Fine from PTV Contested in Court; False Statement from Authorized Officer, How to Deal with That?

Lstampella on 17/08/2018 - 23:31
Last edited 20/08/2018 - 18:31 by 1 other user

Respected OzB council of sages,

I'll give you just the TL;DR version first. Further details added below.

Wife (not Australian native, far from perfect English) was fined for placing her feet on the seat.
She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot, the metal support in between the seats while reading. Request for review rejected, so asked for it to be heard in court.
Received the sworn statement from the AO who declares that she was placing both feet on top of the clothed and padded area of the seat.
We don't know how to deal with that, were not honestly expecting this and are curious to know if it will be just her word against this false statement.

Edit: Added, for completeness, a poorly drawn schematic (OzB forum style) that shows where the tip of the foot was touching the metal support.

Added info:
She was alone on the train. I received a call from the AO to confirm her identity. During the call the AO told me that she placed her feet on the seat and that he was reporting her.
He also said that, in case she should have received a fine, she should have been able to contest it saying that she's not a resident and was just visiting. What kind of excuse would be that and how would it justify an eventual person placing the feet on the seat?

The AO told her that she has been spotted on the CCTV, so that's why they reported her. In our request for review we clearly asked for them to review said CCTV footage to confirm that, indeed, she was not placing her feet on the seat.
Can I ask for the CCTV footage? This happened in early March, so I am afraid it might be too late.

Other than that I see no other proofs we can gather, other than her fully clean record sheet, perfect ticketing history etc. etc. She already provided a stat dec too, confirming that at most she was barely touching the metal support between the seats.

I don't know if we have any recourse against a false declaration from an Authorized Officer, but I'm deeply pissed off. Would love to have the guy found out and prosecuted for the false declaration, but I think it would be already a win if we can manage to avoid her the unjust fine.
Please let me know what's our best chance.

Also note that the specific wording on the fine is: "without reasonable excuse, placed feet on any part of the public transport vehicle other than the floor". So going exactly with this wording, yes, she's guilty. I know it might sound straightforward, but it's fairly different from the expectation of "not placing feet on seat" and the relevant signage and such a wording could possibly opens to LOADS of fines to unaware passengers.

Should somebody ask how can I trust her word if I wasn't there…well, we both deeply despise this behavior and we both are 100% respectful and happy to live in a civilized place, with laws and such to run the show mostly merrily for pretty much everybody. Should I be wrong, then I'm sleeping with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Thanks for your help on this.

Travel

Comments

      • FirstWizard on 20/08/2018 - 08:16

        Well maybe she can give a statutory declaration. And the Court might require the CCTV is accessed. It's their job to prove she's guilty right?
        However, after giving the declaration, if the problem goes the other way there might be serious consequences for lying on a stat. Dec., that should not be taken lightly.

        • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:12

          Her stat dec is going to say: "I had the tip of my foot barely touching the metal support between the seats". The court will have one look and fine her.

        • FirstWizard on 20/08/2018 - 20:59

          @HighAndDry:
          Lol. Maybe R vs. Stampella would be a precedent to where not to keep your feet.

    • stampella on 18/08/2018 - 14:55
      +1

      Nah, would not classify you racist or xenophobic. Agree with the almost entirety of your comment.
      Note that there is already something like this in place (English skill tested by approved entities and $5000-ish fees to be paid for the ones that cannot pass said tests). I would personally scrap the $5000 fee and would enforce English skill tests for every single person. The 5000 contributed ahead could be worth nothing in terms of work-hours wasted to fix the basic lack of language abilities and the lack of basic English could have dire consequences in hypothetical worst-case scenarios.

      Everybody knows that Australia is primarily an English speaking country and, in most of the circumstances, coming here is done willingly.

