DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[Roy Langridge]

There has been some comment on here with regards to the APT as to whether people ordered a DToS or a DJ model and I think the answer will depend upon when you ordered. I for one, as one of the first to sign up, believed I was ordering a DToS model that was being manufactured for them by DJ. To reinforce this view, have a read of this early post from Dave himself:

 

It seems to me that as time progressed DToS took a back seat and I am not sure that they are really involved at all now. I have £250 invested and am really unsure what my next course of action is.

 

Roy

Edited May 2, 2019 by Roy Langridge
Clarfiy that discussing the APT

[57xx]

23 minutes ago, Talltim said:

I can see there being various ways you can have personal design cues for how the model is designed for manufacture, e.g the way the body is split into seperate components, but not for the way the assembled components look as a whole.

 

Edit Barry Ten said it much better than me

 

 

But that is not what he has registered or implied he was protecting. He clearly stated it was the overall look of the finished model. Some of the registrations do not feature any underside views.

[imt]

4 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

It seems to me that as time progressed DToS took a back seat and I am not sure that they are really involved at all now. I have £250 invested and am really unsure what my next course of action is.

 

To write politely, referring to his "press release" if you like, saying that you would like to know what the current status is, what the timescale is, what key stages there are ahead and when you will be informed of progress.

 

I would however refer you to the last 2 lines of the initial Announcement you have referred to - it said..............

 

"Please note this is a DJM crowdfunding project and DJM will be invoicing, designing, and finally supplying the finished model and is therefore totally responsible for your investment. [my italics].

Also: Please Note: Any 'pure' crowdfunding venture is an investment with no guarantee of return, and your invested capital (deposit payments) are at risk. Please consider carefully whether you wish to partake in this venture before ordering."

[mikesndbs]

Unsubbed from this thread. What a utterly shameful carry on.

[Roy Langridge]

6 minutes ago, imt said:

 

To write politely, referring to his "press release" if you like, saying that you would like to know what the current status is, what the timescale is, what key stages there are ahead and when you will be informed of progress.

 

I would however refer you to the last 2 lines of the initial Announcement you have referred to - it said..............

 

"Please note this is a DJM crowdfunding project and DJM will be invoicing, designing, and finally supplying the finished model and is therefore totally responsible for your investment. [my italics].

Also: Please Note: Any 'pure' crowdfunding venture is an investment with no guarantee of return, and your invested capital (deposit payments) are at risk. Please consider carefully whether you wish to partake in this venture before ordering."

 

I think you will find that those lines were only added later but don't now show as edits after the old site was migrated to the new. Perhaps Andy Y can confirm?

 

Edit: Linked to that, an internet archive search shows that this was advertised in December 2017 as a DToS Crowdfunded project.

 

Roy

Edited May 2, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[Great Western]

Personally I don’t think anyone should simply kiss goodbye to any monies they’ve handed over in good faith, why should this outfit be allowed to potentially walk away/keep probably many thousand pounds of your money ? 

 

How you’d go about getting together to take legal action I don’t know, but I wouldn’t just write of your money.

 

You do have to wonder if there was any real intention to deliver all along, like many people have said before CAD work is cheap as chips unlike actual fooling which is big money.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Great Western

[imt]

3 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

I think you will find that those lines were only added later but don't now show as edits after the old site was migrated to the new. Perhaps Andy Y can confirm?

 

Edit: Linked to that, an internet archive search shows that this was advertised in December 2017 as a DToS Crowdfunded project.

 

Roy,

 

I am sympathetic, but there is little I can say or do to help.  You asked what you should do and I gave some advice (just as your solicitor would do) as to what you could possibly do about the situation.  You (everybody) need(s) clarification.  What you say only makes me clearer than ever in my own mind that this project announced in December 2017 has died - but the "owner" (whomsoever that may be) has failed to fairly communicate that to you, or to explain why your money has vanished.

 

I still think a polite letter is worth it.  If the answer is what I fear it might be - then you will simply have to write it off and be thankful that it wasn't worse.  There is no economic way (for you alone) of pursuing this matter.

 

It is easy for me to say - especially with 20/20 hindsight (all lawyers have it) - but I wouldn't have paid ANYTHING on that prospectus full of "we hopes".

 

Iain

[ruggedpeak]

7 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

I think you will find that those lines were only added later but don't now show as edits after the old site was migrated to the new. Perhaps Andy Y can confirm?

 

Edit: Linked to that, an internet archive search shows that this was advertised in December 2017 as a DToS Crowdfunded project.

 

Roy

As a general rule the terms that apply will be those prevailing at the time. Subsequent amendments won't apply. And a vendor would need to provide a court with clear records of what was said when and what alterations were made to webpages etc.  This catches businesses out as they don't think to keep a copy of every iteration of every webpage. No clear records put them in a very weak position in court.

[90rob]

Enough...enough already! I'm going back to my usual territory and reading 'Little Muddle'. 'A nod to Brent', 'Castle Aching', 'Bleat Wharf', 'Sheep Chronicles', 'Cwm Bach', 'Hembourne'. 'The Farthing Layouts' and a few others, where I feel much more at home. Then I'll do a bit of modelling, and maybe look in again in a week or two and see what the final outcome of all this is...!

