DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[LaGrange]

Mr Jones, yesterday. Sent to me by a friend. Not my IP either

[The Fatadder]

On the plus side even if he was correct in thinking that this stopped someone else making a model which was exactly the same shape as his design, at least it will stop other manufactures including those horrid recesses for number plates on GWR locos or the fictional splashers. 

 

Just a shame he didn't include his awful chassis design as well...

[trevor7598]

6 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

On the plus side even if he was correct in thinking that this stopped someone else making a model which was exactly the same shape as his design, at least it will stop other manufactures including those horrid recesses for number plates on GWR locos or the fictional splashers. 

 

Just a shame he didn't include his awful chassis design as well...

Have to agree about the awful chassis design. My Beattie well tank runs, but not smoothly.

And the O2 runs sweetly but can only haul two coaches, it stalls with three.

For comparison the Dapol B4 will haul three coaches with no problem, as will the Hattons P.

[adb968008]

So where does it go from here ?

 

heres my analysis..

 

1. Suppliers alienated.

No access to existing toolings..

presumably everything registered is what’s gone, imho biggest loss is the j94. 

 

2. Retailers alienated

I don’t see much new being delivered recently.

shops don’t put value in suppliers with no supplies.

 

3. Customers Alienated

Crowdfunded models

After what’s happened, will money keep flowing ? - 25 pages in a day suggests no, if the forum is representative. Will what is left still be enough to turn the wheels ? Where is the money ? Remember the whole point of crowdfunding was to bring a product to market faster, the 92 project is now 3 years old.

 

A big part of the problem I feel was the disengagement with crowd funders, who were left at mercy of a growing discontent of comments which went undefended. If that happened in China also, then that could explain why things went south, as it’s clear they use the internet and can read railway forums too and trust dissolve, especially if there’s disagreement and delay.. 3 years is a long time in China too.

 

If there’s a future,I think it it needs a new approach with a lot of openness to those crowdfunders, I think there needs to be a two way dialog between the designer and the funders.. maybe a private Facebook group or something like, where both sides can speak freely, but out of public glare. Indeed some of the best projects bring a 3 way.. Supplier, Designer and Customers.. bringing in the manufacturer into this discussion could go a long way to easing tensions on all sides and bring confidence.

 

Additionally the only route back to the toolings is dialog with those holding them, the worst scenario is without dialog and prevented from sales the toolings could be scrapped. But that may need a new face.

 

so...Revenue first

 

0.  What exists, what’s left when it comes to finances for on going projects. Is it ring fenced for each project etc.

1. A project plan, Trust.. where is the money, when is it spent, on what... A time scale that is a bit more defined than current, a true assessment of the risks.

2. A vote, are people in or out based what’s known.

3. A recount of the costs vs funds vs funding requirement after review of the vote.

4. Options to fill the gap..

Pay more, reopen sales, new routes (retailers ?) or take the funds and do something else (refund, new project, offer to collaborate with another 3rd party etc). Personally I don’t see enough funds, may be shareholders is the new route ?

4. A decision to proceed or abandon on each project based on those now established results and project plan.

 

Finally a neutral party to oversee this, and handle communications, especially on a business level with both the customers and the suppliers. At the end of the day DJ has made good models, has contacts and has had happy customers, any thing can be recovered.

 

Thats my tuppence.

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by adb968008

[ruggedpeak]

The bottom line seems to be DJM has some as yet undefined issues causing them problems. Rather than deal with them professionally behind the scenes DJM has made a big announcement (with a pre-announcement for maximum effect) about nothing. The idea that registering a cad design is some big game-changer in modelling as per release no.1 is probably bonkers. The subsequent responses are entirely reasonable given that DJM deliberately chose to maximise the exposure of this. Due to inexperience or poor judgement DJM failed to realise that all their customers want is quality model trains, not arrogant and uninformed press releases about how DJM is changing the model railway business.

 

Sadly it appears DJM cannot accept that they have not even come close to matching their own hype, and have failed spectacularly to deliver, whilst a host of new entrants have come in and actually delivered amazing new models whilst DJM flounder around.

 

Unless and until DJM can accept they are not in any way at the cutting edge of the sector this nonsense will continue. As someone posted earlier,  DJM need to keep quiet and deliver actual models. DJM have missed the boat in teaching the industry anything,  everyone from Hornby to Cavalex has moved way past DJM.

