Jump to content

Cooper craft - Cautionary notes for customers - Its fate and thoughts on an alternative


Edwardian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally I've only dealt with him at shows, and he's always appeared to be friendly and helpful.

 

I never bothered looking at the website as I had heard a few stories of problems so elected not to bother and see him at a show instead (which he wasn't at this year).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received items at least three times, but only when dealing by phone, and on one occasion I had to chase. If you talk to him and ask him what he has in stock he’s generally happy to supply it. I think he’s being rather harshly treated on here, although for understandable reasons. I’d put him down as 90% IT illiterate incompetent, and only 10% fraudster.

 

Having said that, the website is unforgivable, and I have every sympathy for those who’ve lost money.

 

Andy

 

 

I think not. He allegedly physically denied bailiffs entry into his premises. If he is incompetent, it would seem that he sure knows when to turn it on and off. 

 

If he's an incompetent with no ulterior motive to hide then why not a) have let the bailiffs in and/or b) hold his hands up and refund everyone he's failed to supply ordered goods to since this bailiffs paid him a visit in October? Based on these developments, he can't exactly plead ignorance can he?  

Edited by County of Yorkshire
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received items at least three times, but only when dealing by phone, and on one occasion I had to chase. If you talk to him and ask him what he has in stock he’s generally happy to supply it. I think he’s being rather harshly treated on here, although for understandable reasons. I’d put him down as 90% IT illiterate incompetent, and only 10% fraudster.

 

Having said that, the website is unforgivable, and I have every sympathy for those who’ve lost money.

 

Andy

 

So how do we excuse his refusal to refund money paid, when he knows that he has no intention or ability to supply?

 

The IT illiterate sends a non-rubber cheque to the disappointed potential customer with an apology; the crook says 'Tough'! (which I understand to be the gist of his response when asked for a refund).

 

This guy thrives on the gullibility and excessively fair-minded attitude of decent people; sympathy is the last thing that he deserves!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - both reports included links to this site. However, posts here are anonymous hearsay and cannot be actioned or used as evidence. It requires in person reports before anything can be done.

 

If everybody here who has lost money to Dunn reported him to Trading Standards and/or Action Fraud, his web site could be gone and nobody else would pay hard earned cash for items they will never receive. Reports to Trading Standards and Action Fraud are not difficult, the web sites are quoted above, the process is painless - and FREE.

 

 

No doubt that if those who say they have paid for goods which have not been delivered, or refunds refused can be contacted and asked for a statement

 

I am no expert on the law, but there must be a line between a trader not supplying goods, which I believe is a civil matter and someone obtaining money with no intention of supplying goods, the more information that can be gathered by both the police and trading standards may assist in stopping this type of trading

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he have a car sitting outside? If so, why didn't the bailiffs seize that?

 

.

The full details are explained in post #1038 on 30th October

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112011-coopercraft-its-fate-and-thoughts-on-an-alternative/?p=2906434

 

 

 

“The bailiff has visited the debtor’s address and spoken with the debtor who has refused to allow the bailiff peaceful entry. The bailiff manager has also visited the address and met with a similar response. The debtor is entitled to refuse the bailiff entry to domestic premises and in the circumstances, the bailiff has not has an opportunity to establish whether the debtor has goods which can be taken into control. The bailiff can take no further action unless you are able to provide further information to re-issue the warrant (for example, giving a description and location of other goods which belong to the debtor). You may have to pay a fee to reissue the warrant.

The warrant has been returned to the Court which issued it”.

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this might be off topic, but is relevent. please feel free to move it somewhere more appropriate if needed.

 

Given how many companies in this hobby, including manufacturers as well as those offering self garuenteed crowd funding are home based this precedent seems cause for alarm.

I'm not casting any aspertions on any company, any payment in advance is a risk, payment many months or years in advance for something that does not yet exist an expression of absolute faith and trust. If there is no enforcable legal recompense available after a CCJ etc. then I for one would prefer to see my money lodged with a licensed 3rd party, for example a solicitor.

I know this will have a cost attached, but looking at the value of crowd funding outside of large organisations like kickstarter, where only one or two projects are permitted per company, we now have home registered companies consisting of one or two people offering multiple high value projects at once, if one project stalls then what is to prevent a domino effect within that company? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this might be off topic, but is relevent. please feel free to move it somewhere more appropriate if needed.

