Coopercraft Kits

[Andy Hayter]

I have to agree with Bucoops.

Just a couple of days ago I decided to follow up on a Mallard kit that I have been building to see if any more were still available.  I quickly chased down that Mallard had been taken over by Blacksmith and a search for Blacksmith models took me straight to the page on Coopercraft's site.  No warning of do not order, just lots of lovely kits at not insignificant prices.  Of course I knew better than to progress my interest but not every kit builder is an RMWebber - and that is exactly why we then get people coming on here after the event to ask the score.

[sharris]

It would be better if the warning was repeated on the checkout page.

[chris p bacon]

It would be better if the warning was repeated on the checkout page.

 

 

Or the site closed as he can't supply anything.

[Siberian Snooper]

Or the site closed as he can't supply anything.

That would be the best option.

[jjb1970]

The problem is that it's hard to give the proprietor the benefit of doubt when he refuses to repay the money paid for goods he cannot deliver. If people paid and he immediately refunded them then that wouldn't be a great situation but nobody would think him a crook. Claiming it's all his website about which human scientific knowledge and invention can provide no answers and then keeping the money received, ignoring court decisions and bailiffs etc means it is just not credible to pass off as just a well meaning fellow out of his depth. So yes, Cooper craft is dead and we should move on in terms of the range but those owed money should be repaid in full.

Edited April 19, 2018 by jjb1970

[Horsetan]

Or the site closed as he can't supply anything.

Maybe this is where Russian hackers might prove their worth.

[PenrithBeacon]

Not really when only the first page carries a warning - go directly to a product page via google or similar and you're screwed.

Not sure I follow you. I would have thought that if RMwebbers were following the advice on RMweb they wouldn't need a warning on any page of the Coopercraft web site. Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[hayfield]

The problem is that it's hard to give the proprietor the benefit of doubt when he refuses to repay the money paid for goods he cannot deliver. If people paid and he immediately refunded them then that wouldn't be a great situation but nobody would think him a crook. Claiming it's all his website about which human scientific knowledge and invention can provide no answers and then keeping the money received, ignoring court decisions and bailiffs etc means it is just not credible to pass off as just a well meaning fellow out of his depth. So yes, Cooper craft is dead and we should move on in terms of the range but those owed money should be repaid in full.

 

 

Whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with you, the situation may be a bit more complicated and no way condoning the actions/inactions of said trader

 

The money pain by customers goes into said companies bank account(s) which I guess are not in the best situation and the bank will absorb these payments to recoup any charges/loans the business has accrues, Perhaps the question we should be asking the bank is "Why is the account still accepting payments from prospective customers when all seemed to agreed the business is failing to supply goods, thus not trading"

 

As for turning off the website, said company may not have the funds to do so. though one would have thought the web provider would be in the same boat of not being paid

 

It might be worth while contacting the bank and ask some probing questions about their part in this unfortunate situation

[chris p bacon]

Not sure I follow you. I would have thought that if RMwebbers were following the advice on RMweb they wouldn't need a warning on any page of the Coopercraft web site. Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick.

 

 

It's those that aren't regular users of RMweb that it's most useful for.   If you take the OP, he has only been a member here for 18 months, has only 12/3 posts to his name and hasn't signed in for 10 days, so not a regular user.

They are the ones that the repeated warnings are aimed at, and if I've got it right, the more threads/postings with 'Coopercraft' in the content, pushes any search for the company further up the Google/Yahoo pages thereby showing these warning threads.

Edited April 20, 2018 by chris p bacon

[chris p bacon]

Whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with you, the situation may be a bit more complicated and no way condoning the actions/inactions of said trader

 

The money pain by customers goes into said companies bank account(s) which I guess are not in the best situation and the bank will absorb these payments to recoup any charges/loans the business has accrues, Perhaps the question we should be asking the bank is "Why is the account still accepting payments from prospective customers when all seemed to agreed the business is failing to supply goods, thus not trading"

 

As for turning off the website, said company may not have the funds to do so. though one would have thought the web provider would be in the same boat of not being paid

 

It might be worth while contacting the bank and ask some probing questions about their part in this unfortunate situation

 

The funds are taken by 'Worldpay' which is a payment processing company, they will hold the funds for anywhere between a day and a month then transfer to the companies account.