      However note that I said "far from perfect English". She has a functional English and it vastly improved from that instance.
      She also had a perfectly functional English when the issue occurred too! We do not use the language as an excuse and that would not be a justification anyway if she would have truly acted as reported by the AO.
      That situation happened less than a year after she landed here in Australia. I believe the biggest part of the problem is that she's one that can hardly face similar unexpected situations (another common excuse, I know) and would likely be unable to muster all her best English and stand up to herself at first. This is still applicable and would likely be for her entire lifetime, not due to the lack of language skill…that's who she is :)
      I do understand how it could have been difficult for her even just to try and provide an explanation in that circumstance.

    • syousef on 20/08/2018 - 21:00
      +3

      It is very difficult for many people to learn another language as an adult. They typically learn enough to get by and get stuck at a certain level. I'm not saying it's a good thing but you don't ask a drunk to just be sober, you don't ask a fat person to just stop eating and you don't ask an immigrant to just speaka da Engrish. Well you can but your petty victimization of them won't change their reality or yours.

  • fozzie on 19/08/2018 - 09:58
    +11

    I have seen people putting feet on seat all the time. It’s terrible. I wish they all got fined. Such a disgusting habit.
    Not much to contest just pay the fine.

  • Gelato on 19/08/2018 - 10:15
    +1

    Tough luck in getting the cctv footage.
    i was involved in an accident at a cafe last year, where one of their shelves dropped to my foot. Was asking them for cctv footage as i was trying to prove the shelf was not secured and therefore they had not done their due diligence. Their response was that they'd only supply footage to their insurance company, police, and to court due to privacy issue (biggest BS i've heard).

    • Save 50 Cent on 19/08/2018 - 18:13
      +8

      Well, that makes sense. Why would they just hand it you especially that you may be going to use it against them in lawsuit? I would also give it away only if forced to especially if you were not really hurt and just looking for trouble. I wouldn’t hand it to you and then be on youtube and the news later that evening. Just being honest here.
      At least they didn’t tell you the cameras weren’t working that morning.

    • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:13
      +3

      Why would they help you sue them…?

  • CocaKoala on 19/08/2018 - 13:24
    +1

    It appears that one should not place their feet anywhere but on the floor while in any form of public transport. As you say that she had placed it on a metal support or whatever, your wife is liable to pay the fine.

    Just take this as a lesson and move on with your life.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 19/08/2018 - 14:59
      +1

      This should keep her on her toes.

    • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 16:10

      We understand that and we will likely end up paying the fine as far as I have seen. No real problem in that.
      We never looked at options to evade this and never stated anything different from the truth.

      Our main points are:
      A) the rule is somewhat loosely worded and vastly different from what is communicated in signage and communication to passengers (no feet on seats). It is clear to any person that no feet should be placed on the seats. It is less clear, at least to me, that just touching a metal support (not the actual seating area) can be fined.

      B) the Government Strategy for Compliance and Enforcement regulating the reporting and fining process promotes efforts to assist compliance where the non-compliance is inadvertent. This, in relation to the point A MIGHT warrant leniency.

      C) this is the main point! The AO issued a sworn false statement! I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that this seems to be totally normal and acceptable to the vast majority of posters! We are not trying to evade the fine, we are merely trying to state the truth and to do so we asked for CCTV footage review!

      In this case a false statement is made for a small fine with no big consequences. But that might not always be the case.
      I was expecting the usual round of roasting when discussing fines and such, but not this answer to what I feel is a much more serious issue.

      If somebody shares my same thought, please provide info on how we might ask the review of CCTV recordings. If not, then keep roasting. That's all right.

      • Dan_ on 19/08/2018 - 19:53
        +1

        Can you please clarify what this metal support is? I've never seen anything that could be described as a metal support on Melbourne Metro trains.

        Or do you simply mean the metal bit around the cushion? Which is just part of the seat to most other people.

        • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 20:39
          -3

          https://ibb.co/neJz7e

          Including an image, as everyone enjoys poorly drawn schematics. Blue ellipse is where the foot was placed, bottom part of the metal support, in-between the seats (as AJW correctly pointed a few comments down).

          It is part of the seat we are not contesting that. Probably is my poor English that makes me say that this would be more a case of "under" the seat than "on" the seat…but that might be debatable.

