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

[JCL]

Hi there, 

 

"I simply think that the situation here is possibly more complex than some would like to think it is."

 

I understand what you're saying, but there is nothing stopping him from either closing down his website or removing the payment processing so people can't actually spend money on it. If he doesn't know how to do it then he only has to ask. I believe in a previous post some people offered to help clear this up.

 

The thing about a conman is that, if a person looks like a conman, then by definition they aren't very good at it. To be a conman, on the surface, you have to be a very likable person.

 

Anyway, I've said what I needed to say to clear the air of techno-babble. It's probably time to call it Christmas.

 

I hope everyone has a happy, healthy and successful new year.

 

cheers

 

Jason

[Junctionmad]

It doesn't actually matter what " complexity " is gong on behind the scenes

 

As has been outlined , the web site is active and is clearly not a zombie website ( in reality , and I'm an IT professional, there is no such thing as a zombie website. There is always an owner )

 

the fact that Dunn allows this web site to continue and take payments with clearly no intention to supply the goods , make refunds or engage in communications clearly indicate that a fraud is being perpetrated, even of that is unwitting , which I find no very hard to believe , it's matters little , the customer is being deceived

 

There is no mitigation , none

Edited December 24, 2017 by Junctionmad

[David Stannard]

I can understand why people who made payments before notices had been placed on the website are upset, for those that did after the notices had been placed in bold red writing that are so bleedingly obvious that even blind Freddie can see them you really have to wonder. The common excuse of a simple Google search lead them to that page doesn't wash, the only thing that is simple is the person doing it, I did a simple Google search and it took me to the home page where the disclaimer about making payments can be seen quite clearly http://www.cooper-craft.co.uk .

 

There are a number of things that people haven't taken into account here, with refunds what merchant fees are associated with doing them, knowing how banks work the merchant fees would be applied to every single transaction which could end up being a sizeable amount of money that the current owner would lose and have no chance of recovering. Maybe he thinks that he might be able to dig himself out of the hole by selling whatever remaining stock that he has or is bidding his time in the hope that he can resolve his equipment issues.

 

For me though the greatest fear is that if he is isolated any further he may totally abandon the whole business and sell the whole lot as scrap, many of these classic kits from a number of manufactures that were in many respects trailblazers for their day offering modellers the chance to buy affordable kits that could be easily assembled would be lost forever, that would be a very sad outcome for the hobby. The choices are simple, hound him into the ground to the point that he will shut up shop forever due to the damage that has been done to his reputation and the unlikely chance that anyone would be willing to do business with him, I will add that he has certainly not helped the situation with his lack of action and poor communication, or perhaps give him some space and hope that he can overcome the issues.

 

I think the best resolution would be if an interested party came along and purchased the moulds and associated equipment off him and took over the business, that way they could start off with a clean slate ridding the business of a tarnished reputation and hopefully give customers the confidence to purchase the products, with the money earned from the sale the current owner could then refund all parties who had made payments but did not receive products.

[Junctionmad]

I can understand why people who made payments before notices had been placed on the website are upset, for those that did after the notices had been placed in bold red writing that are so bleedingly obvious that even blind Freddie can see them you really have to wonder. The common excuse of a simple Google search lead them to that page doesn't wash, the only thing that is simple is the person doing it, I did a simple Google search and it took me to the home page where the disclaimer about making payments can be seen quite clearly http://www.cooper-craft.co.uk .

There are a number of things that people haven't taken into account here, with refunds what merchant fees are associated with doing them, knowing how banks work the merchant fees would be applied to every single transaction which could end up being a sizeable amount of money that the current owner would lose and have no chance of recovering. Maybe he thinks that he might be able to dig himself out of the hole by selling whatever remaining stock that he has or is bidding his time in the hope that he can resolve his equipment issues.

For me though the greatest fear is that if he is isolated any further he may totally abandon the whole business and sell the whole lot as scrap, many of these classic kits from a number of manufactures that were in many respects trailblazers for their day offering modellers the chance to buy affordable kits that could be easily assembled would be lost forever, that would be a very sad outcome for the hobby. The choices are simple, hound him into the ground to the point that he will shut up shop forever due to the damage that has been done to his reputation and the unlikely chance that anyone would be willing to do business with him, I will add that he has certainly not helped the situation with his lack of action and poor communication, or perhaps give him some space and hope that he can overcome the issues.