 

Andy York + others have tried to stop them but they will only take instruction from Dunn. Same goes for the website, on the other locked thread there was a suggestion that the website was a 'zombie' and wasn't being monitored but JCL (web techie) showed with the code that the site is active.

 

It costs nothing to turn off a website, you just hide it from view.

[Edwardian]

The problem is that it's hard to give the proprietor the benefit of doubt when he refuses to repay the money paid for goods he cannot deliver. If people paid and he immediately refunded them then that wouldn't be a great situation but nobody would think him a crook. Claiming it's all his website about which human scientific knowledge and invention can provide no answers and then keeping the money received, ignoring court decisions and bailiffs etc means it is just not credible to pass off as just a well meaning fellow out of his depth. So yes, Cooper craft is dead and we should move on in terms of the range but those owed money should be repaid in full.

 

Agree.  There can be no doubt that Coopercraft won't be supplying the various products advertised.  That has been clear for some considerable time.  Aside from the important issue of recovery of monies paid, I can't see what else there is to say about Coopercraft as a source of these kits. 

 

What is a vital concern, to me at any rate, is the question of how much of the Slaters 4mm range that Slaters will eventually re-release, perhaps via POWsides. To the extent that Slaters hasn't done, or won't do, this, or there are other parts of the Coopercraft empire that are apparently lost, it seems legitimate to focus upon the alternatives, even if some are not comfortable with the new technologies; they may be the only option.

 

For those owed money, it seems that this is not a limited company, so cannot be killed off, but a sole trader.  From what I have seen, enforcement options against this individual might be quite limited. Personally, I would consider obtaining a County Court judgment, transferring it to the High Court for enforcement when, inevitably, it is returned unsatisfied, and then send in the bailiffs.  Not a nice thing to happen, but something needs to get this guy's attention and persuade him of the need to do the right thing.  

 

It is a concern that the website sits out there with inadequate warnings, still advertising products that do not exist and taking money for them, like some modeller's venus fly-trap, luring the ignorant and unwary.  That, I would say, might be a job for Trading Standards. I don't recall whether this has been tried, but a potential prosecution might get this Blighter to pull his thumb out of his bum and engage his brain and turn the damn thing off. 

 

A pronouncement of the death of this business is long overdue, yet the business owner seems reluctant to bury to corpse, so it will remain rotting above ground, causing a considerable stink.

[chris p bacon]

 

For those owed money, it seems that this is not a limited company, so cannot be killed off, but a sole trader.  From what I have seen, enforcement options against this individual might be quite limited. Personally, I would consider obtaining a County Court judgment, transferring it to the High Court for enforcement when, inevitably, it is returned unsatisfied, and then send in the bailiffs.  Not a nice thing to happen, but something needs to get this guy's attention and persuade him of the need to do the right thing.  

 

It is a concern that the website sits out there with inadequate warnings, still advertising products that do not exist and taking money for them, like some modeller's venus fly-trap, luring the ignorant and unwary.  That, I would say, might be a job for Trading Standards. I don't recall whether this has been tried, but a potential prosecution might get this Blighter to pull his thumb out of his bum and engage his brain and turn the damn thing off. 

 

A pronouncement of the death of this business is long overdue, yet the business owner seems reluctant to bury to corpse, so it will remain rotting above ground, causing a considerable stink.

 

 

If you read the other thread 'Turfburner' has one precisely that.  He also used one of the newspapers to try and talk to Trading standards to no avail. 

[hayfield]

The funds are taken by 'Worldpay' which is a payment processing company, they will hold the funds for anywhere between a day and a month then transfer to the companies account.

 

Andy York + others have tried to stop them but they will only take instruction from Dunn. Same goes for the website, on the other locked thread there was a suggestion that the website was a 'zombie' and wasn't being monitored but JCL (web techie) showed with the code that the site is active.

 

It costs nothing to turn off a website, you just hide it from view.

 

Dave

 

Thanks for the clarification on what I have posted,

 

My thoughts on the bank were not about Worldpay, but the receiving bank and the account in question receiving the monies.