          However, I hope that it is not a matter of debate, out pure pedantry, to think that there is a difference between what is shown in the image and "both of her feet on the opposite cloth bound seat".

          Let me know if I am mistaken.

        • Dan_ on 19/08/2018 - 22:09

          @stampella:

          "both of her feet on the opposite cloth bound seat"

          That means her feet were on the seat and it was a seat bound in cloth.

          It is not the same as what you said in the original post:

          "feet on top of the clothed and padded area of the seat"

          But whichever statement was the one made by the AO, there is no "metal support", it is just the bit of the seat between the cushions. Even if it was the oddly specific second statement, your accusation of a false declaration against the AO will not stand on such a tiny detail (in my opinion).

        • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 23:07
          -4

          @Dan_: AO statement is "both of her feet on the opposite cloth bound seat".
          Sorry for the mix-up, didn't had the statement at hand when writing the original post.

          First of all, thanks for your willingness to look at it first. I really appreciate it.

          Just to clarify it in my mind: even if the tip of a single foot was touching the bottom edge of the seat in the center (never the upper surface of the seat or any edge that was cloth bound), the AO statement of both feet on the cloth bound area applies and can be considered truthful and accurate?

        • boostpak on 20/08/2018 - 09:02
          +5

          @stampella: why did you highlight the vertical metal structure bars underneath the seat that the seat sits on? There's no way she was sitting there just touching them, I call absolute BS on that. Don't know why you are even mentioning that bit of the seat. To touch those your legs need to be fully stretched out and underneath the seat. Even the metal part below the cloth is still part of the SEAT. I don't care if it's touching or fully on (however I highly doubt it was just 'touching' again calling BS), if its on the seat - its on the seat, doesn't matter whether the train has 1 person or 1000 people. There are RULES and LAWS in place that's why we live in a civilized country. She could have stepped in dog poop, didn't know and the tip of her shoe touched the metal part, then I go and sit on that metal part after her and have poop on my brand new pants… am I going to be happy and say nah it's ok because she was only 'touching' the seat.

          Moral of the story: Stop being a tight arse in trying to fight it and just pay the fine and learn a lesson out of it.

        • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:15

          @stampella:

          Just to clarify it in my mind: even if the tip of a single foot was touching the bottom edge of the seat in the center (never the upper surface of the seat or any edge that was cloth bound), the AO statement of both feet on the cloth bound area applies and can be considered truthful and accurate?

          Yes. Her foot was on the seat. The seat itself is a cloth one, therefore it's a "cloth bound seat". That's a description of the seat, not a description of where precisely her foot was.

        • franco cozzo on 20/08/2018 - 17:24
          +1

          @HighAndDry: what…? she was touching cloth? this changes everything…

        • HighAndDry on 20/08/2018 - 17:25

          @franco cozzo: No, OP's English also needs improving. The AO said that OP's wife had her feet touching "the opposite cloth bound seat" or something like that. They didn't say she was touching the cloth part of the seat, they only said she was touching the seat, which was cloth bound.

          It doesn't change anything for me other than that OP also can't read.

        • BartholemewH on 21/08/2018 - 20:55
          +1

          @HighAndDry:
          I think 'touching cloth' is a double entendre.

        • HighAndDry on 21/08/2018 - 20:56
          +1

          @BartholemewH: Oh whoooooshed.

  • DiscoJango on 19/08/2018 - 15:41
    -2

    please help pay for all our politicians expenditures.

  • Plug on 19/08/2018 - 15:56
    +2

    Am I the only person here who doesn't know what a PTV is?

  • Wardaddy on 19/08/2018 - 15:57
    +1

    Got caught, pay the fine, and don't do it again!

  • Xiaomi on 19/08/2018 - 17:28

    This situation sounds very narcissistic to me. Get the f$%k over it and pay the bloody fine, jesus.

  • elgrande on 19/08/2018 - 18:11
    +6

    Save your worrying for something worthwhile down the track, life is too short.

    Also, next time make sure she outs her feet fully on the seat to get her monies worth.