 

This situation is resolvable but DJM need to get over themselves and do the hard graft of running a business of delivering what customers want - actual models. If not then it won't be the first time hubris has ruined a business.

[Sir TophamHatt]

On 01/05/2019 at 21:53, philiprporter said:

 

On 01 May 2019 at 21:53, philiprporter said:

Well as an APT crowd-funder I have to confess that this is utterly bizarre and just adds to my feelings of unease about whether I will see any return at all on my initial payment.

I suspect [The APT] may never happen now, simply because so many people who, like me, were perhaps nervous and a little miffed about the lack of progress and hanging on in the hope that all may be well - I very much doubt this now.

 

 

I guess nobody signed any contractual agreement they'd pay the whole amount for something like the APT?

 

I wonder what will happen if 80% of people didn't pay any more money towards the model... surely the project couldn't go ahead as there simply won't be enough funds?

 

Does that mean investors will get a refund of their payment?

 

Because if not, would that be inviting court action? Because it's not your problem if not enough people pay the next installments.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Sir TophamHatt

[AY Mod]

15 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

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.

 

It was initially advertised as a joint DToS/DJM project.

 

 

Expressions of interest were originally taken via the DToS website and passed to DJM and customers believed they would be making payments to DToS in convention with any other commissioned project. When I saw that DJM were issuing the deposit invoices (which means the contract is between the customer and DJM which DToS plays no part in) I wrote to DJ on 05 April (2018) with a series of concerns including the lack of T&Cs surrounding the project (from both sides). 

 

15 hours 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?

 

Dave subsequently went on to make amendments to posts with the caveat noted earlier. My system shows the edit dates.

 

 

I had already explained to him the differences between this and other pledge and reward crowdfunding schemes and that this was a conventional transaction which would be covered under the Consumer Rights (2015) Act, under such the customer has rights to a refund if it is within the statutory (14 day) cooling off period or after the goods have been delivered if they were ordered away from the business's premises. In between these periods any dispute would need to focus on any failure to demonstrate progress against agreed timescales. If a business chooses to not refund a customer if a request is made during the process then they may have the law on their side but should consider the impact of reputational damage if a dissatisfied customer makes their experience publicly known.

[Garry D100]

1 hour ago, LaGrange said:

Mr Jones, yesterday. Sent to me by a friend. Not my IP either

 

I nearly spat my breakfast out laughing after seeing that face next to the word intellectual.........oh i love irony 

[Bob Reid]

11 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It was initially advertised as a joint DToS/DJM project.

 

 

Expressions of interest were originally taken via the DToS website and passed to DJM and customers believed they would be making payments to DToS in convention with any other commissioned project. When I saw that DJM were issuing the deposit invoices (which means the contract is between the customer and DJM which DToS plays no part in) I wrote to DJ on 05 April (2018) with a series of concerns including the lack of T&Cs surrounding the project (from both sides). 

 

 

Dave subsequently went on to make amendments to posts with the caveat noted earlier. My system shows the edit dates.

 

 

I had already explained to him the differences between this and other pledge and reward crowdfunding schemes and that this was a conventional transaction which would be covered under the Consumer Rights (2015) Act, under such the customer has rights to a refund if it is within the statutory (14 day) cooling off period or after the goods have been delivered if they were ordered away from the business's premises. In between these periods any dispute would need to focus on any failure to demonstrate progress against agreed timescales. If a business chooses to not refund a customer if a request is made during the process then they may have the law on their side but should consider the impact of reputational damage if a dissatisfied customer makes their experience publicly known.

 

Thanks Andy for clearing that up.  I had thought of purchasing one when first announced but unfortunately was scared off by the thought of crowdfunding (a personal thing). Looking at it afresh, it come across that when you sign up it, it's 4 equal staged payments with what appears to be a guarantee of delivery at the end.  I'll have to look at it again, but the T&C's don't appear on his web site which is a bit concerning.

 

Bob.

[njee20]

2 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Sorry to go a little OT - could someone point me in the direction (or PM, or just reply) a little more about the tooling section?

 

I don't understand how you can own tooling but not be able to produce anything else from it?

If it were me, I'd be looking to ship that tooling (assuming it's a half sensible size) to my house.