I think the best resolution would be if an interested party came along and purchased the moulds and associated equipment off him and took over the business, that way they could start off with a clean slate ridding the business of a tarnished reputation and hopefully give customers the confidence to purchase the products, with the money earned from the sale the current owner could then refund all parties who had made payments but did not receive products.

I just entered "coopercraft rolling stock " into google and the first result brought me directly to the rolling stock page wher there is no warning and I can shop and pay without receiving any warning

 

This person , Dunn, is simply not acting in good faith and to accept payment for goods you cannot supply is regarded as reckless trading

 

It would be far better that it close and disappear before it taints the whole industry. From what I understand many of the mould tools are damaged and hence virtually useless.

 

 

The simple fact is , the website should not accept payment , all he would have to do is make a phone call to his credit card processor

Edited December 25, 2017 by Junctionmad

[chris p bacon]

I can understand why people who made payments before notices had been placed on the website are upset, for those that did after the notices had been placed in bold red writing that are so bleedingly obvious that even blind Freddie can see them you really have to wonder. The common excuse of a simple Google search lead them to that page doesn't wash, the only thing that is simple is the person doing it, I did a simple Google search and it took me to the home page where the disclaimer about making payments can be seen quite clearly http://www.cooper-craft.co.uk .

 

 

As I was the one that posted this last I'll spell it out again.  A simple search does not always bring up the home page with the warning, a search done just a few minutes ago on Google produced this page as first result.

http://shop.cooper-craft.co.uk/index.php?cPath=61

As you can clearly see you are straight into the purchase pages and bypassing the warning.

 

Of the 25 pages on the site only one has the warning that there is a problem with stock, and yet it also says 

 

Our full current and up to date catalogue is here online and can be browsed. Should you wish to do so, it is also possible to buy online over our secure server all items from our catalogue, using credit/debit cards.

 

Mind you even the warning is out of date as Slaters are now going to restart production of their own kits again. 

 

 

There are a number of things that people haven't taken into account here, with refunds what merchant fees are associated with doing them, knowing how banks work the merchant fees would be applied to every single transaction which could end up being a sizeable amount of money that the current owner would lose and have no chance of recovering. Maybe he thinks that he might be able to dig himself out of the hole by selling whatever remaining stock that he has or is bidding his time in the hope that he can resolve his equipment issues.

 

 So does the customer have to bear the cost of the trader accepting payment when he shouldn't have ? If he didn't take payment there wouldn't be charges.

 

 

For me though the greatest fear is that if he is isolated any further he may totally abandon the whole business and sell the whole lot as scrap, many of these classic kits from a number of manufactures that were in many respects trailblazers for their day offering modellers the chance to buy affordable kits that could be easily assembled would be lost forever, that would be a very sad outcome for the hobby. The choices are simple, hound him into the ground to the point that he will shut up shop forever due to the damage that has been done to his reputation and the unlikely chance that anyone would be willing to do business with him, I will add that he has certainly not helped the situation with his lack of action and poor communication, or perhaps give him some space and hope that he can overcome the issues.

 

 

You obviously haven't read the thread, as those with more technical knowledge of plastic injection moulding have already stated that the moulds might well be degraded as they have not been used in years.

Mr Dunn has never (knowingly) produced an actual plastic kit, he does not have a suitable machine to be able to use some of the moulds, and has traded on the stock that was transferred at the time of purchase. The kits that you mourn the loss of were actually lost several years ago.

 

 

I think the best resolution would be if an interested party came along and purchased the moulds and associated equipment off him and took over the business, that way they could start off with a clean slate ridding the business of a tarnished reputation and hopefully give customers the confidence to purchase the products, with the money earned from the sale the current owner could then refund all parties who had made payments but did not receive products.

 

 

Do you not think that has been tried ?  Believe me it has.

[St Enodoc]

If he needs assistance resolving this, then he really should seek it from someone he knows that can genuinely help him.

As I understand it, Ian Kirk has already offered to help and his offer seems to have been turned down.

 

Edited December 25, 2017 by St Enodoc

[David Stannard]

So does the customer have to bear the cost of the trader accepting payment when he shouldn't have ? If he didn't take payment there wouldn't be charges.