  • Aceboy884 on 19/08/2018 - 18:43

    Whilst I was in China, a man put his feet in the hand washer to clean his feet.

    I’m sure he didn’t touch the tap, but it’s close enough

    • iSamurai on 21/08/2018 - 07:34
      +1

      when i went to japan earlier this year, flying back from tokyo to the gold coast (Jetstar return for free sale), i saw a fellow aussie washing his feet in the sink in the bathroom next to the boarding gate. he was wearing thongs and made the entire place wet. i can't help but laugh while rolling my eyes and he was like "yeah mate"!

    • John Kimble on 22/08/2018 - 12:53

      I have a friend who worked at CBA (not a branch) in Sydney and there was a sign in one of the bathrooms telling people not to wash their feet in the sink…so it happens here too…

      • payton on 22/08/2018 - 18:17

        where I work, the toilet doors and each stall have a pictorial telling staff:

        • not to squat and pee on the floor
        • not to squat on the toilet seat

        and another A4 sized note to use the brush and double-flush!

        And I thought I work at a respected organisation where there won't be any uncivilized mongos requiring such memo

        The number of times I walk past a stall and see gross stuff floating
        how can people pull up their daks and walk away knowing someone else (most likely another worker) has to clean up their mess!
        imagine having that person in your share house shudders

  • DBBROS on 19/08/2018 - 19:11

    What about people who vandalise the PT? Do they all get caught and fined?

    • payton on 22/08/2018 - 18:23
      +1

      caught and beaten up is ok too

  • chumlee on 19/08/2018 - 19:16
    +1

    Your wife is lucky she didn't get belted up by the AO's as this is their preferred method

  • DarkOz on 19/08/2018 - 19:36
    +1

    I wish more people, if not everyone, are fined in the same way. In fact I would be more than happy to pay more if that is guaranteed to happen!

    Over the last 20 years, I have never ever seen anyone getting fined for placing their feet on the seat before. I see a few people in my train carriage doing this every morning.

    • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 19:58

      Agree with you. Lots and lots of people placing their feet on the seats AND not clearing the seat even when the train is completely full. That is rudeness^2 and would like to see a more systematic enforcement of the "no feet on the seat" rule.
      Well, I would not really wish to pay more…but aside that, I'm with you.

  • vj187 on 19/08/2018 - 19:41
    +1

    It's common practice for the AO's in Vic to tell people they have caught out things along the lines of "you probably won't get a fine" "you will most likely get a caution" etc in order to attempt to keep them calm, get them to cooperate and give their details, when in fact they fully intend to give the fine and this is just a tactic.

    • stampella on 19/08/2018 - 20:04
      -1

      Is it also common to provide false information in a sworn statement?

      BTW, the AO never told us that she would not get a fine. He told us that she might get it and then suggested to say that she is a foreigner visiting to have an eventual fine excused.

      • adgnetworks on 20/08/2018 - 07:49
        +1

        Yes it's fairly common they exaggerate.

        Those AOs would say anything to keep you calm whilst they bend you over without lube.

        If you're trying to fight for principle and without witnesses(specially cctv footage) then you'll just simply lose.

        Pay it and move on.

        Tell her the next time she gets pulled up that she records the video of the interactions on her phone.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2018 - 19:49

    Search for the Facebook group "where are our mates, melbourne's PT ticket wardens". You'll get a lot more help than from these bootlickers. Good luck, fight the power.

  • AJW on 19/08/2018 - 20:26
    +2

    If I read this correctly, you are saying she had her feet on the metal support IN-BETWEEN the seats….thats still feet up on the seats, ask your mum.

    Trying to be pedantic by saying she didn't have her feet on the material part of the seat but only the part in between is like saying they are going to fine me for having my fat arse on the metal part that isn't part of the seat?!?

  • D6C1 on 19/08/2018 - 20:48

    What would happen if you don't hand your details over to the AOs and do a runner

    • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2018 - 05:02

      Case referred to police after mail was returned. The person would be in much bigger trouble if got caught. The ball would be in AO grounds though.