Dave’s take on it is that the tooling is being held to ransom by the factory in exchange for monies that are not (and never were) owed. So he can’t get it shipped anywhere because the occupiers of the physical building it is located in won’t release it. 

 

I can’t decide if Dave is the only one to have these issues or if everyone else does, but knuckles down and just resolves it. It’s no one else’s problem. 

 

There was an oddity on his 59 that part of the reason for killing it was that he couldn’t get permissions for most of the liveries, but the company he was suggesting had refused didn’t even own half the relevant companies, IIRC it was Aggregate Industries, but he was saying that excluded ARC and Hanson, which it wouldn’t. Then there’s the “competition” with his 92s, and he's repeatedly talked about new features that never seem to come to fruition. 

 

It’s all symptomatic of over sharing. Calling customers “mate” is the same. They’re not your mates (principally), they’re your customers. As someone said, the clarification should have been the original statement, but it didn’t need saying. If Dave wants to protect his tooling that’s fine, but the general public don’t need to know that, he could’ve avoided the complete farce that this now appears to be. 

 

 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Sorry to go a little OT - could someone point me in the direction (or PM, or just reply) a little more about the tooling section?

 

I don't understand how you can own tooling but not be able to produce anything else from it?

If it were me, I'd be looking to ship that tooling (assuming it's a half sensible size) to my house.

It depends on the definition of own.

You might “own” your house, but until the bank agrees with you, you don’t.

 

Similarly you might think that you own your house without a mortgage, but a ground lease owner may disagree there too.

 

The only way you truly own your house, is if you own the land, and the house and pay your taxes.

 

Whilst the actual story is one we don’t know, it’s clear there’s a difference of opinion. I’m not sure Daves gaff is big enough to look after his toolings, and moving them to/from China isn’t easy, cheap or risk free. But if you fall out with the guy looking after them, it’s not going to be easy.

 

The obvious scenario is he uses his cash end to end and owns the lot with a big cash input, owns a lump of metal, a design in which it’s used, and pay to maintain it. (Owning the Land, House and Taxes)

Maybe another possible scenario is that he might not own the toolings at all, they may have been made to order, using his design, and toolings are leased to him to use each time, a lower initial outlay scenario ? (Leaseholder owns the land, DJ owns the house and paying taxes and ground rent)

 

History is littered with dispute stories like this, one of my favourites is this one...

a $200mn cruise ship for Royal Caribbean being held to ransom for unpaid port fees..

 

https://www.cruise.co.uk/bulletin/independence-of-the-seas-seized-by-bailiffs/

 

closer to home a dispute over money has seen the almost entire demise of an LMS crab..only frames / cylinders remain, and wheels were held by a land owner in a dispute, that ended in a boiler / firebox and tender scrapped.

 

his move on May 1st seems to be one of acceptance they’ve gone but defence to make them worthless to the holder, but unexpectedly doing massive collateral damage in the delivery wording.

Edited May 3, 2019 by adb968008

[dpgibbons]

Quote

I had already explained to him the differences between this and other pledge and reward crowdfunding schemes and that this was a conventional transaction which would be covered under the Consumer Rights (2015) Act, under such the customer has rights to a refund if it is within the statutory (14 day) cooling off period or after the goods have been delivered if they were ordered away from the business's premises.

 

My reading of the lengthy crowdfunding thread on this forum is that all DJM's projects, including those he describes as crowdfunded and at customer's risk, would be subject to the Consumer Rights Act and the protections you describe. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by dpgibbons

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

Sorry to go a little OT - could someone point me in the direction (or PM, or just reply) a little more about the tooling section?

 

I don't understand how you can own tooling but not be able to produce anything else from it?

If it were me, I'd be looking to ship that tooling (assuming it's a half sensible size) to my house.

Possession is 9 points of the law.

 

You may have paid for and "own" the tooling - but getting that tooling out of the hands of a factory in China into someone else's hands is a different story. "So sorry, can't find tool. What tool you say?" 

 

Getting redress against a Chinese factory from a court in China with successful enforcement is another matter. I wouldn't care to fight a lawsuit in the USA against a local party - and that's without a language barrier in a country with a similar legal tradition

 

The tooling would probably require a 20' container to ship

 

In the case of the D600 , Kernow have been explicit throughout that they "own" the tooling. However DJM have effectively registered the design of the tooling of the D600 as Dave Jones' intellectual property

[Bob Reid]

it's perfectly legal to have IP protection of the CAD's, provided you created them.  It gives protection to your work even if the subject you created it of is not yours.