 

Perhaps a very polite letter to the branch in question asking why they are (unknowingly) assisting a company to receive funds for items which they cannot supply, and perhaps being party with/to what amounts to be a financial deception, one action could be suggesting that the activities of this company should be bought to the attention of the financial regulators if monies are not returned. Certainly if the Bank are made aware of the situation and fail to act appropriately, they could possibly be seen liable in the future for any financial lossess

[chris p bacon]

It never hurts to try John although I don't know how you could ascertain which bank he uses.

 

In the past trying to contact a customer we have sent a letter to the bank with whatever details we've had (cheque details) and asked them to forward our letter, this they've done although it took some time. What helped was knowing which bank they used as well as the branch, as it was all on the cheque.

[Edwardian]

If you read the other thread 'Turfburner' has one precisely that.  He also used one of the newspapers to try and talk to Trading standards to no avail. 

 

Interesting.  I suspect the system is patchy.  Trading Standards can be very aggressive; in some areas and I have seen them go completely OTT with restraint orders etc, yet some things that don't fit their experience or current objectives, or which seem just fall into their "too difficult box" seem to be unfairly neglected.

 

Do we know why they said they couldn't or wouldn't help?

[chris p bacon]

Posts 1455 & 1457 give the most up to date answers.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/112011-cooper-craft-cautionary-notes-for-customers-its-fate-and-thoughts-on-an-alternative/page-59&do=findComment&comment=3094808

 

Essentially I read it that for all the guff from various 'official' departments,  when it's difficult they shove it under the carpet.

[Andy Hayter]

Interesting.  I suspect the system is patchy.  Trading Standards can be very aggressive; in some areas and I have seen them go completely OTT with restraint orders etc, yet some things that don't fit their experience or current objectives, or which seem just fall into their "too difficult box" seem to be unfairly neglected.

 

Do we know why they said they couldn't or wouldn't help?

 

I think the problem goes back to the fact that Dunn is a sole trader and not a company.  The bailiffs can then only enter his premises by invitation or if they find free access - open window or door.  They have no right of forced entry for a sole trader.  Dunn seems to be aware of this limitation to their powers.

[hayfield]

It never hurts to try John although I don't know how you could ascertain which bank he uses.

 

In the past trying to contact a customer we have sent a letter to the bank with whatever details we've had (cheque details) and asked them to forward our letter, this they've done although it took some time. What helped was knowing which bank they used as well as the branch, as it was all on the cheque.

 

Perhaps the first port of call is your own bank/credit card provider and state a case of fraud has occurred, requesting details of the receiving bank, you may have to insist they provide proof that they actually transferred your money and to what account it was transferred into. If necessary open a complaint procedure which if not satisfied could be passed on to their ombudsman if not resolved, and or ask to be put through to their fraud department. 

[Horsetan]

If you read the other thread 'Turfburner' has one precisely that.  He also used one of the newspapers to try and talk to Trading standards to no avail. 

 

Apply to make him bankrupt?

[Colin_McLeod]

Apply to make him bankrupt?

Normally I wouldn't kick a man when he is down, but given Dunn's actions and inactions, I think that is an excellent idea.

[Andy Hayter]

Perhaps the first port of call is your own bank/credit card provider and state a case of fraud has occurred, requesting details of the receiving bank, you may have to insist they provide proof that they actually transferred your money and to what account it was transferred into. If necessary open a complaint procedure which if not satisfied could be passed on to their ombudsman if not resolved, and or ask to be put through to their fraud department. 

 

That would be Worldpay.  I don't know if the banks have access to track to the next transaction from Worldpay to Dunn.

[Enterprisingwestern]

The new Coopercraft advert is out.

 

 

Mike.

[gismorail]

Can't believe this is still going on and ~I'm thankful that I'm not a victim of this fraudster but has no one made a personal visit to sort out this ba----d..... dam sure if I was owed any amount of monies over the length of time that people seem to have been waiting I'd be knocking on the door if I was near the area   

[Edwardian]

Normally I wouldn't kick a man when he is down, but given Dunn's actions and inactions, I think that is an excellent idea.

 

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the debt level for bankruptcy has risen significantly; no one will have bought that much from him! 

[polybear]

I've no idea about such things, but introducing a website called something along the lines of "Coopercraft - A warning" that appears at the top of a Google search may work wonders.  With the only content being the fact that a County Court Judgement has been made, and also a link to certain Railway Modelling Forum threads.....