The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has charged e-bike hire firms more than £200,000 in fees for the retrieval of abandoned bicycles, a move that has drawn support from the government as a model for other local authorities facing similar problems with pavement clutter.
Enforcement and financial penalties in Kensington and Chelsea
Since January 2025, the council has seized more than 2,500 hire e-bikes and issued charges totalling £210,098 to operators Lime, Human Forest, Voi and Bolt. Of those removals, over 1,200 were taken in 2026 alone, with the council citing them as causing “immediate danger or significant obstruction”. A further 1,315 bikes were impounded during 2025.
The council applies fines only under specific conditions. Bikes are removed when they are found lying across pavements, when they are likely to fall on pedestrians, or when they force pedestrians to step into the road. Any bike that creates an “immediate danger or significant obstruction” is also targeted.
The largest operator, Lime, has been charged £143,890.70 for 1,624 bikes. Human Forest was billed £58,017.35 for 787 bikes, while Voi received charges of £4,560.30 for 61 bikes and Bolt was invoiced £3,630.35 for 44 bikes.
Councillor Johnny Thalassites, lead member for resident services, planning and enforcement at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, said rental e-bikes play an important role in urban mobility, “but that cannot come at the expense of safe, accessible streets”. He added that the council’s enforcement actions send a clear message: “Park in a bay, or we’ll take it away.” The revenue from the fines is reinvested into supporting ongoing enforcement activities.
To help mitigate the problem, the council has created 245 designated rental e-bike parking spaces, comprising 185 marked bays and 60 virtual bays.
Hazards for pedestrians
Abandoned e-bikes and e-scooters on pavements have prompted growing safety concerns, particularly among vulnerable groups. Members of the House of Lords have highlighted the risks to pedestrians with disabilities, those using prams, elderly people and the visually impaired.
Crossbench peer Lord Krebs said that where he lives in Oxford, e-bikes and e-scooters are “all too often dumped on the footpath, blocking the way particularly for mothers with prams and pushchairs and for elderly people and the sight impaired”. He noted that Kensington and Chelsea council had removed more than 2,500 illegally parked e-bikes and e-scooters in the previous 18 months and charged operators £210,000, and asked whether other councils should follow suit. Transport minister Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill replied: “I do.”
Shadow transport minister Lord Moylan, a former deputy chairman of Transport for London, said e-bikes had turned British city streets into “shoddy and tawdry” sights. “What they’ve been turned into is sort-of great parking lots of bikes for the benefit of private companies,” he said.
Concerns over insurance gaps were also aired in the Lords. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Storey recalled the case of Sandy Peters, who suffered serious facial injuries when she was hit in south London last year. Ms Peters was unable to claim back any of the £10,000 worth of dental surgery because there was no rider liability insurance, the peer said. He asked: “Does the minister not think it’s time to sort out the problems of e-bikes and e-scooters once and for all?”
Insurance proposals and regulatory context
In response, Lord Hendy indicated that the government could introduce insurance requirements for e-bike and e-scooter riders as part of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. “As part of the powers that the Government has taken for shared cycles, we will have powers to set insurance requirements. No decisions have yet been taken but we will consult over that,” he said. He added that “hire schemes do need some rules, and that legislation enables us to set them.”
Current UK regulations classify legal e-bikes – those meeting Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) criteria – as equivalent to traditional bicycles, with no mandatory insurance. To qualify, an e-bike must have pedals, a motor of no more than 250 watts, assistance that cuts off at 15.5 mph, and assistance only while pedalling (unless type-approved). Riders must be aged 14 or older. Any e-bike exceeding these limits is treated as a motor vehicle and requires registration, tax and insurance. Non-compliant e-bikes on public roads can lead to fines, licence points and seizure.
E-scooters are subject to even stricter rules. Privately owned e-scooters are illegal on public roads, pavements and cycle lanes in the UK unless part of an approved rental scheme. They are classified as motor vehicles, and illegal use carries a £300 fixed penalty notice, six penalty points on a driving licence, potential seizure and prosecution. Riding on pavements can incur a £50 fine.
The government has also consulted on creating a new legal framework for e-scooters, but no legislation has been passed yet.
Insurance gaps remain a significant concern. In accidents involving a motorist, claims typically go through motor insurance. For incidents involving non-compliant e-bikes, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau may handle claims. However, for legal EAPCs – which are not motor vehicles – the MIB generally does not cover accidents, leaving third-party claims against the rider personally. Many riders mistakenly assume existing auto or home insurance policies cover e-bike use, which is rarely the case.
Lithium-ion batteries used in e-bikes and e-scooters also pose fire risks. Safety advice from authorities includes checking for CE or UKCA markings, using only manufacturer-approved chargers, avoiding battery modifications, charging in cool well-ventilated areas away from escape routes, never charging unattended, regularly inspecting for damage, keeping charging areas clear of combustibles, and disconnecting chargers when fully charged.
Meanwhile, tensions among operators have surfaced. Bolt has accused rival e-bike companies of deliberately moving its properly parked bikes into illegal positions in Kensington and Chelsea to trigger council impoundments and fines. The company provided “before and after” photos that it says show its bikes being moved from designated bays, sometimes under cover of darkness, to be replaced by competitors’ bikes.
Elsewhere, Westminster Council has entered into a “pioneering” agreement with Lime that involves the sharing of real-time data on vehicle locations and numbers across the borough, aimed at tackling abandoned and badly parked bikes. Lime is also expanding enforcement against riders who ignore parking rules, with escalating penalties and potential bans for persistent offenders. The company is rolling out a new e-bike model equipped with GPS technology that can pinpoint locations to within 1.5 metres, an attempt to reduce poor parking.
In Oxford, Voi and Lime operate dockless e-bike hire schemes. Oxfordshire County Council has a Code of Conduct for Dockless Bike Sharing and is exploring ways to improve operations, particularly regarding parking, amid calls for expansion of the schemes.