 

You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout, it's a highly automated process where the trader is not involved in the transaction until they are given a notification that a payment had made, if he had sent out an invoice personally asking for payment of funds then that would be an entirely different matter. It would be interesting to see how many of the socalled aggrieved parties here are actually owed refunds for goods not delivered, or is it a case for some to engage in a bit of bloodsport and kick the living fecal matter out of someone for their perceived grievances against that person despite having no dealings with them.

 

 

 

You obviously haven't read the thread, as those with more technical knowledge of plastic injection moulding have already stated that the moulds might well be degraded as they have not been used in years.

Mr Dunn has never (knowingly) produced an actual plastic kit, he does not have a suitable machine to be able to use some of the moulds, and has traded on the stock that was transferred at the time of purchase. The kits that you mourn the loss of were actually lost several years ago

From the discussions I had with someone from Holt Model Railways the quality of the kits had declined from what I was used to in the past, whether this was due to wear and tear on the moulds which being 30 years old could be a significant factor or that a lower grade plastic was being used was to blame, I know all too well with injection moulding that retooling has to be done over a period of time to maintain product quality. Edited December 25, 2017 by David Stannard

[brian777999]

From the discussions I had with someone from Holt Model Railways the quality of the kits had declined from what I was used to in the past, whether this was due to wear and tear on the moulds which being 30 years old could be a significant factor or that a lower grade plastic was being used was to blame, I know all too well with injection moulding that retooling has to be done over a period of time to maintain product quality.

 

What exactly is ''retooling'' and how is it done ? What sort of expertise is required ?

[Anotheran]

I have reported the posts of the offensive Mr Stannard to the moderators as they have clearly been posted with no first-hand knowledge of the situation simply to inflame the thread. I objected to being called simple by someone small minded enough to do so without knowing me and basing that statement on a factually incorrect understanding of Google search results.

 

I will be happy to remove this post following an apology or the removal of Mr Stannard's posts.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Anotheran

[Steamport Southport]

You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout, it's a highly automated process where the trader is not involved in the transaction until they are given a notification that a payment had made, if he had sent out an invoice personally asking for payment of funds then that would be an entirely different matter. It would be interesting to see how many of the socalled aggrieved parties here are actually owed refunds for goods not delivered, or is it a case for some to engage in a bit of bloodsport and kick the living fecal matter out of someone for their perceived grievances against that person despite having no dealings with them.

 

 

 

 

So why doesn't he cancel the payments and give a refund straight away then if he gets notification that a payment is made? It's not rocket science.

 

As for some of the nonsense you have sprouted. Please read the thread from the start and the other three locked threads and then comment, rather than insult people with jibes such as "socalled aggrieved", "perceived grievances" and "simple".

 

 

Funny how out of eight posts, at least six are defending the perpetrator whilst belittling the customers who are out of pocket through no fault of their own.    

 

 

 

 

Jason

[David Stannard]

I have reported the posts of the offensive Mr Stannard to the moderators as they have clearly been posted with no first-hand knowledge of the situation simply to inflame the thread. I objected to being called simple by someone small minded enough to do so without knowing me and basing that statement on a factually incorrect understanding of Google search results.

I will be happy to remove this post following an apology or the removal of Mr Stannard's posts.

I think it is somewhat farcical for you to call my posts offensive, as to trying to inflame the situation I find that laughable considering the whole thread is a veritable bonfire, I can certainly say at no point did I personally lay insult to you and if I was I would do a far better job of it. In all honesty I think the best thing the admins can do is lock this thread as it has more than run its course and is not providing anything constructive to the issue, at the end of the day it is their call as to what they want to do with it.

 

Too be frank I will not be answering to this thread anymore due to the rather viscious nature of the individuals bashing their keyboards about it, I think I will do something more constructive such as complaining about how Bachmann persists in making 57xx, 8750 and 64xx Pannier Tanks in Great Western livery with the Top Feed fitted to them, despite the fact that it was only in the final years of GWR service that they were fitted with them.

