E bike enforcement

[Watershed]

The TfL verification letter has arrived
I guess I have to reply on point 2 that I accept I committed an offence, even though I didn’t know it at the time.
When I searched online the day it happened, Google said it doesn’t matter that station staff let you through, you can still be fined or prosecuted.
I’ve attached the evidence I got the following day. Me asking at the ticket office, the barrier I went through where there was a member of staff. The poster at the end of the platform that I now realise doesn’t mention e bikes.
I’ve also attached the TfL cycle map which also doesn’t mention e bikes.
On Tues 5th May I submitted a SAR for the cctv at Forest Gate and body cam footage of the enforcement officer at Stratford.
To engage a solicitor at this stage costs £350-£800 which seems pointless if I then need to pay a £1000 fine as well.
Any advice on replying to this would be gratefully received, thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2026 ==

I have also received an email from London Underground about my Subject Access Request saying they don’t deal with the Elizabeth line and have forwarded my request to the Elizabeth line SARs team.
I think I need to be polite and apologetic.
We travelled by train as my daughter hurt her leg, so I might take a picture of her hurt knee too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2026 ==

I’m researching more and can see that non folding e bikes were banned on 31 March 2025 across the whole tfl network!

It is very clear you need to pay for travel and there are fare evasion posters everywhere. But the e bike ban is not clearly advertised. So frustrating.

The purported e-bike ban is only effective if there is signage to tell people that the ban is in place. You have told us there is no such signage at Forest Gate, so the ban was not in effect for your journey.

TfL's letter doesn't say what offence you are alleged to have committed. I think you should respond asking them to clarify their allegations - you cannot give a useful response as things stand. Certainly I would not be apologising for anything at this stage, nor would I be engaging a solicitor just yet. I would just ask for clarification.

In terms of a fine if convicted of a Byelaw offence, it is worth noting that this is by no means an automatic £1000 fine in the way TfL (and other operators) misleadingly imply. That is the maximum fine which can legally be imposed by a Court. In practice, fines are determined by applying the Sentencing Guidelines for the relevant offence. These set out which factors would count as aggravating or mitigating, and then allow you to work out which category an offence is deemed to fall in. This in turn tells you what percentage of your weekly income a fine would be.

In very broad terms you might expect a fine for this kind of offence to be somewhere between 25-175% of your weekly income. So, for most people, that would still be nowhere near £1000.

 

[forest26]

Thank you for all your replies. It has made me much less anxious about the situation.

My upset is that the staff at Forest Gate didn’t tell me and there are no posters or signs anywhere.

I’ve looked out for them whilst travelling everyday on various TfL routes amd all I’ve seen is no e scooters or e unicycles. And don’t ride your bike on stations or trains.

I explained to the enforcement officer but I think they might have to file a report in case you’re a repeat offender.

I will post when I learn the outcome. Thanks again.

 

[soil]

The TfL verification letter has arrived
I guess I have to reply on point 2 that I accept I committed an offence, even though I didn’t know it at the time.

it seems very wrong to admit an offence when they haven't told you which offence you have committed and even experts here don't know which offence it's supposed to be.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated 6 May 2026, in which TfL notes that I was "reported for an offence on the TfL network."

As requested, my contact details are provided as follows:

xxxx

Your letter does not provide any details as to which offence(s) I am suspected by TfL to have committed, nor does your letter state under which legislation TfL proposes to prosecute such an alleged offence. Without TfL supplying identifying details of the offences I am alleged to have committed and details of the related legislation TfL intends to rely upon, I am unable to comment further. I would be grateful if you may please supply this information as soon as possible, to allow me an opportunity to provide informed comment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that I have an committed an offence under TfL Byelaws and I would intend to defend any such prosecution.

Kind regards,

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2026 ==

Separately, you may wish to note Byelaw 26:

No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular byelaw was displayed.

I can't recall seeing notices which specifically prohibit the carriage of e-bikes. Sensible to take photos at Forest Gate, as if TfL do prosecute then you will need these for your defence.

TfL are very much a law unto themselves and, regrettably, this is exactly the sort of thing that I do expect TfL to prosecute. I would suggest you get in touch with London Travelwatch to complain and see if they can assist.

It's just laziness from TfL, who could have updated the Byelaws (as they did when they banned the consumption of alcohol) but have chosen not to.

Out of interest, did the RPI check to see if your battery was connected? Always worth asking how the RPI reached their reasonable opinion that your e-bike is or may become dangerous if they didn't check... You must not lie and say it was disconnected.