 

Given how many companies in this hobby, including manufacturers as well as those offering self garuenteed crowd funding are home based this precedent seems cause for alarm.

I'm not casting any aspertions on any company, any payment in advance is a risk, payment many months or years in advance for something that does not yet exist an expression of absolute faith and trust. If there is no enforcable legal recompense available after a CCJ etc. then I for one would prefer to see my money lodged with a licensed 3rd party, for example a solicitor.

I know this will have a cost attached, but looking at the value of crowd funding outside of large organisations like kickstarter, where only one or two projects are permitted per company, we now have home registered companies consisting of one or two people offering multiple high value projects at once, if one project stalls then what is to prevent a domino effect within that company? 

I believe the distinction is those companies which have "coming soon" or "in development" products also have a reputation behind them.  Unlike Kickstarter or such sites where there is a level of anonymity, along with a history of many projects getting 'lost',  These sellers which we trust have a history of good products. 

 

The likes of Mousa Models, where near half his 'products' are in development, you dont know if itll ever get made, but the deposit isnt much and he is willing to talk to customers and inform them on the goings-on.  Not to mention when something is made, its widely praised and sought after.  

 

Coopercraft has long passed the point of crowdfunding mystery.  His refusal to cooperate and communicate is clear.  

You choose what to do with your money in the end, but what Mr Coopercraft has done is abuse the goodwill of our community and prey off the ignorance and trickery that is his website. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinthe point, more generally, on crowd funding is well made. Bill Bedford’s (Mousa) model of relatively de minimis amounts clearly allows an assessment of real as opposed to wish list demand. However, I don’t think £2.50 or so here and there is anywhere near enough to really derisk. £100-200k cost of getting an rtr model to consumers. In that case, I’d be looking much more for a track record in actually producing models, who the brand is and, implicitly, whether their business plan is viable.

 

On another thread Mike Stationmaster has highlighted some of the risks, particular credit risk. There’s a balance between a sum being ok to lose (each of us would have our own view. I’d reckon £25-50 being the sweet spot on anitem that would retail at £150-175 and itself being cheaper than where the model would retail with no crowdfunding - prob over £200) and that some being meaningful enough to dent the tooling costs for the manufacturer. Many of us here have been ok with Locomotion/NRM risk; Kernow has also successfully persuaded many of us to fund the large cash outflow as projects have moved towards production (albeit they didn’t describe that process as crowdfunding.). Both of those are strong brands and both could demonstrate a tangible track record of getting items to market or sufficient progress with the model to enable us to see that the funding would make a difference and the model be completed. Ironically, given their travails, Hornby may struggle to crowd fund (albeit I think there’s a couple of potential solutions/workarounds.

 

However, would I fund an anonymous account with no history? Probably not and several of us made that point to a guy (I assume) who was talking about rtr quad sets.

 

I see no reason why similar logic couldn’t apply to kits however I have no feel for the costs on getting a kit to the stage where it can be produced. Personally, if it accelerated something coming into kit form that I’d like, and is highly unlikely to be made into rtr, I’d be willing to discuss how the finances could be made to work for both parties.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

However, would I fund an anonymous account with no history? Probably not and several of us made that point to a guy (I assume) who was talking about rtr quad sets.

 

I think there's tumbleweed rolling across that thread.

 

I'm guessing the reality of costs sunk it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The man is still fulfilling orders to some extent, as can be seen on this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93496-kirleys-workbench/?p=2938560 so I don't know why he's only doing some and not others.

 

He had some stock transferred to him at purchase and has been able to get some etches produced (once you have the artwork it's simple to repeat)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a letter from Worldpay – which basically says “Nothing to do with us, mush!”


This is wholly unacceptable as Dunn is clearly in breach of Worldpay’s conditions, which sate at section 3.2 “. You shall: refrain from doing anything which we reasonably believe to be disreputable or capable of damaging the reputation or goodwill of us, or any Other Financial Institution, Other Payments Organisation or the Card Schemes".


Worldpay are in effect aiding an alleged fraudulent trader in facilitating Dunn taking money from customers for products which those customers will never see. I intend to respond to Worldpay along those line.


