billbedford Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) The sum is irrelevant - Dunn is a criminal and TheTurfBurner is the victim of a crime. If anyone has proof of that they can always bring a private prosecution. Otherwise it is just libel. Edited December 22, 2017 by billbedford Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 If anyone has proof of that they can always bring a private prosecution. Otherwise it is just libel. Look at my face - do I care ?!? Regards, John Isherwood. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 If anyone has proof of that they can always bring a private prosecution. Otherwise it is just libel. There does not seem to be any lack of proof in these cases. So no defamation. Had it just happened a few times, Paul Dunn could reasonably have claimed that it was unintentional, and therefore no crime committed, just a civil matter. But when this has gone on for years and he has taken no steps to prevent it, there must be some level of intent unless he can prove insanity. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 there must be some level of intent unless he can prove insanity. I, and others having "spoken" with him at shows down the years think that may not be too difficult. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
40F Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 I haven't considered that, purely because that is not how Worldpay work. World pay are NOT responsible it is the Bank that issue the card . World pay only process the transactions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 But do tell us, just what is the sum lost to warrant all this vindictiveness? Read the thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTurfBurner Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 World pay are NOT responsible it is the Bank that issue the card . World pay only process the transactions To clarify - I accept that. My letters to World Pay have been about Coper-Craft's breaches of World Pays terms and conditions. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 To clarify - I accept that. My letters to World Pay have been about Coper-Craft's breaches of World Pays terms and conditions. There is a solution here to the problem. Order more than £100 worth of goods and pay by credit card. When goods do not arrive, claim the money back from your bank (1975 Consumer Credit Act but I forget which paragraph). After this happens a few times and the banks are out of pocket, they will do the necessary to put Mr Dunn out of business. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTurfBurner Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Perhaps if a few of us reading this thread placed orders with deposits with Bill, then (having received goods) neglected to pay the invoice? An action which I would NOT condone. This is about an alleged "rogue trader" who takes money via his web site and gives NOTHING in return. He accordingly makes life difficult for the 99% of honest small traders in this hobby, who we should continue to support. Legal avenues have yet to be exhausted. As this is not Facebook, I decline to debate the whys and wherefores of my actions - but will keep you advised of developments. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 There does not seem to be any lack of proof in these cases. So no defamation. Unless he has a criminal conviction it is defamation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Unless he has a criminal conviction it is defamation. Bill, What are you trying to do here? By appearing to have some sympathy for Dunn, you seem to be being deliberately provocative - perhaps you are? Some would call that trolling - I could not possibly comment! Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2017 I have no reason to question the veracity of turfburners statements on this issue, and if the Dunn has taken payment for goods not supplied and then refused to repay that money following a small claims decision in turfburners favour and refused to give bailiffs access to his property then I fully understand why turfburner feels as he does (apologies if it is a she!). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 Unless he has a criminal conviction it is defamation. Bill, While there are others on here much better qualified in the Law than I am, I do have a decent working knowledge of the laws of defamation. No way would Paul Dunn win a defamation action on this matter. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2017 Presumably if he can afford to bring a defamation case he can afford to repay his customers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) Presumably if he can afford to bring a defamation case he can afford to repay his customers. That's the point isn't it? a few people making lots of noise about losing a small amount of money to someone who, by all accounts, has less than they have. Edited December 22, 2017 by billbedford Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2017 That's the point isn't it? a few people making lats of noise about losing a small amount of money to someone who, by all accounts, has less than they have. Whether he has less money than those pursuing him is irrelevant, if he can't fulfil orders he shouldn't accept payment, and if he does take payment then he should refund his customers. There is no justification that I can see for what he has done. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2017 An action which I would NOT condone. Nor would I - just making the point.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 That's the point isn't it? a few people making lots of noise about losing a small amount of money to someone who, by all accounts, has less than they have. The point is that, sadly, there are a lot of people with less resources than they need. Fortunately, the majority do not turn to blatent swindling in order to remedy their situation. I really cannot understand your position - crime is never the answer. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Jackson Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Can I just say thanks to "TheTurfBurner" for all his hard work so far, I can see its persistent and even perhaps with no end result, he has tried, and I hope it pays off! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 Unless he has a criminal conviction it is defamation. That must be a new law. LOL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Whether he has less money than those pursuing him is irrelevant, if he can't fulfil orders he shouldn't accept payment, and if he does take payment then he should refund his customers. There is no justification that I can see for what he has done. When this brouhaha started the collective assessment of Paul Dunn was that he was someone well out of his depth, which I concurred with. After reading most of post on this and other threads, and seeing him a few times at shows, I have seen nothing that leads me to change that assessment. The old adage of not ascribing to malice what can be explained by incompetence applies -- in spades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2017 When this brouhaha started the collective assessment of Paul Dunn was that he was someone well out of his depth, which I concurred with. After reading most of post on this and other threads, and seeing him a few times at shows, I have seen nothing that leads me to change that assessment. The old adage of not ascribing to malice what can be explained by incompetence applies -- in spades. Initially I gave him the benefit of the doubt but there comes a point when it is not tenable to just ascribe things to somebody just being inept and out of their depth. Look at how old this thread is and how long the issues with him taking money and not delivering have been going on. Continuing to take money whilst knowing he cannot deliver is wrong, to still be doing it after so long is something worse than just being out of his depth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kirk Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Hi, I am grateful to those who are taking action on this. I too placed a small order some time ago. Mr Dunn owes me the princely sum of £15 and did not refund when requested (over a year ago) this I feel enables me to tell any potential customer that he has taken payment, not supplied goods, not refunded and indeed not replied to my request (or even to my offer of help get the range working again) and since this is an entirely true statement (and provable) is not in any way actionable. I do not care who has more or less money, that is totally irrelevant. There are correct business practices and incorrect business practices. There is right and wrong. Accepting payment for goods that you do not have and which you are unable to produce in a reasonable time is certainly a bad business practice and undoubtedly wrong. If done knowingly it could be construed as fraud. Bill, I am a little surprised at your seeming support for Mr Dunn. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your last postings. Consider this though: Imagine you were retired and Bill Bedford Models had ended up with Mr Dunn and you heard that he was unable to produce the goods yet was taking money for them and refusing to refund payments. What would you think then? best wishes, Ian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Initially I gave him the benefit of the doubt but there comes a point when it is not tenable to just ascribe things to somebody just being inept and out of their depth. Look at how old this thread is and how long the issues with him taking money and not delivering have been going on. Continuing to take money whilst knowing he cannot deliver is wrong, to still be doing it after so long is something worse than just being out of his depth. Is he still taking money? have you seen his accounts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted December 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2017 Looks like the Coopercraft fan club and defence association is alive and well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts