Westminster City Council has intensified its crackdown on illegally parked dockless electric bikes, issuing £100 fines to operators Lime and Forest and expanding parking infrastructure to reclaim pavements in a bid to enhance pedestrian safety and public space management.
Westminster Council has taken decisive new steps to tackle the ongoing problem of dockless electric bikes being left obstructing pavements and public spaces. The council has begun issuing £100 on-the-spot fines directly to the e-bike operators Lime and Forest for bikes found parked outside designated bays, blocking pavements, doorways, or other public areas. This crackdown prioritises fixed penalty notices over the previous approach of impounding bikes, with the council suggesting that fines provide a more effective means of discouraging careless parking.
This move by the Labour-led council specifically targets hotspot locations such as Soho Square and Berkeley Square, where the problem has been particularly evident. According to Westminster’s cabinet member for streets, Max Sullivan, the council has formally notified Lime’s CEO, Wayne Ting, and Forest’s CEO, Agustin Guilisasti, that fines will be imposed on bikes found obstructing pedestrian access. Since the initiative started, the council has already issued 150 fixed penalty notices, with estimates suggesting that the current rate could lead to more than £1 million in fines within a year if sustained.
The council has bolstered its efforts by establishing over 380 new parking bays across the borough to encourage proper parking behaviour, acknowledging that a structured infrastructure is essential in managing the rise of dockless rental e-bikes. These changes coincide with the broader context across London, where other boroughs have also taken firm action against the clutter caused by dockless e-bikes.
Kensington and Chelsea Council, for example, has seized about 1,000 Lime and Forest e-bikes this year, many abandoned near Harrods in Knightsbridge. The council has generated over £81,000 from “release fees” charged to operators reclaiming their bikes. Similarly, the City of London Corporation has impounded more than 100 e-bikes that were blocking pavements in central areas, charging operators £235 per bike to recover the vehicles. Such measures are part of a wider enforcement trend aimed at compelling hire operators to manage their fleets responsibly and respect parking regulations, as well as preventing street clutter and hazards.
London Councils, a body representing all 33 boroughs, has reported that contracts between e-bike operators and local authorities have often been “flouted,” resulting in bikes being left indiscriminately across pavements, even in areas where firms have no permission to operate. Westminster’s new approach is seen as an effort to address this non-compliance more effectively by shifting the focus from reactive bike seizures to proactive financial penalties.
Westminster Council’s public guidance also reflects its ambition to create a safer and more navigable public realm, balancing the convenience of e-bike travel with pedestrian safety. The council allows privately owned electric bikes that meet specific Electric Assisted Pedal Cycle regulations and oversees authorised rental e-scooter trials, highlighting its role in managing the evolving micro-mobility landscape responsibly.
Overall, Westminster’s move illustrates an accelerated crackdown on e-bike clutter in the capital, combining enforcement through fines with infrastructure improvements. The council’s strategy indicates a clear message to operators like Lime and Forest that irresponsible parking practices will no longer be tolerated, with financial penalties serving as a strong deterrent to protect public spaces for all Londoners.
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] Highways News – Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6
- [2] Evening Standard – Paragraphs 1, 2, 4
- [3] Evening Standard – Paragraph 4
- [4] Evening Standard – Paragraph 4
- [5] Westminster City Council – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6
- [6] Westminster Labour – Paragraphs 1, 2, 6
- [7] Westminster City Council – Paragraph 5
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the earliest known publication date being 13 November 2025. The report is based on a press release from Westminster City Council, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were found. The narrative has not appeared elsewhere within the past 7 days. The inclusion of updated data alongside older material is noted, but the recent update justifies a higher freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
Direct quotes from Westminster Council’s cabinet member for streets, Max Sullivan, are unique to this report. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from Westminster City Council, a reputable organisation. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high reliability score.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims about Westminster Council issuing £100 fines to Lime and Forest for obstructing pavements are plausible and consistent with previous actions taken by other councils, such as the City of London Corporation’s seizure of over 100 e-bikes in February 2025. ([news.cityoflondon.gov.uk](https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/city-of-london-corporation-seizes-dockless-e-bikes-as-providers-commit-to-improve-service/?utm_source=openai)) The narrative includes specific details, such as the involvement of Lime’s CEO, Wayne Ting, and Forest’s CEO, Agustin Guilisasti, which adds credibility. The language and tone are consistent with official communications from a local council.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is fresh, original, and originates from a reputable source. The claims are plausible and supported by specific details, with no significant credibility risks identified.