 

[forest26]

Unfortunately yes, the battery was connected and the enforcement officer took a photo.

I know the letter doesn’t state the offence but I know why the enforcement officer reported me so I’ll answer on that basis as I don’t want to aggravate them or cause a delay that will backfire on me.

There are so many no alcohol signs everywhere since that ban.

I took a photo of every poster in Forest Gate the following day, to show there was no mention of e bikes being banned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I took a photo of every poster in Forest Gate the following day, to show there was no mention of e bikes being banned.

Given that the purpose of banning e-bikes isn't as a fundraiser but is due to the genuine fire safety issues posed by the hacked-about DIY ones often used by food delivery people it's astonishing that there isn't more prominent signage, and I'd agree that there isn't.

 

[SargeNpton]

From this TfL webpage:

Cycles on public transport

Find out where and when you can take different types of cycles or bikes on our transport and National Rail services.

tfl.gov.uk

Folded cycles and e-bikes​

You can take folded cycles, including folded e-bikes, anywhere, at any time on almost all our transport services. However, on buses the driver can decide not to let you travel if it's too busy.

• E-bikes - folded or not - cannot be taken on the cable car
• Electric scooters - folded or not - are not allowed on any TfL service

Non-folding e-bikes​

Non-folding e-bikes are not allowed on most TfL services, including the Tube, Overground, Elizabeth line and DLR. This includes standard cycles that have been converted to e-bikes using a conversion kit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it's on their website. But most people don't habitually look things up on there. There needs to be prominent signage at stations if something you would not unreasonably take on board (as it's allowed on other train services) isn't allowed.

It's not particularly prominent regarding taking non-folding pushbikes on tunnel sections (which isn't allowed either) too. If you're going to do more than just refuse people at a gateline (i.e. you're going to be fining them 4 figures or giving them a record) you really need to make it clear that things that are not unreasonable aren't allowed. It's comparable to if Lumo would prosecute you for taking an oversized bag on or something (they don't, they either charge you a fee or turn you away depending on if there's space for it).

Signage banning e-scooters, for example, is highly prominent at mainline stations. There are posters, it appears on the CIS at WMT stations at least *and* there are periodic announcements. You'd have to have your head in a bucket of sand not to know. It seems this isn't true of e-bikes and TfL.

 

[Watershed]

Unfortunately yes, the battery was connected and the enforcement officer took a photo.

I know the letter doesn’t state the offence but I know why the enforcement officer reported me so I’ll answer on that basis as I don’t want to aggravate them or cause a delay that will backfire on me.

There are so many no alcohol signs everywhere since that ban.

I took a photo of every poster in Forest Gate the following day, to show there was no mention of e bikes being banned.

You're not aggravating anything or causing delays. It is important that you don't jeopardise your legal position by admitting to something when you don't even know the nature of the allegations.

As has been mentioned, the lack of signage is likely to mean that actually, no offence has been committed.

 

[SargeNpton]

Yes, it's on their website. But most people don't habitually look things up on there. There needs to be prominent signage at stations if something you would not unreasonably take on board (as it's allowed on other train services) isn't allowed.

The number of things you can't take on board, but might not think they are banned must run into the hundreds. However, it would be unreasonable to expect them all to be listed on a sign at the barrier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The number of things you can't take on board, but might not think they are banned must run into the hundreds. However, it would be unreasonable to expect them all to be listed on a sign at the barrier.

Given that every single airport check-in desk has a pretty exhaustive list of banned items on aircraft (which is far lengthier than banned items on the Tube) and it's about A4 size, I don't see how that is true at all. It's particularly important that if a rule changes like this that it's publicised very clearly, as the railway has done for e-scooters and it's poor TfL has not done it here given that the object isn't to collect fines but rather prevent fires.

If they don't have that sort of thing then they really should just be doing it on the basis of preventing access at the gateline. Which is how I'd have expected them to do it to be honest - I'm quite shocked they have gone this way with it. I bet they were just a compliant easy target compared to a threatening looking delivery driver with their hood up and pushing something looking rather more like a high powered motorcycle in electric form (despite this type being of far more risk), just like with fare evasion.

 

[furlong]

I know the letter doesn’t state the offence but I know why the enforcement officer reported me so I’ll answer on that basis

As Watershed says, that is a bad idea. Don't give them new evidence that might help them to prosecute a case against you when it is far from clear that you ever broke any law here.
A properly maintained e-bike is very unlikely to be considered reasonably as being intrinsically dangerous; there was no notice prohibiting it; and one of their own staff certainly didn't consider it dangerous or banned as they allowed you to travel with it.