Edited December 25, 2017 by David Stannard

[Steamport Southport]

I think it is somewhat farcical for you to call my posts offensive, as to trying to inflame the situation I find that laughable considering the whole thread is a veritable bonfire, I can certainly say at no point did I personally lay insult to you and if I was I would do a far better job of it. In all honesty I think the best thing the admins can do is lock this thread as it has more than run its course and is not providing anything constructive to the issue, at the end of the day it is their call as to what they want to do with it.

 

Too be frank I will not be answering to this thread anymore due to the rather viscious nature of the individuals bashing their keyboards about it, I think I will do something more constructive such as complaining about how Bachmann persists in making 57xx, 8750 and 64xx Pannier Tanks in Great Western livery with the Top Feed fitted to them, despite the fact that it was only in the final years of GWR service that they were fitted with them.

 

Quoting this so it can't be edited.

 

 

It's still being insulting to him I'm afraid.

 

 

 

I certainly don't think the thread has run it's course until everyone has received their goods or a refund.

 

 

 

 

 

Jason

[JCL]

I appear to be getting sucked in because I don't like people being had.

 

David, that is your name, isn't it? Knowing human nature, you will read this even if you don't reply.

 

You created an account at the end of November this year, and 8 of the 9 of posts you have written on RMWeb are on this thread where you appear to have hit the ground running by insulting people disregarding their losses (no matter what those losses are), and in fact victim-blaming them.

 

You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout, it's a highly automated process where the trader is not involved in the transaction until they are given a notification that a payment had made, if he had sent out an invoice personally asking for payment of funds then that would be an entirely different matter. It would be interesting to see how many of the socalled aggrieved parties here are actually owed refunds for goods not delivered, or is it a case for some to engage in a bit of bloodsport and kick the living fecal matter out of someone for their perceived grievances against that person despite having no dealings with them.

I could pull this and your previous missives apart line by line, as there is an issue with pretty much everything you've written but as they say over here, "ain't nobody got time for that".

 

So I'll stick to websites. Having built online stores, I'd be happy to discuss the fine detail on how they work, and how easy it is for refunds to be given, but maybe not until after Christmas, eh? Two things to think about, the trader set up and/or approved the website either at the time of its creation or implicitly after buying the company by leaving it as it is, the trader is involved in the transaction, the trader is responsible for the transaction, the trader is responsible for any charges made if a product is not available and the money must be refunded.. How is the concept of trader responsibility such a difficult concept to understand?

 

"You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout,

 

Is there a problem with this? Do we need to change how things work on the Internet? Most websites work like this. If I search on Google for a product, and I end up at Amazon, you can bet that the first page I see is the product page, in fact, I would be very annoyed if I was given the home page. Now, if the product I want to buy is not currently available on Amazon, where do you think the message that that product or that class of products is not available will be? On the Amazon home page, or on the product page? If the product is not available, will I be able to add it to a shopping cart and then pay for it? Nope, I don't think so.

 

To reiterate, the responsibility rests with the site owner. And I'll add something, if the owner of a site is selling goods for money, that site is a business, not a hobby, and the site owner is running a business, not a hobby.

 

"socalled aggrieved parties" - really? This sort of wording is generally bandied around by people when logic escapes them. By denigrating the people who have lost money, you are hoping to diminish their experience and the value of their argument. Happens all the time.

 

Having raised a ruckus in your 8 posts, and really fired things up on Christmas Eve/Day by inflaming the thread, your final post here is to then declare the thread should be closed down. Obviously this would be of a great benefit to Coopercraft as it would mean that no new cases of people being caught by this website will be recorded. Which may be handy at some point in the future should the authorities actually take an interest.

 

Who are you really?

 

Jason

Edited December 25, 2017 by JCL

[Richard Lee]

I think that threads such as this are valuable, despite being uncomfortable reading.  I am thinking about people fairly new to modelling who may not know about the current state of Coopercraft and are looking for kits that are relatively easy to build.  If they are lucky then they might come across the warning on one page of the website when searching.  If they are unlucky then they won't.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Richard Lee

[kandc_au]

I think it is somewhat farcical for you to call my posts offensive, as to trying to inflame the situation I find that laughable considering the whole thread is a veritable bonfire, I can certainly say at no point did I personally lay insult to you and if I was I would do a far better job of it. In all honesty I think the best thing the admins can do is lock this thread as it has more than run its course and is not providing anything constructive to the issue, at the end of the day it is their call as to what they want to do with it.