  • ribze1 on 19/08/2018 - 21:07
    +6

    Stop wasting the court's time, FFS.

  • Windows98 on 20/08/2018 - 00:56

    She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot
    Fine is justified. Case closed.

    Take the ao to the exaggeration police if you're unhappy.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2018 - 05:16

    Seat means the entire structure that is placed there on the floor for people to sit on.

    It does not matter if her foot touched the cloth or just the metal.

    In his defence, the AO will just repeat that he saw your friend doing the act. If you insist that he was wrong in stating the severity, he will claim that he was just doing his job and he might have been shocked or whatever and exaggerating the description. But nonetheless, he correctly placed the fine as there is no clause in law about the severity of this crime.

    You would end up being liable for penalties and costs and the most AO might face is more training. But, is that what you want to achieve in the next 12 months or so?

  • Butt Scratcher on 20/08/2018 - 08:14
    +1

    Woah, people actually get fined for that!? I have always seen officers just ask people nicely to take their feet off and not give a fine. I'm glad at least some are giving out fines.

    Just pay the fine, there's a reason why officers have discretion when it comes to these minor offences. It's so that people don't waste everyones time over a ~200 fine. An hour of the courts time costs something like $30k

    You even admitted yourself that she had her feet "barely" on the seat. So just pay the damn thing

  • drprox on 20/08/2018 - 09:16

    Not speaking English isn't an excuse (thankfully) for breaking laws/rules. As others have said..do the crime pay the fine.

    • thebluelion on 20/08/2018 - 15:30

      Where does the OP imply that she shouldn't be fined because she doesn't speak english? I agree that the best course of action is to pay the fine and move on, but to characterise this as if the OP expects to not pay the fine because the wife's english wasn't perfect is just blatantly wrong.

      • drprox on 21/08/2018 - 11:41
        +2

        Why would OP mention it at all then?

        • thebluelion on 21/08/2018 - 17:33

          I wouldn't guess at OP's intentions (sympathy maybe? Who knows?) but that doesn't change the fact that he contends (wrongly perhaps) that she didn't commit an offence not that she should be given a pass free pass for her English.

  • Will Mcdonald on 20/08/2018 - 09:19
    +7

    I hate people who put their shoes on the seat. You walk around in a toilet and happy to put your piss shoes on a seat where people sit. Disgusting behaviour

    • franco cozzo on 20/08/2018 - 10:13
      +2

      …great. think i'll stand from now on. cheers for ruining pt for me completely

  • MementoMori on 20/08/2018 - 11:59
    +2

    FWIW - a similar thing happened to a friend of mine, although in relation to a mobile phone whilst driving fine.

    He did touch his phone just once so it would display the time (it was just resting in the centre console near the shifter, not in a holder). A trainee cop knocked on his window claiming he was writing a text. Discussion/argument ensured. Yes, he touched his phone, and by the letter of the law the fine is still valid, however the cop fabricated that he was sending a text, and they ‘saw this’, and it was backed up by another cop. Outright lie.

    He was a student, and so the $485 (or whatever) fine was a huge amount for him, so he went to court. In the end, the cops withdrew the fine, under some special subsection something or other, and he just lost the points. So for him, it was worth the screwing around.

    • Faulty on 20/08/2018 - 14:06

      Yep exact same happened to me. Copper was notorious in the area for issuing B.S. fines with no proper justification, and people were not bothered contesting or scared etc. I showed him my text messages, and which one was the latest (it was a message from the day prior), he said "oh yes" after he couldn't make up B.S. Told him if the fine is issued, I will be contesting it in court along with the text message evidence, and the conversation transcript that is recorded (police provide that). No fine issued, and a bit of a dent in the coppers ego. I spoke with some other local officers at an RBT station and they said yeah he's a bit of a bully.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/08/2018 - 15:04
        +1

        I was driving in a very dark suburban road and two cops had stopped a car and talking to the driver. It was very dark and I couldn't see past the police car (which I came to first), so I used my headlights for a few seconds until I passed the second car. The cops left that guy and chased, stopped me and we had a bit of an argument. He was ready to issue me fine or whatever it would take claiming that I annoyed police by using the headlight. I told them that I couldn't see anything and had I not used it I could run someone over. They (two junior cops probably in their late 20s) then said ahh… you're right and left. Sometimes it takes a bit of talking.

