Hi Forum! I thought you might be interested in some correspondence I've been having with TfL in relation to supposed ATR (Attendance to Remove) fees, and some truly hopelessly inadequate notices served by Equita when attending to levy, that (despite the requirements of the National Standards) did not even state the amount being sought, never mind giving a breakdown of how it had been arrived at. Where things stand now is that TfL have waived two sets of bailiff fees and one penalty charge (we had already agreed to pay the other), on the basis that no Form 9 had been issued when ATRs had been sought. So in some ways that is a **win**. However TfL do seem to be standing by the general practice of bailiffs claiming ATRs when no levy has been achieved (though TfL did apparently need to take 5 *months* to go away and think about this). This seems squarely contrary to the intentions of the law, so I'm interested to see what comments people have on what TfL have written. I am unhappy to leave things here, as it seems to me that this is a running sore that it is long past time that the Ombudsman should be asked to comment on (and I also feel personally guilty that I once let Westminster off the hook on this, by failing to take a Stage 2 response to Stage 3). Beyond that, a couple of other things that struck me as interesting in TfL's most recent response: * TfL claiming that a £210 ATR fee had been "calculated in the same manner as attending to levy distress", and is therefore "reasonable" -- when it is actually three times more than the ATL fee (£72), as well as being a fee for work that has already been charged for. * The way TfL try to sidestep round Culligan, without ever addressing the points made by the judge (and repeated by me) on their merits. * TfL moving from saying that it (August 2012), to saying (April 2013) -- TfL trying to distance itself from its contractors' activities? * And TfL now claiming that "all of TfL's contracted bailiffs issue a Form 9 when an attendance to remove fee is being charged". I'm interested: has anyone ever seen a Form 9 attached to a pre-levy ATL notice, in London or anywhere else? So: what do people think, and how best to move forwards? Anyhow, here is the actual correspondence: TfL's original Stage 2 response (August 2012, re-sent September 2012) My letter objecting to TfL's initial Stage 2 response (October 2012) An email from me from January 2013, after a carbon-copy enforcement action over a different ticket, again using the same hopelessly inadequate ATL notice and again seeking a grossly inflated fee, despite TfL having previously assured me that the previous time it had been due to Equita using an "out of date template" that was not a systemic error. Strangely, there's a curiously garbled sentence in the most recent response at paragraph 16, where TfL were perhaps going to discuss the field bailiff's agreeing to let me have 48 hours to raise this issue and try to have the warrant put on hold, followed by his subsequent clamping of the car a mere 24 hours later. (Fortunately I was able to get TfL to direct him to release it before it was towed away). TfL's reconsidered Stage 2 complaint response. (April 2013) Note that it was only with TfL's stage 2 complaint response (below) that it became clear that the bailiffs had been seeking to charge an ATR fee. Up until this stage it had seemed that the bailiffs might have been trying to charge for three visits (although the numbers didn't add up, and their first description of the property was way off). Quite forceful representations had also been made about the inadequacy of Equita's ATL notices. TfL's Stage 2 response (6 August 2012): I therefore wrote this email, of 2 October 2012, asking TfL to reconsider their Stage 2 position: That was followed by this email of 7 January from me, relating to the second ticket and ATL notices, which led to the clamping (followed by un-clamping) incident the next day: Finally, here is a reconsidered "Stage 2 review" email from TfL, received yesterday:

Hi guys, I've been reading a lot of previous posts and it's really helped me to deal with the people at Newlyn. I've got a couple of specific question I'd be grateful if you could help me with: Newlyn's dealing with my debt to Lewisham council for 2009/2010 Council Tax for £1326.72 Never opened door or talked to bailiffs. 1st visit -> 17 Aug 2010 - no response 2nd visit -> 24 Aug 2010 - no response 3rd visit -> 2 Sept 2010 - no response - Van attendance charge (ATR) - Levied neighbour's car parked on street outside house. We don't own a vehicle. Oct 2010 - we contacted Newlyn and agreed payment of full amount owed in 3 instalments including their fees @ £345.69 Since then we missed some payment (Newlyn website not taking my payment, tried various times and then forgot about it) 4th visit -> 5 Jan 2011 - Reattendance charge (over outstanding amount) Contacted Newlyn to pay full amount owed in one payment with bit card on the phone upon clarification of their admin/fees charges. Since then I found out these charges are not quite right. Payments done so far: £263.89 - 25 Oct 2010 (+ charge for use of debit card of £7.69) £772.50 - 4 Nov 2010 (+ charge of 22.50 for payment with credit card) Breakdown of Newlyn fees £345.69: £24.5 -> 1st visit bailiff £18 -> 1st visit bailiff £105 -> Van attendance ATR £63 -> DVLA check (they haven't done it yet and car is not mine but already charged for it) £105 -> Reattendance charge £7.69 -> charge for use of debit card for payment 25 Oct 2010 £22.50 -> charge for use of credit card for payment 4 Nov 2010 My dispute: I am ok to pay: Outstanding amount for council tax + 1st and 2nd visit of bailiff Not prepared to pay: 3rd visit - Attendace van. I believe they cannot apply an Attending to Remove charge unless the have a valid levy which they didn't, actually, as they didn't levy anything or got access to my property on 1st or 2nd visit there was no point in sending a van over on the 3rd visit as they wouldn't be able to collect anything. So I dispute this charge. Also they confirmed on the phone in this 3rd visit with van they levied the neighbour's car. I believed they have to send bailiff round first to levy goods, then send a van over to collect? They say they have done both on the same 3rd visit? Is this possible? 4th visit: Reattendance fee as we failed to pay as per agreement. I believe in any case they can only charge two van/removal fees but if second charge is made goods must actually be removed. Car levied on 3rd visit is not owned by us so levy is not valid. I agreed to pay outstanding amount of the council tax debt and 1st and 2nd visit charges but refuse to pay. van attendance fee DVLA check reattendance fee They refuse to take anything but the whole outstanding amount including all fees. They explained the DVLA check would take 6 weeks so better to pay the £63 and they call back to claim the money back. What do you guys recommend to do? I don't want to pay extra to these people. Is it better to find out how much of the paid monies went to cover council tax debt and pay the rest to the council? Not too sure if Lewisham council will accept this. Thanks ever so much in advance for your help.