 

Too be frank I will not be answering to this thread anymore due to the rather viscious nature of the individuals bashing their keyboards about it, I think I will do something more constructive such as complaining about how Bachmann persists in making 57xx, 8750 and 64xx Pannier Tanks in Great Western livery with the Top Feed fitted to them, despite the fact that it was only in the final years of GWR service that they were fitted with them.

David,

I cannot help but wonder if you are Paul Dunn in another guise!

Even for the very short time you have been here you seem so quick to tell everyone here they don't have a clue, and yet you still fail to understand the issue at heart.

The site still takes money with no goods being received. Apart from refunding all the monies that have been taken , where goods have NOT been sent, the VERY LEAST that is expected is that the site has the cart taken away/made inoperable so that others who unwittingly get directed to the site NOT through the front page  DO NOT GET FLEECED!

 

Now, if you are half a normal person you would have to agree that, that is not a big ask, and people will be happy!

 

Khris

[Darius43]

Nothing like a good detective story on Christmas Morning.

 

Will the imposter be unmasked before Boxing Day I wonder?

 

Or will he re-appear under another assumed identity?

 

Darius

 

PS Happy Christmas to everyone (with perhaps one or two exceptions) on RMWeb

[Andy Y]

In all honesty I think the best thing the admins can do is lock this thread.

I think the better idea is to remove your access to the topic if you are just going to insult people who have been done.

 

Merry Christmas.

[kandc_au]

You do have to wonder when a new member who seems to only post on this thread, and continually says the mods should shut the thread down, doesn't have a vested interest in the out come.
Otherwise, said member must have read the ENTIRE thread with their eyes shut!

 

Khris

[Horsetan]

...Who are you really?...

Could be anyone

 

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

[polybear]

I think the best resolution would be if an interested party came along and purchased the moulds and associated equipment off him and took over the business, that way they could start off with a clean slate ridding the business of a tarnished reputation and hopefully give customers the confidence to purchase the products, with the money earned from the sale the current owner could then refund all parties who had made payments but did not receive products.

 

Unfortunately a new owner will have to deal with the repercussions of a tarnished reputation for a long time, and confidence from customers will have to built up from scratch.  As for the current owner refunding all parties from the sale proceeds, I've a suspicion he'll be more inclined to think "sod 'em...."

 

You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout, it's a highly automated process where the trader is not involved in the transaction until they are given a notification that a payment had made, if he had sent out an invoice personally asking for payment of funds then that would be an entirely different matter.

 

Disable the on-line payment process completely, and invite payment by cheque once confirmation of item availability has been received.  Seems to work well enough for several other traders.

 

Too be frank I will not be answering to this thread anymore due to the rather viscious nature of the individuals bashing their keyboards about it, I think I will do something more constructive such as complaining about how Bachmann persists in making 57xx, 8750 and 64xx Pannier Tanks in Great Western livery with the Top Feed fitted to them, despite the fact that it was only in the final years of GWR service that they were fitted with them.

 

GWR = West Country. Somerset perhaps?

 

Having raised a ruckus in your 8 posts, and really fired things up on Christmas Eve/Day by inflaming the thread, your final post here is to then declare the thread should be closed down. Obviously this would be of a great benefit to Coopercraft as it would mean that no new cases of people being caught by this website will be recorded. Which may be handy at some point in the future should the authorities actually take an interest.

 

Who are you really?

 

Snap.

 

I cannot help but wonder if you are Paul Dunn in another guise!

 

I have the same feeling, strangely....

Edited December 25, 2017 by polybear

[hayfield]

John,

 

If you've met the man in person, and have thus been able to add that crucial face-to-face dimension to your assessment of his character, then fine. I have met him face-to-face, several times (always at shows, as I mentioned before) and whilst I may not be the best judge of character, I personally remain of the view that he is very much out of his depth and possibly a bit complacent, but I don't see him as someone who set out at the beginning to deliberately defraud people.

 

I do not have sympathy for cynical criminals and con men, and I do have sympathy for those who have paid over money and not yet received their goods, but I not 'playing the sympathy card' with my remarks here, and I am equally no 'ble*ding heart' either.

 

I simply think that the situation here is possibly more complex than some would like to think it is.

