Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consult residents and give them the chance to object to a new Cycle Hire Only on-street parking bay opposite his home. We did not find fault in the Council’s consultation. However, the Council was at fault for its lack of positive, timely action addressing nuisance and obstruction caused by e-bike operators. The Council agreed to provide Mr X a symbolic financial remedy for the distress this caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consult residents and give them the chance to object to a new Cycle Hire Only (CHO) on-street parking bay opposite his home.
2. Mr X said the CHO bay opposite his home attracts noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour (ASB). The cycle hire operators run 24 hours, replacing the bikes at unsociable times and obstructing his driveway.
3. Mr X also said there are two CHO bays on his street, meaning the loss of two parking spaces without clear justification.
4. Mr X said he and his family suffered considerable distress being woken up by operatives or youths because of the CHO bay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
11. The Council produced a decision report on 7 February 2025, setting out its proposal to improve existing e-cycle hire schemes operating in the borough by entering into formal agreements with several cycle hire operators, providing a network of dedicated on street CHO parking bays throughout the borough. These dedicated CHO parking bays would replace some existing on-street car parking bays.
12. The report sought Cabinet Member approval to enter into legal agreements with each operator; to proceed with statutory consultations for the proposed CHO parking bays; and the implementation of those bays that are not subject to objections.
13. The Council considered the proposal aligned with its strategic priorities by offering residents a low emission, sustainable transport option, and by providing opportunities to engage in active travel.
14. The report explains on-street cycle hire schemes allow people to hire electric bikes for short periods. Bikes are located, hired and unlocked using the operators’ smartphone app.
15. Such schemes are not currently regulated by Government, meaning they can operate without agreement from Highway and Traffic Authorities. They are already operating in London, and with growing use of e-cycle hire, the Council considered a supporting infrastructure was increasingly necessary.
16. Transport for London modelling recommended a parking bay every 250 to 300 metres, because users did not want to walk more than two minutes to access a CHO parking bay. The Council therefore aimed to provide at least 300 parking bays on the carriageway and an additional 100 bays on the footway. Proposed locations included town centres, shopping parades, transport hubs, and residential roads so residents could park a bike within reasonable walking distance of their home. The Council planned to locate bays in positions that minimise impact on residents, such as at the end of streets against flank walls.
17. The Council held a statutory Traffic Management Order (TMO) consultation on all proposed bays on the carriageway, with all objections reported for consideration and a final decision.
18. The Council said it consulted residents on the proposals between 13 February and 7 March 2025. It published notices about its plans in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette on 13 February. The Council also erected notices to street posts at each location. The Council said it did this by 13 February, including posting a notice on Mr X’s street about a bay opposite his home. Mr X disputes this and states he saw Council operatives placing the notice on his street on 7 March 2025, the last day of the consultation period. Mr X said he sent objections to the Council on 7 March, addressed to the officer named at the bottom of the Council’s notice.
19. The Council produced a further decision report on 10 March 2025, with the results of its statutory consultation carried out between 13 February and 7 March 2025 on proposed CHO parking bays.
20. The further report listed locations for the proposed CHO parking bays, and detailed each representation received about different bays, along with officer comments in response.
21. Of relevance, officer responses to representations included:
22. “Majority of the residents have off street parking. The proposal is to repurpose an existing parking bay and e bikes will be within the confinement of the parking bay and therefore will not pose an obstruction – this is no different to a car parked in the parking space. Any overspill will be addressed appropriately.”
23. “There is far less noise associated with an e bike when compared to a car such as engine noise, car doors slamming, headlight nuisance etc.”
24. “It is appreciated that residents do not want to lose a parking space but kerbside space is limited and there is an increase in competing demand for the same road space i.e. for cycle parking bays, cycle hangers and EV bays which are necessary to deliver the various initiatives aimed at reducing reliance on private car use, encourage active travel, improve congestion, environment, air quality etc.”
25. “There is no evidence to suggest it will attract antisocial behaviour.”
26. The Council proceeded to make the TMO and implement the proposed CHO bays, with the exception of two proposed bays that it planned to relocate or put on hold due to comments received.
27. Mr X complained about the Council’s implementation of the cycle hire scheme. He said:
• The CHO bay (opposite his home) added to pressures on existing parking spaces, depriving residents of spaces for themselves and visitors.
