Google ' Roly Ferguson' and see what comes up! 10 foot and bargepole come to mind

How about over FIFTY complaints? and the CMC is still trading Could this be just another idle threat from another idle regulator?

For misleading advertising. This was a press release recently. How many times does anyone feel that a claims managment company should be reported before they get closed down? once? Twice? ( three times a lady-oops sorry -got carried away) How many do you think?

Doesn't Barrington Whyte also charge 30% back end fee? I think Chek Whyte has got enough with £450million without charging such large back end fees.

What I meant was, they have to be shown as 2 different 'loans'. The PPI cannot be added to the amount borrowed.

I know of one claims company based in Blackpool thaT HAVE HAD OVER 40 COMPLAINTS against them sent to the MOJ. The result? NOTHING!!! The MOJ just want their fees and don't care about misledaing the consumer

I don't have a 'beef' with any particular poster. I have an opinion on peoples integrity. Thart is my opinion and I am entitled to that. Please see my above post why I feel that it should not have been posted. If I kept it to myself, the guys address would still be up here for all to see , and maybe even could have led to CAG being sued, I don't know. But at the moment, I am not having a go, just replying to posters.

What's wrong with me is he was sent confidential information. He cares not that the company who sent it ( i ASSUME) has told him it is confidential and to keep it to himself. He decides to plonk it up on the internet for all to see. If I send something to anyone and ask them to kep it confidential, I would like to think they would do just that!!! As, and when, it comes into the public domain, good- everyone can see it for themselves then.

I would say that that agreement is totally unenforceable. The PPI premium and amount of credit have to be shown separately.

Bloody ell!!! Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!! **EDITED**

I was having a go at the poster because he put this guys address on the internet for all the world to see. I can only assume the total embarrasment that may have caused him. It was totally irresponsible. I don't have a problem with the judgment being posted, if it hadn't been sent confidentially, and it didn't have the guys address on. Not sure I understand your first part though. I simply posted a link to the news

..

Want to elaborate?