[pheaton]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

I guess nobody signed any contractual agreement they'd pay the whole amount for something like the APT?

 

I wonder what will happen if 80% of people didn't pay any more money towards the model... surely the project couldn't go ahead as there simply won't be enough funds?

 

Does that mean investors will get a refund of their payment?

 

Because if not, would that be inviting court action? Because it's not your problem if not enough people pay the next installments.

 

 

refund? Not always.....

 

as we have seen before with the paypal debacle....(which dave said was due to possible money laundering controls) which if you know how paypal works is entirely possible.....(djmodels is receiving relatively large amounts of money with no product at the time in the opposite direction) dave had to retain some of the investors money to pay the bills....

 

The key difference appears to be that Dave is embarking on cost milestones of each project (CAD etc) without actually having the full compliment of crowdfunders...whereas the other (revolution) i might be wrong but im wondering if they took this cost risk themselves? what that means is he passes the risk on of that milestone to the crowdfunders....because if any model does not reach its required crowdfunders those bills still need to be paid...... what should have happened is the risk for that milestone should be on DJmodels.....rather than the crowdfunders....unless he had the required number of investors in place at the start of the milestones that required payment....which we know for most of his current projects...thats not nearly the case.

 

bear in mind by the way....not sure how many have picked up on this....Dave Jones only owns 50% of djmodels........so there may well be external investors that require returns or have costs attached!

Edited May 3, 2019 by pheaton

[adb968008]

This website is a good background read on a quiet Friday morning..

 

It explains IP relating moulds quite well for the casual reader.

https://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/injection-molds-manufacturing-china/

 

https://www.chinaimportal.com/blog/resolve-supplier-disputes/

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by adb968008

[Bob Reid]

The problem is that we are only aware of the images that have been registered not the descriptive part.  We don't know exactly what has been described in the registration which would explain better what he's asked to be protected using those images to illustrate them.  Full access to the registered design would give us that from the IP office.  At face value he's attempting to protect the visual cues - his way of describing the unique form and features , possibly the form of the assembly of the model, created using his unique methods.  That would prevent anyone else coming along and adopting those exact same forms (therefore implying that they are copies of his design) without reference to him, the holder of the design rights.  Any other company could avoid that unique form and not fall foul of his protections.

 

Bob

[AY Mod]

16 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

In the case of the D600 , Kernow have been explicit throughout that they "own" the tooling. However DJM have effectively registered the design of the tooling of the D600 as Dave Jones' intellectual property

 

Kernow have specifically told me that all computer design work in the CAD software was carried out in China by the manufacturer. DJModels doesn't actually create the CAD. It's notable that other new entrants Accurascale and Cavalex do originate the designs themselves.

[DavidH]

6 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Kernow have specifically told me that all computer design work in the CAD software was carried out in China by the manufacturer. DJModels doesn't actually create the CAD. It's notable that other new entrants Accurascale and Cavalex do originate the designs themselves.

 

It's one of the things that has always bothered me - he isn't a designer in the way I think of one, he's doing a complex and skilled job certainly, but it seems to be more akin to project management than design.

Edited May 3, 2019 by DavidH

[bill_schmidt1]

Maybe its time for DJModels to drop the " Setting higher standards" tag.. 

[Bob Reid]

Quote

Kernow have specifically told me that all computer design work in the CAD software was carried out in China by the manufacturer. DJModels doesn't actually create the CAD. It's notable that other new entrants Accurascale and Cavalex do originate the designs themselves.

 

I don't think Dave has tried to say otherwise.  It is commonplace for the entire design work, requiring CAD's to show the final form and CAM files for the actual cutting of the tools to produce that final form entirely in the factory.  I would doubt Accurascale or Cavalex produce the manufacturing files that create the moulds in house, but only the CAD's showing the item as collection of seperate completed parts that make up the whole.  The factory producing them will be responsible for the actual production / manufacturing files.

[Matt C]

For those just joining this 26 page epic story a warning, you will suffer several groundhog day moments as things get repeated in as many different ways as peeps can come up with so in sommery the story so far.