• The Council did not consult residents who are directly affected and implemented the scheme without sufficient notice.
• The Council did not follow due process, as it only erected a consultation notice on the last day of the consultation period, meaning residents did not have enough time to voice their concerns.
• Providers allowed riders to leave bikes anywhere, creating hazards.
• The Council and providers were breaching safety obligations by not requiring riders to wear crash helmets.
28. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 29 April 2025. It said its contractor erected notices on 13 February 2025, the day consultation started. It also published its intention to introduce the CHO bays in a local newspaper and the London Gazette. The information was also available on its website. It therefore said it carried out consultation as per legislation.
29. The Council recognised the comments about loss of parking, but hoped to reduce the need for parking by regulating e-cycle hire schemes. It believed local residents would use the bay. The Council said it was not mandatory for riders to wear safety clothing or helmets.
30. The Council entered agreements with two e-bike operators in June 2025 to manage e-bikes throughout the borough, including the CHO bay opposite Mr X’s home. I will refer to them as Operator A and Operator B.
31. Mr X emailed the Council about his complaint on 30 June 2025. He said the siting of the CHO bay continued to have serious consequences for him and his family. They were regularly woken up by ASB with youths setting off the bike alarms in the early hours, or the operators loading and unloading bikes onto their van throughout the night. He sent CCTV footage and pictures as evidence and said if the Council had properly consulted them, they would have resisted the siting of the bay directly opposite their home.
32. Mr X emailed the Council’s Traffic and Highways department in July 2025. He said, further to his objections of March 2025 to the proposed CHO bay opposite his home, he wished to object for the following reasons:
• Lack of consultation. He said the process was not carried out properly, as the Council did not display the notice until the last day of the consultation and did not give residents opportunity to respond.
• Insufficient notification to householders. He said the Council did not give advance warning before works to change the parking bay to CHO.
• ASB and noise nuisance. He said he has been woken in the early hours since the CHO bay was put in place. He reported it to the Council but received no response.
• Contractor noise disturbance. Operatives load and unload bikes at all hours of the night, waking Mr X up. He complained through the Council’s website but received no response.
• Reduction in visitor and resident parking. He said there are already three Electric Vehicle bays and a teacher’s parking scheme on the street. The CHO scheme removes two more parking spaces and there is no necessity for two CHO bays at this location.
• Promises by the Council to respond to objections. He said the Council’s decision report of 19 February 2025 stated the Council would approve implementation of CHO bays at locations that do not receive any objections to the statutory consultation. Mr X said he objected on 7 March 2025.
33. Mr X emailed his local councillor in August 2025, explaining his complaint, his objections to the CHO bay opposite his home, and the noise and nuisance problems experienced.
34. The local councillor said they had asked the Council to review the bay and consider removal, but the Council simply said it would raise matters with operators. The local councillor believed there was a lack of a published scheme for residents to report problematic bays, or a criterion for reviewing those bays. The local councillor considered this a failure of process.
35. The Council asked Operator A and B to make the bays opposite Mr X non-deployment in September 2025. This was to reduce complaints about overnight noise.
36. Operator B confirmed the bay was already disabled for deployment. It said it was likely residents saw operators collecting bikes rather than replacing them, and that it would remind them to be quiet.
37. At the end of September, the Council told Operators A and B it was still receiving complaints from Mr X. It asked if they had made any progress on noise reductions. It asked for a summary of planned changes and for confirmation the bay was still non-deployment.
38. Operator A confirmed the bay was marked as no deployment.
39. Operator B confirmed the bay had been turned off for late-night activity or deployment for some time. That remained unchanged. They said they would pass the issue to field operators, but it was likely the activity was simply due to “random individuals”.
40. In October 2025, the Council asked Operators A and B if there was more they could do to minimise activity. It asked if they could instruct operators to stop vans parking outside Mr X’s home. It pointed out that the bay was on the opposite side of the road where there are no residential properties and typically available bays. It also asked the operators when the e-bike sound was muted.
41. Operator B confirmed it had a feature that mutes all bike sounds during nighttime hours. This was from 10pm to 6am. They said the only solution to stop activity at the bay would be to remove the bay completely. They did not have the ability to restrict night time operations to day time only, but they remind the team to be as quiet as possible. They asked if it was possible to move the bay to a different location.