 

 

CK

 

Like you I have met and had quick chats with him about his products at shows, and came to the same conclusion as yourself, with the one caveat that after digging a hole for himself he kept on digging.

 

This past year we have had a extension built and unfortunately found a builder with similar issues as Mr Dunn, the work started well and the quality was good. As the amount of work being carried out slowed and requests for additional monies increased it came to a point where we had to part company. We found out from the contractors he used and the building inspector others were having similar problems. Thankfully we were not too much out of pocket and in fact perhaps had spent a similar amount to what other builders were quoting, the main problem being it took 3 times longer that the original estimate to complete. In hind sight our builder was not a bad person just took on more than he could deliver.

 

Looking at Mr Dunn's stand over a two or three year period, it was quite obvious that he had no way of replacing his stock of plastic kits or parts. But had built up a stock of etchings, so he did  have the intention of trading, however he was missing from shows this year

 

I don't think the Coopercraft kits themselves have suffered from these issues, but the retailer has

 

In conclusion I think we all should be careful who we trade with both online and mail order. Hopefully Mr Dunn is reading these posts and can see there is still time to resolve these matters

Edited December 26, 2017 by hayfield

[Clearwater]

I co.uk]http://www.cooper-craft.co.uk[/url] .

There are a number of things that people haven't taken into account here, with refunds what merchant fees are associated with doing them, knowing how banks work the merchant fees would be applied to every single transaction which could end up being a sizeable amount of money that the current owner would lose and have no chance of recovering. Maybe he thinks that he might be able to dig himself out of the hole by selling whatever remaining stock that he has or is bidding his time in the hope that he can resolve his equipment issues.

 

 

For me though the greatest fear is that if he is isolated any further he may totally abandon the whole business and selI think the best resolution would be if an interested party came along and purchased the moulds and associated equipment off him and took over the business, that way they could start off with a clean slate ridding the business of a tarnished reputation and hopefully give customers the confidence to purchase the products, with the money earned from the sale the current owner could then refund all parties who had made payments but did not receive products.

Aka bloke who has suffered a loss doesn’t want further loss for his incompetence

 

Aka - Dunn wants an unrealistically high price for a set of shot equipment...and zero brand value post his actions!

[kandc_au]

 

There are a number of things that people haven't taken into account here, with refunds what merchant fees are associated with doing them, knowing how banks work the merchant fees would be applied to every single transaction which could end up being a sizeable amount of money that the current owner would lose and have no chance of recovering. Maybe he thinks that he might be able to dig himself out of the hole by selling whatever remaining stock that he has or is bidding his time in the hope that he can resolve his equipment issues.

The issue of the Merchant fees, if he was honestly concerned he would have ensured that the Site was fixed to NOT take other peoples monies quick smart. To bring the issues of merchants fees into it, fall right into his own lap for NOT doing anything to rectify his site in the first instance!

[chris p bacon]

I'll just post this short reply as Andy looks to have removed access, but to me tends to confirm it was posting purely to inflame

 

last post was 

You seem to be neglecting the fact that a lot of these payments were probably done by people who simply went onto the site filled their cart and then went straight to the checkout,

 

 to see how many of the socalled aggrieved parties here are actually owed refunds for goods not delivered, or is it a case for some to engage in a bit of bloodsport and kick the living fecal matter out of someone for their perceived grievances against that person despite having no dealings with them.

 

and yet earlier.

 

I can understand why people who made payments before notices had been placed on the website are upset, for those that did after the notices had been placed in bold red writing that are so bleedingly obvious that even blind Freddie can see them you really have to wonder. The common excuse of a simple Google search lead them to that page doesn't wash, the only thing that is simple is the person doing it, I did a simple Google search and it took me to the home page where the disclaimer about making payments can be seen quite clearly http://www.cooper-craft.co.uk .

 

 

Here's hoping the New year brings a resolution for those out of pocket.

[jjb1970]

Ultimately none of it alters two things :

 

-he is responsible for his website, he should either update it or shut it down

 

-regardless of website issues he should issue an immediate refund for money taken if he can't deliver

 

The website excuse would work for a week or two but how long has this been going on? Sorry, but a decent guy in out of his depth would repay the money and pull the plug on his on-line ordering system and co-operate with bailiffs sent to collect money pursuant to a legal decision.