  • cyrax83 on 20/08/2018 - 12:12

    She deserves the fine. No excuse to have your feet on the seats. Stop making our trains disgusting. If she can't abide by our laws, then she shouldn't be here.

  • Faulty on 20/08/2018 - 14:00

    Hi mate, I have one question. From the picture you provided, were the toes/feet on the horizontal metal going left to right, or the vertical up/down poles highlighted in red? Could be a differentiating factor if there is any leniency.

  • anthonyaaa on 20/08/2018 - 15:06
    +1

    Was she facing the front of the seat or back of the seat when she had her foot on the metal middle part?

    There's many ways to investigate this on your part.

    Depending on the state your from there's an Australian equivilant of a "Freedom of Information"(FOI) request you can make.
    In NSW it's called the GIPA Act which covers all FOI requests. The FOI request under the NSW GIPA Act must cost $20 to process.

    You need to find the department or whoever is issuing the fine. Or if u don't know ring up NSW Revenue(or whatever govt is chasing you for the money. They can tell you the issuing body)

    Send them the FOI request. Ask them for evidence.
    (Make it's easy to read! Few lines no more than 1 page or they will get lazy and deny. Make it relevant to the your thing. Don't make it vague or too open they will deny)

    Let me know how your FOI request goes.
    Court will take around minimum 3-6 months. So you have plenty of time to prepare all the evidence.

    • stampella on 20/08/2018 - 17:42

      Thanks for taking your time to write a reply that is not an immediate verdict!

  • dylo on 20/08/2018 - 15:33
    +2

    OP there is as lot of debate here and whilst the image is good it has always proven the most effective to link an MS Paint diagram for complete accuracy and consideration of the OZBargain community.

    I look forward to your prompt reply to this matter.

    • stampella on 20/08/2018 - 17:22
      +8

      Sure, hope it will be clear enough.
      https://ibb.co/dcqSdK

      • franco cozzo on 20/08/2018 - 17:25
        +1

        yeh…thats definitely touching.

      • dylo on 20/08/2018 - 17:30

        Thank you OP!

        P.S "Wifezilla" lol

      • Faulty on 20/08/2018 - 19:27

        LOL! That needs to be entered into next years Archibald prize.

  • syousef on 20/08/2018 - 20:47
    +6

    She was barely touching, with the tip of a foot

    Just the tip baby. Honest!

  • T1OOO on 21/08/2018 - 02:29
    +1

    HAVE SOME BLOODY RESPECT!! TEACH HER WHAT SHE DID IS NIT ACCEPTABLE IN TJIS CULTURE.

    SECOND STOP TRYING TO LIE TO GRTNOUT OF IT.

    DID I MENTION, have some respect!!

    Now you have no proof she didn’t do it except her biased conversation so of course you take her side but we both know she’s in the wrong. Just upset. Hurting ur chances of getting some.

    Lol

    • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2018 - 06:08

      Australia is not the epitome of culture as you are trying to suggest.

  • mezje on 21/08/2018 - 07:22

    I have been fined for this and got out of it with a letter. My letter explicit stated I was willing to go to court and review CCTV footage.

    Although it was a different train to the one in the picture I had one leg over my other and the very tip of my crossed leg was touching that metal base under the cushion. It was a very late train and I was extremely tired and had just slumped to the point it was just touching, AO was a complete (profanity), didn't even try to argue but he kept acting as though I had killed his family.

    Regardless asking for CCTV footage is key here, PTV don't have the time or resources to look.

  • ronnknee on 21/08/2018 - 08:25

    a poorly drawn schematic (OzB forum style)

    How dare you insinuate our MS Paint capabilities.