42. The Council’s elected leader wrote to the Council on Mr X’s behalf in October 2024, asking the Council to remove the CHO bay opposite Mr X’s home.
43. The Council replied on 28 October. It recognised some bays were causing anxiety for residents and said it was working with e-cycle operators to address this. It was monitoring e-cycle apps and flagging issues to operators. It understood Mr X’s key concerns related to ASB and overnight activity when operators maintain their fleet. It said operators do this to ensure bikes are available for the following morning, check conditions, and swap out batteries. The Council asked operators in September to reduce overnight activity in the bay opposite Mr X’s home. This means future overnight activity will focus only on swapping batteries and checking the condition of bikes. They would not rebalance their fleet. However, they still need to remove damaged bikes.
44. Operator A introduced software updates to minimise general noise. This includes removing the alarm when batteries are swapped, and reducing the audio level when locking and unlocking bikes. Operator B’s bikes do not emit any sound between 10pm and 6am.
45. The Council said there were London wide issues with ASB over summer because Operator B’s bikes could be hacked. This led to under age and unauthorised riding and associated ASB. Operator B issued a hardware fix by the end of August. The Council considered young people would be less interested in hanging around the bikes if they cannot use them.
46. The Council said it preferred to keep the situation under review to enable recent changes to bed in.
47. The Council contacted Operator A and B in early November 2025 as Mr X continued to complain about operator vehicles parking in front of his property. The Council asked operators to instruct drivers to park on the opposite side of the road where the CHO bay is located.
48. Mr X told the Council operators were deploying again at the CHO bay opposite his home in January 2026. The Council contacted Operator A and B to check the bay was still set as non-deployment.
49. Operator B said deployments at all times of day were currently disabled for the bay.
50. Operator A confirmed no nighttime deployment was in effect from 9pm to 7am.
51. The Council asked Operator A about going non-deployment at the bay at all times like Operator B.
52. Operator A said Mr X’s issues were with nighttime deployment, so they did not see how preventing daytime deployment would rectify the complaints. They said they do not deploy if the bay is already full, and it is important to restock the bay for people who want to commute.
53. Mr X emailed the Council leader on 8 January 2026, updating them that he still experienced nuisance and obstruction from the cycle hire operators. The situation had not improved any attempts to abate the nuisance had not worked. He said the only solution was to re-site the CHO bay.
54. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 13 January 2026. It said:
• Statutory consultation took place between 13 February 2025 and 7 March 2025. Its records show consultation was carried out as per legislation.
• It reviewed Mr X’s photographs and acknowledged its contractor attended on 7 March 2025. However, it said this was to erect a temporary parking restriction notice of intent to suspend use of the bay for parking to enable works to take place.
• It reviewed its files and had no record of receiving Mr X’s objection which he said he sent to a director on 7 March 2025.
• Its recommendation in the report dated 19 February 2025 sought approval to implement bays that did not receive any objections without the need for a further Cabinet Member report. That was compared to bays that did receive objections, which would be subject to a final Cabinet Member decision report. In this case, the Council produced a further Cabinet Member decision report on 10 March 2025 detailing the representations received.
55. The Council acknowledged the delay responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint and offered him £100 in recognition of this.
56. The Council instructed Operator A and B to permanently turn off the bay opposite Mr X on 17 February 2026.

My investigation

57. Mr X told me he sent his objection to the officer named in the statutory notice the Council erected. When nothing happened, he contacted his local councillor. He also forwarded this to a Council director. Mr X does not have the original email he sent objecting to the CHO bay on 7 March 2025. He said he was mindful of this and made a formal complaint to the Council in March 2025. He said this was to avoid any dispute with the Council about whether he had objected.
58. Mr X said he had problems with the CHO bay opposite his home from early June 2025 onwards. It was a 24-hour operation, with operators deploying during the night, putting bikes in the bay, and alarms going off. There were also problems with anti-social behaviour with people coming out of a nearby park after midnight and messing with the bikes. This was waking up Mr X’s household.
59. Mr X said the main problem is the Council did not put a system in place to deal with public complaints about problem CHO bays when it introduced the policy. He said there did not seem to be a dedicated department to deal with the issues. He complained to the Council’s environmental services, but nothing happened and the nuisance continued. Mr X instead visited the Council leader, who wrote to officers on his behalf asking them to re-site the bay. Instead, the Council told the operators not to deploy to the bay, so the activity stopped. However, Mr X said there was still ASB, and the same issues then started up again. Mr X visited the Council leader again. This time, the Council agreed to re-site the bay.
