Back in 2023, the British Business Bank (BBB) which for all intents and purposes is the Government valiantly went to court to ensure, by way of a ruling, everyone with a Bounce Back Loan could not be named.
I recall watching the court case, in fact I did hear my name mentioned during proceedings, but the important part was the actual reasons put forward by the BBB for not naming BBL recipients which included some very real dangers of naming them.
Those reasons were fair and valid and ultimately resulted in Judge Sophie Buckley making a decision that everyone with a BBL cannot be named, to protect them from those dangers.
You will find her decision in the following section of the website:
Fast Forward to 2026
With a lot of interest in the new recovery and enforcement action coming into place to track down and punish those who blagged a Bounce Back Loan, along with the upcoming BBL write-offs that I worked so hard to achieve, media interest in all things BBL related is high.
You may recall The Times ran a piece in which they revealed former Reform UK MP, James McMurdock had two businesses, each of which got a Bounce Back Loan which never got repaid, and he removed himself as a Director of both and his mum became the Director.
Those two companies are currently sat in a limbo state with strike-off blocks in place.
However The Times could not get confirmation that those Companies did have BBLs as James McMurdock kept insisting he had done nothing wrong, and the Government refused to tell the newspaper if he did have BBLs due to the court ruling.
You will find more on that story on the following link:
Well The Times decided to go back to court to try and get a Judge to give a new ruling on whether the Government can be forced to name those with a BBL, in this case James McMurdock, and they have received a judgement in their favour.
That judgement is below which confirms he was Director of both Companies when the Bounce Back Loans were secured.
However, in a strange twist before The Times published their article on this, James posted on X that he had been “vindicated” of any wrongdoing in a bizarre post, which sadly fooled a lot of people into thinking he hadn’t done anything wrong, in that post he does of course avoid any mention of the two unpaid BBLs, changing Directors of those companies and why they are both sat with strike off blocks, or even if they were eligible for Bounce Back Loans in the first place. – Very odd.
Anyway, thanks to him acting extremely shady, that new ruling by the Judge does of course mean others could now be named, in fact everyone with a Bounce Back Loan could be named, putting many at risk, the risks the first Tribunal Judge explained.
I have asked the Government for comment, I will pop it up here when they do.
I asked the Government for a comment this morning, 29/07/2026, they have just called and:
A Spokesman for the Government said “No Comment”
But please take it from that, you will be fine if you defaulted with the write-offs coming and the additional options for those who “made a mistake” or blagged a BBL when applying, you will be fine if you play the game with the Gov who want you to play their new and fair game.
The original judges order about not naming BBL recipients still stands, it’s just in highly exceptional cases, like James’s they will be named, but only ever if a Judge agrees.
The sad thing about this whole situation, is that if James takes advantage of the scheme I helped put in place, he could get both BBLs sorted out for a few quid a month and not face any action if he did in any way shape or form blag them, or conversely, get them written off via the additional scheme I worked hard to get put into place if they are perfectly legitimate BBLs, that is about to be launched. – Remarkable.
Anyway, here is the court ruling, which by the way the Government waited until the final day permitted to supply the required information to The Times.
