Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

Recommended Posts

Dear all,

I am hoping for some advice/guidance on this matter.

I received a LoC dated 12/04/24 and replied to this on the 2/05/24 disputing claim with the following reasons:

1: [Inadequate Affordability Assessment]: I contend that your institution failed to conduct a thorough assessment of my financial circumstances prior to approving the loan. As a result, the loan amount and repayment terms were not suitable for my income and financial situation.

2: [Unsustainable Repayments]: The repayment schedule imposed by the loan agreement placed an undue burden on my finances, making it impossible for me to meet my other financial obligations without experiencing significant hardship.

3: [Lack of Transparency]: Your institution did not adequately disclose the risks associated with the loan, including any potential increases in interest rates or fees over the loan term.

I also added the following:

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations, lenders have a legal obligation to conduct thorough affordability assessments and ensure that loan agreements are suitable for borrowers' circumstances.

I hereby request that your institution:

1: Conduct a full investigation into my claim of irresponsible lending.

2: Provide me with copies of all documentation related to the loan application and approval process, including affordability assessments, credit checks, and correspondence.

3: Cease all collection activities related to the loan until this matter is resolved.

Yesterday i received the attached reply via email and it included:

1: The Original Loan agreement

2: An account statement

3: A copy of a default notice letter.

The email included a link for a direct debit set up page where you enter their reference and your bank account details (looks like a standard D/D set up page) but there is nothing to indicate the amount of the D/D that I might be agreeing to. I also think two days response time is not long enough to appropriately reply.

Any thoughts appreciated

Reference xxxxx

We write further to your recent letter and note your comments. We are aware that the correspondence you have sent, is in a format that is circulated on consumer-based websites whereby debtors are encouraged to use the templates in order to avoid repayment of their debts.

We do not accept that the contents of these templates bear any particular relevance to your case.

Any mis-selling Claim would need to be directed to the Original Creditor, Oakbrook Finance Limited.

Please find attached copies of the requested documents.

The document is password protected with your date of birth in the following formal DDMMYY

We trust this satisfies your query and we would therefore look for you to settle the balance in full or enter into a payment arrangement.

Please action the above by the 17th May 2024 as if we do not receive contact from you by this date, we would look to take further instructions from our Client which may result in the issuing of County Court Proceedings.

TM Legal


Link to post
Share on other sites

should have come here first really.

What you requested was a load of irrelevant twaddle.

What was the original debt?

Have you moved since taking it out?

If TM Legal are chasing, that should means that Perch own it now?

Did you get the letter of claim by email or post? You should kill the emails immediately. 

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the advice and questions asked by my site team colleague above, where did you get the template from which you used to reply to the letter of claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Perch/TM PAPLOC - old Oakbrook PDL

likely loans PDL?

when did you take it out?

when did you last pay/use it?

at the time of take out was your credit file shot full of defaults/missed payments/other debt?


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and answer some of the questions asked and stay relevant.

 I do try and do things for myself and sometimes especially where mental health issues are involved it is difficult to ask for help or even get around to it, the irrelevant twaddle was compiled by looking at various websites and information, not one source

getting as much information as possible, the fall down was that i tried to cobble something together using this information, it was not a template per se.

Not sure when you ask what the original debt was as in do you mean the amount? I haven't moved.

The original LoC was by post.

I assume they got my email from account, i have never responded to or acknowledged anything by email.

. I utilised information that i had gathered and foolishly by the looks of things tried to manipulate it into something useful.

- Not sure when i last paid, it would have been early 2023 i think.

I took it out 17/11/21.

My credit status was poor at the time with other debts and a couple of defaults at least.

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add my 2 cents here... 

The purchase of this debt, Perch Group dont absolve themselves of liabilities from the Original Creditor. They should be responsible for dealing with this complaint in response to an Irresponsible Lending dispute. 

If the balance is disputed as such in that way - Then they should be referring to the Original Creditor where applicable. 


Also if your complaint was written in a way where a template wasnt used or it was rewritten to a similar effect where it wasnt recognisable - Then you probably would have stood a better opportunity at it not getting rebuffed. 

To be honest those - Perch and TM Legal are a waste of Oxygen and will say anything to get you to pay. 


Ditto on the template. Where did you find it? 

Please keep in mind we have to unravel what you have done till now and help build a formal response. 



Link to post
Share on other sites

Its okay - It happens. And this is why DCAs  user every trick in the book to try and make you crack. 

Now its time to come back. 


Im not sure how to proceed if Im honest if they have issued a Letter Of Claim

Only as You could complain to Oakbrook and they still proceed with Legal Proceedings, but I dont know if that would help or hinder the legal proceedings if they began down that avenue. 

I know a FOS complaint wouldnt stop Legal Action and probably run along side it. 

But I guess a judge would view a disputed balance with the original creditor as cause for concern whether the DCA's claim is valid? 


A bit of a muddle. 



Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

but dont get scammed into a DMP. simply tell whomever you call to simply apply for the BS for you.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...