Some time back I seem to recall a similar silly thread relating to someone caught smoking by a TfL coach station where there was inadequate prohibitive signage - I seem to recall they dropped that prosecution eventually. Unless something is missing from the account or we've all missed something relating to the law, this one needs to go the same way.

 

[Mawkie]

The number of things you can't take on board, but might not think they are banned must run into the hundreds. However, it would be unreasonable to expect them all to be listed on a sign at the barrier.

Such as items over 2m long?

(Photo shows a Piccadilly Line train with a burgundy sofa on board, situated width ways, blocking the aisle.)

Quite obviously there can't be a list of every item banned from TfL property at every entry point - that's why there is a Conditions of Carriage published online.

I don't see how that is true at all. It's particularly important that if a rule changes like this that it's publicised very clearly, as the railway has done for e-scooters and it's poor TfL has not done it here

The ban was widely advertised, leading up to and including the date of enforcement, so much so the uber eats type bikes (motorbike sized basically) instantly disappeared from the usual hot spots such as Rayners Lane. Instantly. I never saw another one, so I presume the message must have gotten through somehow.

The OP does have my sympathy though, and the fact they were erroneously given permission at the start of their journey lends some hope that TfL will still issue a simple warning letter once they get the facts from their initial verification letter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite obviously there can't be a list of every item banned from TfL property at every entry point

There very easily can. There's basically one on every airline checkin desk, and it's just an A4 sign.

Even more so something only just banned. Mainline stations are covered in signage banning escooters.

- that's why there is a Conditions of Carriage published online.

Nobody ever reads that.

The ban was widely advertised, leading up to and including the date of enforcement, so much so the uber eats type bikes (motorbike sized basically) instantly disappeared from the usual hot spots such as Rayners Lane. Instantly. I never saw another one, so I presume the message must have gotten through somehow.

The OP does have my sympathy though, and the fact they were erroneously given permission at the start of their journey lends some hope that TfL will still issue a simple warning letter once they get the facts from their initial verification letter.

They should (but won't) issue a profuse apology for that member of staff's incorrect conduct - they should have refused them and no such problem would have occurred.

 

[Puffing Devil]

@forest26 I hope this is not too late, but here's my thoughts and a template draft reply based on those thoughts. IANAL.
The strategy for your response should focus on the fact that you acted as a responsible passenger by seeking out official guidance before you even entered the station. Because you asked the ticket office staff at Forest Gate and were given the green light, you were operating under a genuine mistake of fact based on their misinformation. Under Transport for London's own prosecution policy, circumstances like these, where you were misled by staff, are strong factors against taking a case to court. The policy allows for warning letters to be issued in exceptional circumstances, especially when a passenger has been honest, and there is a low risk of them repeating the mistake.

The lack of signs at the entrance gates is your other major line of defence. Byelaw 26 is a specific safeguard that says you cannot be penalised for a notice that was not actually visible or displayed where you entered. Since the posters were only at the end of the platform rather than the entrance, you were denied fair notice of the rule change. While the transport authority argues that e-bikes are potentially dangerous under Byelaw 2, the fact that two separate members of staff watched you enter without intervening proves that the supposed danger was not obvious to their own trained employees.

Mentioning the injury to your daughter is also important because it explains your motive for looking for a shorter route and seeking staff help in the first place. Prosecutors have to decide if it is in the public interest and in the interest of justice to take you to court. A case involving a cooperative parent who was given the wrong advice while caring for an injured child usually fails that test. By telling them you have already submitted a request for the CCTV and bodycam footage, you are showing them you have the evidence to prove you did everything right.

I am writing to provide my account of what happened on 3 May 2026. My aim is to explain the situation and show that I acted in good faith based on the information I was given at the time.

On that day, I was travelling with my 10-year-old daughter, who had a leg injury. To make sure we were following the rules, I spoke directly to the staff at the Forest Gate ticket office before entering and asked if I was allowed to take my e-bike for two stops to Stratford. The staff member told me it was allowed. I then went past a second member of staff at the ticket barrier, who also allowed me through without saying anything. I relied entirely on this official permission to start my journey.

