You’d think there would be some strong, set guidance to their presenters about making it clear on air that this is a NEW version of the old brand name. To make it fully apparent that is the only connection, reinforcing that creditors of the old one are nothing to do with the new. Yet, that seems far from the case, with the long-term by the ex-went bust version, at times using the trading history of 23 years almost as an incentive to buy because of the longevity and implied stability of it. With that broadcasting stance it’s not surprising customers owed money would think this company is also the same as the old one, too. when the channel 1st broadcasted its third incarnation, every presenter should have been instructed to broadcast on air that this was a brand-new version, but with an old name, so people knew exactly where they stood. But making tenuous links of continuity to bought old brand and company names for modern day products with no actual connection to the original they are selling is a habit clearly hard to break.