[BrownE]

Say a heavy passenger flow was coming the other way and a large queue formed to come through the single wide gate. A woman (with her husband, son and baby in a pram) were told to wait by Assistant A till all passengers had passed through. So, the woman with her pram goes to pass through a normal gate and someone puts there hand over the sensor.

What Byelaw offences, if any have been committed here?

Thanks.

[XCDriver]

As not everyone on here are Bye law nerds it might help to tell us what bye law 11, 12 and 24(3) are. Then we maybe able to come to a conclusion

[DaveNewcastle]

Byelaw 11

11. General safety
(1) No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere with any automatic closing door, train, or any other equipment on the railway except:
(i) in an emergency, by means of any equipment on or near which there is a notice indicating that it is intended to be used in an emergency; or
(ii) any equipment intended for the use of passengers in that way in normal operating circumstances.

Byelaw 24.3

24. Enforcement
(3) Identification of authorised persons
An authorised person who is exercising any power conferred on him by any of these Byelaws shall produce a form of identification when requested to do so and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain a means of identifying the authorised person.

I hate the phrase "moral compass".

[ralphchadkirk]

On a technicality I think the staff member is correct, there does appear to be a breach of 11(1).

I can't see how 12 is relevant here at all, unless you were either told beforehand or there was a notice telling you not to deliberately block the sensor.

I also can't see why you used 24(3) either, as whilst it's your right to do so, it would only serve to antagonise the situation.

In short, I think you acted with the best intentions however given that the passengers had already been asked to wait until an assistant was available to help then it would have been best not to interfere.

I don't think it's worth complaining to FGW as a mountain has been made out of a molehill here by the gateline assistant and you.

[BrownE]

Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't seem to copy and paste them. I'all add them in when I'm on a proper computer.

For reference, they are downloadable here.

[XCDriver]

Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle

Byelaw 11
Byelaw 24.3

I hate the phrase "moral compass".

Thank you Dave. It seems 11 was technically broken then

[Urban Gateline]

Byelaw 9(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner.

Byelaw 9(3)No person shall open a barrier or any other gate on the railway except where there is a notice indicating that it may be used by him or with permission from an authorised person.

Byelaw 11(1) No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere with any automatic closing door, train, or any other equipment on the railway

The above byelaws may be relevant to your situation, however I'm no legal expert so I won't comment further!

As barrier staff myself, I can see your reason for blocking the sensors, it is much safer than having the gate close on the pram or the lady which could cause a compensation claim to be made against the TOC!

However, it should be the staff who do this and take their initiative, if passenger flow is too busy then gates should be altered to optimise passenger flow by putting more into the "exit" direction.

The problem with blocking the sensors is that you are effectively showing other passengers how to avoid the ticket barriers and the staff may (wrongly) assume that you are a fare evader yourself even though you had good intentions!

So basically I'm saying you or the lady should have complained to the barrier staff before taking actions into your own hands as it is the staff who are responsible for the safe operation of the ticket barriers!

[hairyhandedfool]

Originally Posted by ralphchadkirk

.....I can't see how 12 is relevant here at all, unless you were either told beforehand or there was a notice telling you not to deliberately block the sensor.....

Not necessarily for the op, but then the barrier staff may have assumed the op was part of the couples group. Byelaw 12 relates to safety instructions and the requirement to follow them. In this case I think it is to do with putting the pram through the automatic gates when they should go through the manual gate.

[Urban Gateline]

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool

In this case I think it is to do with putting the pram through the automatic gates when they should go through the manual gate.

Things have moved on since then, now we have automatic Wide Aisle Gates for those with Prams/Wheelchair/Luggage

[MichaelAMW]

What did you mean when the gateline chappie said, "I will get this cancelled for the offences?"

Do you mean he confiscated your Oyster card as a kind of on-the-spot fine for a byelaw breach?

[BrownE]

Originally Posted by MichaelAMW

What did you mean when the gateline chappie said, "I will get this cancelled for the offences?"

Do you mean he confiscated your Oyster card as a kind of on-the-spot fine for a byelaw breach?

Yes, this persons Oyster card was taken and the person took pictures of it before returning it to the user.

Given I saw no MG11 being completed and the Oyster card I'm told isn't registered I see no way he can do that to this person.

[MichaelAMW]

Originally Posted by BrownE

That was his exact wording, I interpreted that to mean: "I'll do nothing, I'm just trying to scare you".

Given no MG11 was completed and my Oyster card isn't registered I see no way he can do that. This is one of the areas my complaint will be around; 24 (Enforcement) says no where he can cancel my oyster card.

Unless I am wrong!?

I find that rather outrageous. He has, in effect, simply pinched your PAYG credit. I don't see how that could be permissible in any circumstances - even if you were using the ticket fraudulently the unused value is still yours - and in any case this wasn't a ticket irregularity.

[ralphchadkirk]

Hang on, your oyster card was actually taken? If it has, then my opinion will certainly change!

[BrownE]

No no no! He gave it back; telling me it would be cancelled (immediately) as punishment for the offences.

He took a photo (with his personal phone) of the front and back. No, I'm not sure why he took a photo of the front.

[ralphchadkirk]

Good however the threat of having us card cancelled is incorrect so it may be worth making a complaint however personally I wouldn't.