireann train but I am sure they have stickers "Seats are not for feet" to get the message across. Perhaps Merseyrail and other operators should do the same?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really don't know why people find the need to put their feet on seats and have no sympathy with the person prosecuted.

However, to help get the message across perhaps some small stickers on windows might be in order. Its a few years since I have travelled on an Iarnrod Eireann train but I am sure they have stickers "Seats are not for feet" to get the message across. Perhaps Merseyrail and other operators should do the same?

They do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would only have been £60 unpleasant (which seems about right to me) if she'd coughed up.

I was assuming it was the usual £60 plus the standard £150 “administration fee”, which is the way in which they deal with ticketing irregularities.

And seeing as it's a court conviction, how much of that £500 actually goes to pay "Serco's director bonuses"?

At least £175.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was assuming it was the usual £60 plus the standard £150 “administration fee”, which is the way in which they deal with ticketing irregularities.

No, just £60.

 

[Gloster]

As far as I am concerned: good. If you don’t like paying £483, or even £60, don’t put your feet on the seat. It does read, although that may just be slant, that she wouldn’t have been particularly bothered about £60. Such behaviour is thoroughly unacceptable and is just sheer anti-social laziness, not tiredness, on the behalf of the perpetrator. Are they seeking sympathy for, for example, the person who turns up to a job interview or a wedding in their one good suit with a foul smelling gunge on the jacket?

(This makes me sound like boring old fort, but I would have thought the same at eighteen.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, just £60.

In that case I’ll soften my opinion, although I do still have misgivings about how Merseyrail enforce a lot of things.

Still a dirty habit to put feet on seats, mind.

 

[skyhigh]

I was assuming it was the usual £60 plus the standard £150 “administration fee”, which is the way in which they deal with ticketing irregularities.

At least £175.

Which given the time required to process the case after the initial penalty was ignored seems reasonable to me. As noted above, if the person had paid up promptly they would have been simply charged £60, which seems a reasonable amount to me.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

I am really pleased feet should be on the floor I do not want to sit on a seat someone has put their feet on. It is time that people started to behave properly.

I have to clean up after people who can leave amazing mess behind in their compartment after only a 20 min journey. You would not believe what we find.

 

[trainophile]

I have a theory that the advent of the mobile phone has contributed a lot to feet on seats. People want to use them supported at a comfortable viewing angle, rather than hold them aloft with their feet on the floor and thighs horizontal. Elevating legs with the knees bent provides the perfect resting position for their phone.

It's no excuse but it makes some sort of sense if you've ever tried to pay attention to a phone while in a non-table seat. There really is no explanation for people at table seats using the facing seats as a footrest though. Another reason I always choose an airline seat, but even then you get the youngsters leaning against the window with their feet all over the aisle seat .

 

[kristiang85]

Good, although the headline is a bit misleading in terms of the amount. But I would like to see all forms of antisocial behaviour fined - speakers on loud, littering, etc.

 

[ls2270]

Good, although the headline is a bit misleading in terms of the amount. But I would like to see all forms of antisocial behaviour fined - speakers on loud, littering, etc.

Couldn’t agree more!