I have since been back to the station and confirmed that there was no signage about an e-bike ban at the Forest Gate entrance or near the ticket office. Under Byelaw 26, I understand that a penalty cannot be imposed for a notice that was not clearly displayed. I also noticed that the official cycle map available at the time does not explicitly list a total ban on non-folding e-bikes in its main key for the Elizabeth line.

I was fully cooperative with the enforcement officer and have already requested the CCTV from Forest Gate and the officer's bodycam footage to verify that I sought and received permission before I travelled. Given that I was misled by staff and acted reasonably because of my daughter's injury, I respectfully ask that you consider resolving this matter with a warning rather than a prosecution.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know the letter doesn’t state the offence but I know why the enforcement officer reported me so I’ll answer on that basis as I don’t want to aggravate them or cause a delay that will backfire on me.

My point is that, unless they spell it out, you don't know on what basis they are considering prosecution. The risk of offering a statement based on an assumption is that you end up digging a bigger hole for yourself.

@Puffing Devil has provided a suggested wording which is much better than mine.

 

[njr001]

Not relevant to this case but maybe helpful to others. I sent a FOI request to TFL who have come back and confirmed that despite their posters at many stations banning non folding eBikes, they may be taken on services where non folding bikes are allowed provided the battery is removed and carried separately.

 

[forest26]

I have received another letter today and (I think) they have let me off. There is no mention of a fine or prosecution at least.
I am so grateful for all the help and advice - thank you.
I also received the cctv footage today and it does show I was telling the truth.
Thanks so much again for all the help

 

[furlong]

If only the national rail operators would work like this! A competent and sensible response!

 

[AlterEgo]

TfL were never going to prosecute that. We saw a case a few years back regarding some bloke stopped outside Victoria bus station for smoking where prohibited. Just a warning there too.

In my view TfL are one of the more competent and even handed people to deal with. They rightly prosecute people who abuse free passes and drift their rail fares but people who fall foul of esoteric rules are generally let off with a warning.

In this case the letter sent is professional and avoids being patronising to the OP, which is good.

 

[forest26]

(PS - to confirm my e bike is not modified - which I said in my reply letter)

 

[Acathater]

Just to put this into perspective...
Would you expect to be allowed to take a 50cc petrol moped onto a train? These tend to have lower power outputs than many electric bikes, and the fire risk from the petrol is arguably less than that from a shorted battery. You can smother a petrol fire, you can't smother a burning battery.
In real life you can't take a petrol moped onto a train and nor would you expect to. However there's no sign on the station entrance saying "no mopeds or motorbikes" because it's pretty much self-evident that such wouldn't be allowed. Whether it's specifically prohibited by bye-laws I don't know but I'm fairly certain that whatever is the modern equivalent of the old RID/ADR dangerous goods laws (to which UK rail regulations were very much in step) would block petrol vehicles on a passenger train. It seems reasonable to assume that battery vehicles would be similarly restricted. Why would you expect a specific notice saying "electric bikes are banned"? It's not needed as common sense is involved: battery vehicles are a fire risk, just like any other fire risk which isn't allowed on the rail network. Why would anyone expect them to be allowed on a passenger train?

 

[35B]

Just to put this into perspective...
Would you expect to be allowed to take a 50cc petrol moped onto a train? These tend to have lower power outputs than many electric bikes, and the fire risk from the petrol is arguably less than that from a shorted battery. You can smother a petrol fire, you can't smother a burning battery.
In real life you can't take a petrol moped onto a train and nor would you expect to. However there's no sign on the station entrance saying "no mopeds or motorbikes" because it's pretty much self-evident that such wouldn't be allowed. Whether it's specifically prohibited by bye-laws I don't know but I'm fairly certain that whatever is the modern equivalent of the old RID/ADR dangerous goods laws (to which UK rail regulations were very much in step) would block petrol vehicles on a passenger train. It seems reasonable to assume that battery vehicles would be similarly restricted. Why would you expect a specific notice saying "electric bikes are banned"? It's not needed as common sense is involved: battery vehicles are a fire risk, just like any other fire risk which isn't allowed on the rail network. Why would anyone expect them to be allowed on a passenger train?

Because it’s not obvious that an electric bike is comparable to a petrol moped. The risks of large lithium batteries have have become apparent in recent years, whereas electric mobility scooters have (rightly) only been restrictedfor other reasons.

 

[jon0844]

A big problem is that everyone seems to get the naming wrong for what an e-bike is, including the media when reporting on them.

Is it any bike with a motor? Is it based on the max speed or the motor power? Is it a bike with pedals or a throttle?

