E-BIKE LIME ACCUSED OF ‘BULLYING’ AFTER LOSING RICHMOND CONTRACT – The Times Reports
The Times says Lime has been accused of “corporate bullying” after the company was reported to be contacting residents in the borough in an attempt to overturn the controversial decision.
Last month, Richmond council served Lime with a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that the company was calling, emailing and sending push alerts to locals to highlight a petition urging councillors to reconsider their decision.
Last month councillors had opted for Forest, its rival e-bike company, as the sole provider in the area, effectively banning Lime bikes from being rented or parked in the borough after many years of operation.
Among the deciding factors was the size of the concessionary payment paid to the council by the providers.
The terms of the agreement have not been disclosed but The Times understands that Forest offered more than £3 million over the course of the proposed three-year deal, about £1 million more than Lime.
However, with the contract not yet signed, a petition expressing “deep concern” about the decision and its impact on the transport network in the area was circulating among aggrieved residents.
The petition text also contained a six-point breakdown outlining why Lime should stay, which included details on price bundles, ride pass offerings and criticism of Forest’s “imposed advertising model” which the organiser said would “introduce advertising as a condition of lower-cost usage”.
Created by a resident last month, the petition has so far attracted more than 1,200 signatures.
In the letter, sent three days after the petition was launched, Mark Glaister, assistant director of procurement for Richmond, wrote: “It has been brought to the council’s attention via a resident that they have been contacted by email, phone and content ‘pushed’ to the resident, and presumably other residents of the borough, via the Lime app promoting a petition.”
The letter also said the council was aware Lime had “canvassed” members of the decision-making committee before a crucial meeting “in an attempt to influence” them.
They said such actions were a breach of the tendering process and could result in Lime being formally disqualified.
“We would ask that Lime Ltd refrain from pushing and cross-promoting petitions and/or other means of canvassing officers and members to avoid the risk of disqualifying Lime Ltd from the competition,” the letter added.
A council source told The Times: “Lime are clearly bitter. When a losing bidder starts cold-calling residents, selling self-serving narratives to reverse a lawful decision, it stops being a competition and starts to look like corporate bullying.”
They claimed that Lime was attempting to create an impression of widespread grassroots support for their bikes: “I believe the description for this type of thing is ‘astroturf lobbying’.
“No one likes coming second. Lime do not accept the process has concluded and they were unsuccessful. Their willingness to try and reverse a perfectly well-arrived at decision is a concern and they have been told by this council we are not happy about it.”
Lime denied the accusation of “astroturf lobbying” and said that the petition was started organically by riders and residents.
It is understood that Forest hopes to be the sole operator in Richmond by the summer and contract negotiations with the council will begin soon.
Lime said: “Richmond residents have relied on Lime e-bikes to make essential journeys since 2021. Details around the March 16 public committee meeting and vote were heavily publicised, and many residents were confused about what was happening and what the implications would be for them.
“That’s why it was important that these riders were kept informed regarding a potential change in service, particularly given the impact that similar decisions in neighbouring Hounslow last year had on many Richmond residents. We recognise that the council’s decision has now been formalised and we respect that outcome.”
Richmond council said: “The letter in question was sent reminding a bidder about the rules around the process. We do not have any further comments to make at this stage.”