This saga has become an object lesson in how difficult (if not impossible) it is for an ordinary Joe to take any meaningful action against an alleged rogue trader. Sadly, it may also influence our willingness to deal on-line with the 99.9% of wholly honest traders. For anybody reading this thread, there will always be that nagging feeling, on placing the first order, “is this another Dunn?” Pity there is no trade association which the honest traders could have Dunn ejected from.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinthe point, more generally, on crowd funding is well made. Bill Bedford’s (Mousa) model of relatively de minimis amounts clearly allows an assessment of real as opposed to wish list demand. However, I don’t think £2.50 or so here and there is anywhere near enough to really derisk. £100-200k cost of getting an rtr model to consumers. In that case, I’d be looking much more for a track record in actually producing models, who the brand is and, implicitly, whether their business plan is viable.

 

On another thread Mike Stationmaster has highlighted some of the risks, particular credit risk. There’s a balance between a sum being ok to lose (each of us would have our own view. I’d reckon £25-50 being the sweet spot on anitem that would retail at £150-175 and itself being cheaper than where the model would retail with no crowdfunding - prob over £200) and that some being meaningful enough to dent the tooling costs for the manufacturer. Many of us here have been ok with Locomotion/NRM risk; Kernow has also successfully persuaded many of us to fund the large cash outflow as projects have moved towards production (albeit they didn’t describe that process as crowdfunding.). Both of those are strong brands and both could demonstrate a tangible track record of getting items to market or sufficient progress with the model to enable us to see that the funding would make a difference and the model be completed. Ironically, given their travails, Hornby may struggle to crowd fund (albeit I think there’s a couple of potential solutions/workarounds.

 

However, would I fund an anonymous account with no history? Probably not and several of us made that point to a guy (I assume) who was talking about rtr quad sets.

 

I see no reason why similar logic couldn’t apply to kits however I have no feel for the costs on getting a kit to the stage where it can be produced. Personally, if it accelerated something coming into kit form that I’d like, and is highly unlikely to be made into rtr, I’d be willing to discuss how the finances could be made to work for both parties.

 

David

 

I agree.

 

I have participated in a crowd funding venture, where 100% was paid up-front.  The product isn't out yet, but I have no doubt of its bona fides.

 

I think if someone is unknown or not yet established, but wants significant sums on account, many may think twice.

 

Alternatively, one could simply set fire to a succession of £20 notes, or place a large online order with Coopercraft! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldpay have a faceache page....seems that is their standard answer to refer you back to the dealer.

Had a dig at them publicly anyway, not that I expect them to respond!

Maybe anyone who has had an issue with Mr Dunn should all fire off on one of the posts and they may have a rethink if enough people do it!

 

khris

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornby may struggle to crowd fund

Hornby plc is a public company, owned by its shareholders.  Shares are, if you like, a form of crowdfunding.  The advantage of shares over crowdfunding is that a public company is controlled by law and shareholders, unlike crowd-funders, have legal rights.

Hornby is currently raising money via a new share subscription, so they reckon there remains a market for their shares!  This is not a recommendation to buy Hornby shares.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So there are some good things about the way eBay and Paypal work after all! They may be hard on private sellers, but they don't seem to take any brown smelly stuff from business sellers. I've had dealings with a couple of Chinese sellers shipping from UK warehouses recently, and any procrastination in sorting problems seems to rapidly disappear when the time for eBay to intervene draws near, as they know the money will be repaid anyway!

Edited by BG John
Link to post
Share on other sites

So there are some good things about the way eBay and Paypal work after all! They may be hard on private sellers, but they don't seem to take any brown smelly stuff from business sellers. I've had dealings with a couple of Chinese sellers shipping from UK warehouses recently, and any procrastination in sorting problems seems to rapidly disappear when the time for eBay to intervene draws near, as they know the money will be repaid anyway!

 

 

Indeed, because eBay and PayPal will and do free accounts and prevent money being transferred until all transactions with complaints are settled. They then can and do blacklist sellers as best they can, but it being so easy to change details and set up a new shop. There are a number of businesses also that try to use eBay to avoid distant selling regulation requirments by appearing to sell as a private seller rather than a business (and avoiding paying VAT etc too).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...