We have EAPCs that have pedals and can assist with a motor, and some have throttles at a low level to help pull away. Some can be easily modified to remove the restriction on the throttle, while others can be modded in software to go beyond the 15.5mph limit (but are generally limited by the motor power).

Then you have what should be considered an electric moped or motorcycle, although to muddy the waters some have pedals even if they're not necessary for use. But these also seem to be called e-bikes.

As said above, it should be obvious that some bikes can't be used on public transport and, to be road legal, would actually need to be registered and insured. If they had a plate and compliant lighting then it would perhaps be more obvious.

Sadly we haven't got a grip on regulation, which is a shame because electric is a good way to power a moped or motorcycle - and if regulated then there would be a far lower risk of battery issues.

With the current mess it's no wonder people with safe bikes can't be distinguished from the dangerous ones.

 

[duffield]

Just to put this into perspective...
Would you expect to be allowed to take a 50cc petrol moped onto a train? These tend to have lower power outputs than many electric bikes, and the fire risk from the petrol is arguably less than that from a shorted battery. You can smother a petrol fire, you can't smother a burning battery.
In real life you can't take a petrol moped onto a train and nor would you expect to. However there's no sign on the station entrance saying "no mopeds or motorbikes" because it's pretty much self-evident that such wouldn't be allowed. Whether it's specifically prohibited by bye-laws I don't know but I'm fairly certain that whatever is the modern equivalent of the old RID/ADR dangerous goods laws (to which UK rail regulations were very much in step) would block petrol vehicles on a passenger train. It seems reasonable to assume that battery vehicles would be similarly restricted. Why would you expect a specific notice saying "electric bikes are banned"? It's not needed as common sense is involved: battery vehicles are a fire risk, just like any other fire risk which isn't allowed on the rail network. Why would anyone expect them to be allowed on a passenger train?

Because it's perfectly normal and permitted for nearly every person travelling on the network to already carry one or more devices containing lithium batteries - phones, laptops and assorted rechargeable devices. Some monster laptops have batteries of 100Wh capacity; the smallest e-bike batteries are about 250Wh so it's not immediately obvious that they lie in an entirely different category of risk assuming that in both cases they have genuine and not fake batteries. The risk is probably in the details - that the e-bike batteries are more likely to be dangerous fakes and more likely to get bashed about and damaged, but this does show why the two cases are not the same - no-one reasonable expects to be able to carry a small device with 40% of the petrol capacity of a moped, or indeed to carry any amount of petrol on TfL services.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just to put this into perspective...
Would you expect to be allowed to take a 50cc petrol moped onto a train? These tend to have lower power outputs than many electric bikes, and the fire risk from the petrol is arguably less than that from a shorted battery. You can smother a petrol fire, you can't smother a burning battery.
In real life you can't take a petrol moped onto a train and nor would you expect to. However there's no sign on the station entrance saying "no mopeds or motorbikes" because it's pretty much self-evident that such wouldn't be allowed. Whether it's specifically prohibited by bye-laws I don't know but I'm fairly certain that whatever is the modern equivalent of the old RID/ADR dangerous goods laws (to which UK rail regulations were very much in step) would block petrol vehicles on a passenger train. It seems reasonable to assume that battery vehicles would be similarly restricted. Why would you expect a specific notice saying "electric bikes are banned"? It's not needed as common sense is involved: battery vehicles are a fire risk, just like any other fire risk which isn't allowed on the rail network. Why would anyone expect them to be allowed on a passenger train?

Some electric bikes are allowed. In fact, most operators don't have an issue with them.

What do you mean by e-bike anyway here?

 

[gembercannelle]

I am very happy for the OP! The entire thread however made me think whether there are restrictions on taking e-bikes on the National Rail network? Not all e-bikes have removable batteries nowadays, quite a few top models that cost over 5K don't...

 

[Acathater]

What do you mean by e-bike anyway here?

Any bike (or trike) that's electrically powered would be my interpretation

 

[AlterEgo]

Any bike (or trike) that's electrically powered would be my interpretation

Then the answer is that most of them are allowed most of the time, so it is hardly unreasonable to carry one on a train without realising it is an offence.

 

[Acathater]

Then the answer is that most of them are allowed most of the time, so it is hardly unreasonable to carry one on a train without realising it is an offence.

If that's true then my view is that is a mistake and I'd ban them all on safety grounds.
Furthermore I'd look closely at electric wheelchairs with a view to banning the dodgy uncertified examples there.