  • Sage on 21/08/2018 - 10:45

    It's still against the rules and common etiquette if it's just the metal bar between the seats. (which is very narrow, mind you)

  • mrtin on 21/08/2018 - 10:54

    If your toddler unknowlingly puts their feet on seat eg to stand up to look out window will they get fined or would parents get fined?

  • meumax on 21/08/2018 - 11:29

    So say you get the CCTV and court agrees the AO gave a misleading statement. You'll still have to pay the fine because the metal bit is still considered part of the seat. You won't get off paying the fine. What is the benefit for you of going to all the trouble of getting the CCTV and going to court only to have to pay the fine anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me.

    Is it the satisfaction of proving the AO lied? Are you salty because you think you should be afforded leniency as seems to be suggested by the strategy document you keep refering to?

    Or are you salty because you see lots of other people breaking the same rule and not getting fined?

  • ajxutao7 on 21/08/2018 - 13:40

    pay the fine and looking forward

  • Sapiens on 21/08/2018 - 15:52

    An ex-gf had a similar sitch. Her foot was just touching, similar to your description. Trust me (unless her leg was broken and resting) the description by AO (though perhaps false) doesnt matter - you'll have to pay.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 21/08/2018 - 20:13

    Pay the fine or get a lawyer.

    If you don't do one or the other she will get destroyed at the hearing.

    You're not even sure how to obtain the CCTV footage…seriously just get a professional or pay the fine.

  • BartholemewH on 21/08/2018 - 21:02
    +2

    You may need to buy a car for your wife OP. Get one with adaptive cruise and park assist, then she can put her feet up on the seat whenever she likes!

  • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2018 - 06:05
    +1

    Heard similar stories a lot of time. Tip of the shoe is touching the seat, because the seats are too small, people get fined.

    People who don't get fined are the ones who look like junkies and don't care about the authority. These type of people are the ones who treat the train seats as their personal couch. Feet resting on seats, bags on the seats etc. Authorised officers are nowhere in sight to fine them.

  • Powershopz on 22/08/2018 - 09:22

    Pay the fine and move on.

  • cwongtech on 22/08/2018 - 10:34

    Question…

    She was alone on the train. I received a call from the AO to confirm her identity. During the call the AO told me that she placed her feet on the seat and that he was reporting her.

    How do they even have her or your number?

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/08/2018 - 11:09

      If someone doesn't have ID on them (or pretends they don't) AOs will offer the subject to call a family member who can verify their name and address over the phone.

      • John Kimble on 22/08/2018 - 12:56

        How do they verify the person being called is telling truth?

        PS Sounds like who wants to be a millionaire

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/08/2018 - 13:33

          They don't. If there's any doubt they just call the cops anyways. They don't get meet targets if they can't issue ;)

  • pformag on 22/08/2018 - 17:34

    Geez the fines are steep.

    Placing feet on anything other than the floor, or a part of a public transport vehicle designed for the placement of feet, without a reasonable excuse $242

    other fines

    Transport offence Fine for adult Fine for child
    Failing to produce a valid ticket $242 $81
    Failing to produce evidence of concession $242 $81
    Smoking in or on a vehicle, tram stop shelter, bus stop shelter, train platform, designated area, tram stop platform, or where there is a notice (from 1 August 2017, no smoking includes e-cigarettes) $242 $81
    Littering on a vehicle or premises $242 $81
    Placing feet on anything other than the floor, or a part of a public transport vehicle designed for the placement of feet, without a reasonable excuse $242 $81
    Trespassing $322 $81
    Behaving in an obscene, offensive, threatening, disorderly or riotous manner $322 $81
    Interfering with gates or doors on a vehicle or premises without a reasonable excuse $403 $81
    Travelling on part of a vehicle not meant for travel $403 $81
    Leaving a motor vehicle parked in a public transport parking area without using public transport $97 n/a

  • [Deactivated] on 22/08/2018 - 19:43

    If I say that everytime I touch a girl, I wouldn't be in jail

  • defecat0r on 22/08/2018 - 21:07

    Pay the fine…. then get her to take a dump on a seat to get her money's worth. Do it disguised, of course.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join