60. Mr X told me the CHO bay opposite his home is still there but is no longer operational.
61. The Council said its IT department completed a full search of all emails from Mr X from 1 March to 28 April 2025, but could not find any objection submitted on or before 7 March 2025. The Council searched both of Mr X’s known email addresses and also the traffic and highways mailbox where consultation responses were meant to be sent. The first contact the Council had from Mr X about the matter was on 18 March 2025, when he telephoned a councillor’s office and then emailed the Council.
62. The Council confirmed it did not receive any other objections from other residents on Mr X’s street.
63. The Council said the process for dealing with complaints about CHO bays is on its website and has been in place since the launch of the scheme in June 2025. The Council said it had bi-weekly meetings with the e-bike operators where it discussed issues and complaints. It said that, in this case, after complaints from Mr X it made the bay non deployment – where the operators would not add new bikes late in the evening or overnight. The Council said there was ongoing dialogue with the operators to address the issues Mr X raised, and it instructed the operators to remove the bay from their parking network in February 2026. The Council said this shows it took the matter very seriously.
64. The Council told me it has about 340 CHO bays in the borough. The impacts on highway safety and residential amenity are fundamental when siting all bays. The Council sought to achieve a balance between providing a convenient service for residents, while minimising impacts on residential amenity. The CHO bay on Mr X’s street is at the very end of the road, directly adjacent to public gardens, on the opposite side of the street to residential properties. There are also several on-street parking bays the operator can use when accessing bikes.
65. The Council said the nature of cycle hire operations means some activities need to take place overnight. This is not unique to Mr X’s street. The Council considers hiring e-bikes emits a similar level of noise to combustion engines starting or doors closing, and complaints about noise or night disturbance from e-bikes across the borough are low.
66. The Council said the two CHO bays on Mr X’s street are 175m apart, which is not out of keeping with densities it has been aiming to provide.
67. The Council provided me with a copy of its operator’s contract for the e-bike scheme. This covered things like ensuring the operator did not obstruct the road or cause nuisance or disturbance, and that the operator should resolve complaints and inform the Council about them.
68. The Council said there had been delays finalising the decision to remove the CHO bay opposite Mr X due to recent local elections. It expects the decision report to be signed off by the Cabinet Member for Transport & Cleaner Streets by mid-July 2026.  

Analysis

69. I have not seen irrefutable evidence either way confirming when the Council erected consultation notices at each CHO bay location.
70. It is unfortunate the Council told Mr X in its complaint response that its contractor erected the notice on his street on 13 February, whereas it told me Council officers erected all notices by 13 February. This confusion will only strengthen Mr X’s belief that the Council did not erect the notice until he saw contractors on the final day of the consultation period.
71. Mr X sent me a photograph of the Council’s contractor erecting a notice on his street on 7 March 2025. The Council said this was a notice about the works to implement the CHO bay, and not a notice about the consultation period. Mr X also provided me, via his local councillor, with evidence that other residents in the borough also complained the Council did not erect consultation notices until the last day of the consultation period.
72. The fact the Council received representations about many of the proposed sites does suggest it erected most notices before the end of the consultation period, giving residents enough time to respond.
73. In response to my draft decision, the Council provided me with email evidence showing its officers arranged to erect consultation notices on streets within the borough, including Mr X’s street, on 13 February 2025.
74. On balance, I therefore found it is more likely than not that the Council did post notices at proposed CHO bay locations, including Mr X’s street, before the end of the consultation period. I therefore found no fault with the Council’s consultation for the e-bike scheme.
75. I appreciate Mr X made a formal complaint which references objections he said he sent on 7 March 2025. Unfortunately, Mr X does not have a copy of this correspondence, and the Council has no record of receiving it. I cannot criticise the Council for not considering objections which Mr X cannot show he sent, and which the Council has no record of receiving.
76. Mr X told me he is unaware of any other road in the borough with two CHO bays. He questioned why there were two bays on his street, only about 175 metres apart. Mr X considers if the Council had properly consulted residents, it could have properly assessed the impact and loss of amenity. I found the Council sited two bays close together based on TfL research, which suggests e-bike users do not want to walk more than two minutes to access a CHO parking bay, and the distance spread the Council wanted to achieve. While the bays on Mr X’s street are closer than the TfL researched distances of 250 to 300 metres, they are not significantly so, and are in line with TfL recommendations.