[big jim]

 

Just now, 90rob said:

Enough...enough already! I'm going back to my usual territory and reading 'Little Muddle'. 'A nod to Brent', 'Castle Aching', 'Bleat Wharf', 'Sheep Chronicles', 'Cwm Bach', 'Hembourne'. 'The Farthing Layouts' and a few others, where I feel much more at home. Then I'll do a bit of modelling, and maybe look in again in a week or two and see what the final outcome of all this is...!

 

But its like a car crash, you don’t want to look but you just can’t help it 

[imt]

1 minute ago, ruggedpeak said:

As a general rule the terms that apply will be those prevailing at the time. Subsequent amendments won't apply. And a vendor would need to provide a court with clear records of what was said when and what alterations were made to webpages etc.  This catches businesses out as they don't think to keep a copy of every iteration of every webpage. No clear records put them in a very weak position in court.

 

All of which is very true.  However it doesn't help those suffering apprehension about their potentially lost money.  There is little point spending money pursuing a lost cause.  Please will one of those affected do the sensible and write and ask what the situation is.  It may be that all DJ has done is raise unnecessary (mis)apprehensions. 

[Roy Langridge]

6 minutes ago, imt said:

 

Roy,

 

I am sympathetic, but there is little I can say or do to help.  You asked what you should do and I gave some advice (just as your solicitor would do) as to what you could possibly do about the situation.  You (everybody) need(s) clarification.  What you say only makes me clearer than ever in my own mind that this project announced in December 2017 has died - but the "owner" (whomsoever that may be) has failed to fairly communicate that to you, or to explain why your money has vanished.

 

I still think a polite letter is worth it.  If the answer is what I fear it might be - then you will simply have to write it off and be thankful that it wasn't worse.  There is no economic way (for you alone) of pursuing this matter.

 

It is easy for me to say - especially with 20/20 hindsight (all lawyers have it) - but I wouldn't have paid ANYTHING on that prospectus full of "we hopes".

 

Iain

 

Thanks Iain,

 

My second post was just to highlight that was appears now in the original APT announcement is not the full story.

 

I do intend to write an email, I am just getting myself sorted to make sure I write it as it needs to be. To be honest the loss of £250 does not impact me, it will be annoying but it will not leave me destitute, I would not have signed up if it would. The problem now is that once again those who committed are left in a quandary, some will walk away and that will impact those that don't.  I am not sure what camp I want to be in, part of me says enough is enough, but that will may just lead to others losing money for which I will feel some guilt as I believe that those of us who committed at the start should honour that commitment. Dave is not helping himself or us.

 

Roy

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, 90rob said:

Enough...enough already! I'm going back to my usual territory and reading 'Little Muddle'. 'A nod to Brent', 'Castle Aching', 'Bleat Wharf', 'Sheep Chronicles', 'Cwm Bach', 'Hembourne'. 'The Farthing Layouts' and a few others, where I feel much more at home. Then I'll do a bit of modelling, and maybe look in again in a week or two and see what the final outcome of all this is...!

 

Too late! Already a reference to IP rights on A Nod to Brent.

[90rob]

7 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Too late! Already a reference to IP rights on A Nod to Brent.

 Oh.... nooooo.....!

Edited May 2, 2019 by 90rob
Add a few more 'o's...

[imt]

4 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

I do intend to write an email, I am just getting myself sorted to make sure I write it as it needs to be.

 

Please do not.  Please write a formal letter and direct it to the Managing Director of DJ Models at their company address, and ask for a written reply  - within 14 days?

 

Keeping a copy and getting proof of postage as well - sorry that is so knee jerk for me I forgot it!

Edited May 2, 2019 by imt

[Chris M]

This is all very and moderately interesting but it is little relevance to us consumers who just want products to buy. I thought there was going to be a major announcement.

[ruggedpeak]

11 minutes ago, imt said:

 

All of which is very true.  However it doesn't help those suffering apprehension about their potentially lost money.  There is little point spending money pursuing a lost cause.  Please will one of those affected do the sensible and write and ask what the situation is.  It may be that all DJ has done is raise unnecessary (mis)apprehensions. 

Which is why his next update in the next few hours should be a detailed update on progress on all outstanding projects with details of their financial position and how to obtain a refund if required to reassure existing customers that things are under control.

[michaelp]

Surely some sort of response from DJM would be appropriate or maybe it will come by way of an announced announcement.

[imt]

1 minute ago, ruggedpeak said:

Which is why his next update in the next few hours should be a detailed update on progress on all outstanding projects with details of their financial position and how to obtain a refund if required to reassure existing customers that things are under control.

 

Yes of course it should be - what's your confidence level on that?  As I say, those affected should be writing formally to DJ Models to find out what the situation is.  Absent that information the rest is speculation.  Absent any reply to the letter then everybody knows where they are - out of pocket.  Hopefully all this speculation will be answered formally by DJ Models.

[ruggedpeak]

Bit off topic but having supported various outfits crowd funding and pre-ordering I'm finding the consistent delays rather unsatisfying as a consumer. I am waiting for quite a few things but went to my local model shop last weekend to spend £20 on an actual model that was actually in stock and I could actually buy! And very satisfying it was too.

Old school I know, buying stuff that actually exists in a shop, but there we are!

 

 

 

[JSpencer]

1 minute ago, imt said:

 

All of which is very true.  However it doesn't help those suffering apprehension about their potentially lost money.  There is little point spending money pursuing a lost cause.  Please will one of those affected do the sensible and write and ask what the situation is.  It may be that all DJ has done is raise unnecessary (mis)apprehensions. 

 

I would hate to speculate on his reply.mthe annoucement seems to be stearing  towards wanting to block anyone else making a scale model of the same loco etc. what next I wonder? A new newsletter with a potential claim that crowdfunders money is now protected as only he can make a 92, D600 etc?  Is that the exciting news they should enjoy? And people wanting this loco can only do so freely joining his scheme?

 

I wonder if other companies will be getting letters on their doormats in the near future? They almost certainly would not matter. Kernow's products were commissioned by Kernow! Hattons by Hattons, they will surely have signed contracts showing who owns what. Revolutions 92 CADs were out long before DJMs. Accurascale was ask by the real world loco owners to make a model of it.... 

 

i can understand if he did the IPs to stop some other company selling models in the UK that came out of his tooling. Perfectly fine for him to protect that if they really belong to him.

but the rest is likely to get him in legal battles he cannot afford and may not win. Maybe he's been tricked by some lawyer or maybe there really is a potential legal niche out there ready to be tested and some poor model railway chap is about to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

[Markwj]

I got my apt deposit back by raising a case with PayPal as I didn't get a refund from Dave. Unsure if this process is time limited but I got the refund back a few hours later.

[Ravenser]

It may be worth simply noting the following :

 

IRM [Irish wing of Accurascale]

 

I have no idea if any designs have been registered by DJM in Ireland

 

Kernow/DJM 1361 announcement

http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/pg/150/GWR-1361-Class-Saddle-Tank

 

Kernow page on D600 Warship

 

14xx announcement

 

Current listings for DJM locos at Hattons. The 1361, O2 and 14xx do not seem to have sold out at Hattons, though the first two (and the Gate Stock)  apparently have at Kernow 

https://www.hattons.co.uk/stocklist/3094212/0/DJ_Models_Dave_Jones_/MfrNest.aspx

Edited May 2, 2019 by Ravenser
correct what's sold out / add D600 page

[imt]

2 minutes ago, Markwj said:

I got my apt deposit back by raising a case with PayPal as I didn't get a refund from Dave. Unsure if this process is time limited but I got the refund back a few hours later.

 

There is a PayPal dispute procedure:

 

"You can open a dispute in the Resolution Centre of your PayPal account within 180 days of payment if:

You don’t receive the item

You receive an item but it’s significantly different than the description on eBay or on the seller’s website

By opening a dispute, you can communicate directly with your seller to work out a problem transaction.

If you reach an agreement with the seller you can close the dispute. If you're still not happy with the result, you can escalate the dispute to a claim. We'll review the claim and decide on reimbursement.

To open a dispute:

Go to the Resolution Centre.

Click Dispute a Transaction.

Select the button beside the transaction you want to dispute, then click Continue.

Select ‘Item dispute’, click Continue and follow the on-screen instructions.

Note:

Generally buyers must wait at least 7 days from the date of payment to escalate a dispute for an item not received

Where an item has not been received, please ensure you have given the seller enough time before opening a dispute"

 

Since the order was not for a physical thing, they may or may not accept the dispute.  It's an odd situation.  It doesn't seem like a PayPal line of business to me.

[Craig85]

Don't know whether this has been said before, but this statement is now on the dj models website. It reads as follows :

 

 

When i posted my release yesterday, little did i realise the reaction it would cause. So may i just clarify some bits here, which some seem to have missed entirely?

My IP’s cover the external look of all my designs, not the internals, and do no prevent anyone making the same model. It does, however, as far as i understand it, prevent cloning and using my design cues.

It will also make any fellow designer think about how they will design their model to not only be better (that cant be bad can it?) but to look better (and that cannot be bad either right?)

Also as most of you know, i have not got use of my tools and there have been various mails on the internet by trolls saying that they can supply models from my tools. This protects DJM by making sure that although my tools can be sold on (after all i don’t have them in my possession in the UK) the new ‘owner’ wont be able to do anything with them, and neither will the factory they now reside in. Now this means they wont be able to make models from my tools to sell to UK shops, any of my models.

Surely none of this is bad? If you purchased a house, would you protect your investment? (yes a bit trite i know, but a fair analogy) That’s all i’m doing.

In the words of Corporal Jones ‘Dont Panic, Dont Panic’. I am not, and i hope this helps clarify things for everyone.

Please try to see this as a good thing for myself and the industry as a whole, and the opportunities it will now present.

Best to all.

cheers

Dave