 

Dave met a barrack room lawyer down the pub who gave him some advice in return for a beer, Dave announced that he would be announcing what he had been advised to do, did or had already done. Dave then tried to shoot himself in the foot in public as he had been advised to do, unfortunately he managed to blow both his bloomin legs off instead, now he doesn't have one to stand on !  Dave revised his announcement to say this was a GOOD thing as now he was much closer to the ground to dig the big hole he finds himself in 

 

Read on if you dare as the story unfolds. . . . . 

 

Dave I admired your get up and go in your trying to bring these models to fruition, and defended you in the past

But. . . But what were you thinking ???

 

Matt

[Legend]

I said I'd stay away , but it is like a car crash, you can't avoid looking .

 

I still can't see why he made the original announcement .   Could it be he was going to announce something else which then fell through and he had to fill the announcement he had pre announced with something? I can't see any other reason to come out with information that really he should have kept to himself.

 

As regards the APT. The whole thing was garbled . You will note from Andys posting , the original intention was an N gauge one .  It was only when he got a lot of people enquiring that OO came on the radar . So it wasn't planned  but a bit of an ad hoc addition . A train that could cost £1000. Subsequently the OO one became the front runner compared to N . So not exactly a thought through business plan.   Then there was the issue of who you were contracting with DToS or DJ , terms and conditions etc    I really fancied an APT, but this "back of fag packet" approach plus the fact my layouts saturated and I didn't think uncoupling and lifting this train on /off layout regularly would be a good idea , really made the decision easy .   I was astounded at the number of people seemingly interested in the full length train and really wondered if that level of disposable cash would be available at the time.  I really wanted to post something saying "are you really sure?" but didn't want to appear pessimistic.

 

I can't see a way  out of this and fear for the future for him and his customers . I think confidence has been so damaged that it will be difficult to recover .  Some may say RMWeb is not representative of the full market. While that may be true of a Hornby customer I think a large proportion of DJM customers are probably on here  and he has alienated many .   The only thing I can think is that some third party comes to manage his business to let him go and do the thing he does best, design trains .  I think confidence is now lost in DJ as a business and it needs that independent third party to restore confidence . But who in their right mind would take this on? 

[Ravenser]

22 minutes ago, Bob Reid said:

it's perfectly legal to have IP protection of the CAD's, provided you created them.  It gives protection to your work even if the subject you created it of is not yours.

 

6 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Kernow have specifically told me that all computer design work in the CAD software was carried out in China by the manufacturer. DJModels doesn't actually create the CAD. It's notable that other new entrants Accurascale and Cavalex do originate the designs themselves.

 

 

So where does that leave DJM registering the CAD as his registered design, where the shape was actually designed by NBL?? 

 

Is this legally valid? Could DJ M register CAD generated by someone else of the Triang Caley 123 - and register that as his design  , creating a claim against Hornby Hobbies for infringement of his IP?

 

Can I register "the shape of St.Pauls cathedral" as my IP if I get hold of a CAD rendering of it and trot down to the Patents Office????

[Scottish-Exile]

As I see it,

1. DJM has spent the money it has already received from crowd funders and the Piggy Bank is dry.
2. Models can’t proceed until he gets funds, i.e. customers pay their next instalment
3. A sizeable number of customers have decided they’ve had enough and already have - or will - bail out.

The above will play out in a continuous vicious cycle

 

For those who have walked, what options  for redress?

• Ask for a refund – I refer you to 1 above
• Seek legal action

 

This last option remains real, especially if a small group got together to apply to bring the claim as a Group litigation Order ( a class action). However, that would cost the Claimants money and there is no guarantee of success.

 

In any event, even if they Won a case, I refer you again to point number 1 above. There is no point suing someone who does not have the money to pay your compensation.

 

So what else? The disgruntled crowd funders could petition to have his business wound up and even see him barred from being a company director for up to 15 years.

 

https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification

 

Reading this thread, there is a spectrum upon which the crowd-funders sit:

• Some have already accepted that their investment has gone down the drain and they have no chance of seeing their money - or a model - again
• Others have said they want to stay on-board out of loyalty

As time drags on (3 years and counting), the former will rapidly take over the latter. In the absence of any dramatic input of funds, then I think either DJM will either dissolve his business or, that decision will be taken for him.

 

Either way – There are NO winners here

 

Just my tuppence worth.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Scottish-Exile
typo