77. The Council decided to remove the bay opposite Mr X following anti-social behaviour and nuisance, not because it was a second bay or due to loss of parking. I cannot say the Council would have chosen not to have two bays on Mr X’s street if it had been able to consider his representations beforehand.
78. I did not see evidence of fault in how the Council planned and implemented the scheme, including how it decided to site the bays. The Council had to site some bays close to residential properties, and tried to mitigate against any impact by siting the bays at the end of streets and on the opposite side of the road to residential properties where possible. It was able to achieve that on Mr X’s street. The Council had clear aims and objectives for wanting to introduce the scheme, and it considered the potential impact on residential amenities, as well as comments from residents. It decided the impact was an acceptable trade-off for the benefits of having the scheme in place. That was a decision the Council was entitled to take.
79. Despite Mr X’s continued complaints, and requests from the Council, operator staff continued to cause unnecessary nuisance and obstruction. On the evidence seen, the Council did not do enough to prevent this. The conditions within the operator agreement require operators to ensure their staff do not cause nuisance, disturbance, annoyance, or inconvenience to owners or occupants of any premises within the borough. They should also not restrict access to the location. The Council retained the right to relocate or remove the e-bikes if an operator failed to comply. The Council should have made clear to operators that this behaviour must stop, and was in breach of their agreement. Instead, it allowed the behaviour to persist, despite repeated complaints from Mr X, his local councillor, and the Council leader.
80. Mr X started reporting noise and nuisance from the CHO bay opposite his home in June 2025, but I did not see evidence the Council asked the operators to make the bay non-deployment until September 2025. In response to my draft decision, the Council told me it held operational meetings with the e-bike operators in August 2025 where it was agreed to mark the bay opposite Mr X’s home as non-deployment. The Council said, rather than a three-month hiatus, there were ongoing discussions to understand the issues and explore solutions. The Council acknowledged it could have communicated with Mr X during this time to explain internal processes, but it said it was receiving significant correspondence from residents. While I appreciate the Council held discussions in August 2025 and agreed to make the bay non-deployment at the end of August, that was two months after Mr X started reporting incidents and the Council did not update Mr X in that time. That was fault.
81. The Council told me it was not looking to stop all activity, but to understand what could be done to address the issues Mr X raised. It considered this was a pragmatic approach during the early stages of the scheme while it was bedding in, and it was unclear whether the incidents Mr X reported were occasional and isolated rather than sustained.
82. While I do not criticise the Council for trying to look for solutions with operators initially, and give the changes a chance to bed in, by early October 2025 an operator told the Council the only real solution was to remove the bay and place it elsewhere. Instead, the Council continued with the nighttime non-deployment option, despite Mr X continuing to report incidents, suggesting they were not just occasional or isolated. The Council did not decide to remove the bay until the middle of February 2026, about four months after the operator said this was the only real solution. I found the Council was too slow to act. That was fault.
83. The Council’s website provided a means for residents to raise complaints about CHO bays directly with operators. Unfortunately, in practice, this did not resolve the problems Mr X faced. He had to raise the issues with his local councillor, the council leader, and via the Council’s complaint process before the Council intervened. As one councillor pointed out, there was no criteria for measuring the issues or problem bays with a view to then taking action, and as a result the issues went on longer than they should have done before the Council took decisive action.
84. In terms of the ASB issues Mr X experienced from teenagers, I consider the Council and operator responses were appropriate. Operators sought to change their mobile app to stop some of the issues with bikes being taken without paying, and neither the operators nor the Council were at fault.
85. The Council acknowledged its stage two complaint response was delayed. It apologised to Mr X for this and offered him £100. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the frustration caused by this delay, and it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
86. While obstructions and nuisance from operators lasted a relatively short period of time, the continuous and persistent nature of the behaviour caused Mr X considerable avoidable frustration and distress. I consider the Council’s lack of positive and timely action meant the injustice lasted longer than it should, and the Council should provide a remedy for this.

Back to top

Agreed Action

87. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended
• Repeat its offer of £100 to Mr X for its delay responding to his stage two complaint.
• Pay Mr X £300 for the avoidable frustration and distress its faults caused.
88. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman