Independent, revenue-driven contracts between London councils and e-bike operators fragment cross-borough travel and inflate costs for riders without resolving pavement clutter. So will TfL’s cross-London licensing scheme solve the problem? Asks Myra Stok

Everywhere you look, there are e- bikes, littering pavements, stopping people in their tracks – sometimes literally. Councils have taken on a central role in the battle between public disgust at e-bike behaviour by cutting deals with operators themselves. Yet, the problems persist.

This might be because councils aren’t incentivised to make your journeys better, or to reduce the burden dockless e-bikes pose to residents. A big claim, I know, beloved as they are. 

Virtually all 33 councils in London take independent approaches to dealing with dockless e-bikes. Nine councils have no e-bike schemes whatsoever, with Waltham Forest currently operating under an eight year ban. Of the remaining 24, there are a mixture of agreements, ranging from Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) all the way to multi-year exclusive contracts. 

Councils have no power to licence operators, but they can use other levers, the most powerful being contracts between themselves and operators. These can come in the form of tendered exclusive contracts or individually negotiated agreements. Beyond direct agreements, council enforcement powers mean they can remove road and  pavement obstructions under the Highways Act, and they can issue Fixed Penalty Notices and Penalty Charge Notices directly to operators.

Yet, these arrangements don’t tend to improve journeys because councils don’t have to consider inter-borough commuting needs, and because councils have discovered these contracts create new revenue streams. 

Exclusive contracts, where councils tender for operators, are the most formal and lucrative of them all. Councils often include pricing as a consideration in the tender, meaning that operators can increase their chance of winning contracts with higher ‘concession payments’ (yearly lump sums paid to councils) and greater revenue sharing commitments. Frustratingly, excluding operators and encouraging unsustainable bids leads to worse service, exacerbating differences between boroughs, rather than facilitating travel between them.

A council-negotiated £1.75 fee for half an hour rides within Hackney, will be charged at the normal rate if you travel into another borough

Journeys are split across borough lines. Cross Hammersmith Bridge on a Lime into Richmond, and you’ll find yourself unable to park. Bikes completely power down upon entering no-go boroughs. Prices can depend on borough boundaries. A council-negotiated £1.75 fee for half an hour rides within Hackney, will be charged at the normal rate if you travel into another borough. 

While it might leave riders frustrated, councils benefit. Richmond is reportedly receiving over £3m for its contract with Forest over three years. The Council’s scoring gave a quarter of all points to the size of the ‘concession payment’. Camden awarded Lime and Forest two contracts after a tender between four bidders, receiving a “commercially confidential” amount. Their scoring process was equally transparent. Lime received the highest score because of “quality and demonstrated added value”. On closer inspection, this does not translate to prices of the service. Out of 40 points awarded for price, revenue sharing makes up 22.5 points of the total score, the concession payment 10 points, and price a measly 7.5 points. 

Costs get passed on to riders, while simultaneously removing their discernment as consumers. In Hounslow, this anti-market spirit had a demonstrable effect. After a switch from Lime to Forest and Voi, trips fell from 128,000 in July 2025 under Lime, to just over 73,000 in the five weeks after switching. Voi later admitted it had supplied only around half the bikes it promised. 

Should we be surprised by this underperformance? Considering that Lime came 10 points ahead of Forest on quality, before being reportedly outbid by “about five times the council’s initial financial expectations”, I think not.

Councils may balk at suggestions that revenue is a deciding factor, pointing to their comprehensive evaluations. In Richmond, scoring criteria covered service quality, safety, parking, customer experience, pricing and value for money. But, shouldn’t service quality, customer experience, pricing and value be evaluated by riders themselves? Aren’t all of these things maintained and improved when users have choices in a market with multiple operators?

The range of other revenue generating fees, from flat access fees, to bay fees and tiered fees, aren’t much better. Most councils insist these are to cover operational costs, yet, increasingly, they are used to fund other commitments. Hackney Council stated that “any additional income” would be “considered within the budget setting process”, while Sutton Council reported they would use potential e-bike income as a help “to bridge the Council’s anticipated budget gap”.

Meanwhile, fees have been shooting up. reported that one unnamed borough raised operator fees by 403.6 per cent between 2024 and 2026, while its parking bays grew by only 46 per cent. Another raised fees by 277.2 per cent, while bays grew by just 6.3 per cent. Even when operators pay more, infrastructure that addresses the problems that residents and pedestrians face does not necessarily follow. In fact, the cost of some bays still falls on the public, including £1.7m from the Mayor this year. Although Lambeth charges operators £700 a year per bay, its bays have been funded by TfL grants, receiving £94,000 in 2025/26.

TfL is in the process of cooking up its new policy, which will see all operators licensed for the whole of London. The new regulations should limit council-operator deals. They are bad news for riders, pedestrians, and residents. 

Myra Stok is a research associate at Looking for Growth, the political movement to end decline and save Britain