DJM, the end.

[Yorkshire Square]

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

The London Gazette  contains the notice DJ Models are in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation,  ie the Company  Director(s) of DJ Models have chosen to  liquidate as opposed to debtors who petition to liquidate

 

Nearly, but not quite right. A CVL will be instigated by the directors and approved by the shareholders. The liquidator will, amongst other things, keep creditors appraised and where appropriate involve them in decision making. If you have made a £30 deposit on a model, he is unlikely to be seeking your opinion.

 

An alternative is a Compulsory Liquidation which may be brought by a creditor (not a debtor - that is someone who owes money) who is owed over a certain threshold. In this instance there are various criteria to be met and the credit must make application to the courts.

 

A CVL is often applied for by a company to forestall a Compulsary Liquidation application by a creditor.

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Anyone care to explain how any of this relates to the DJM situation this thread is about?

 

Not overly much Phil, only in so far as there can be lots of mitigations beyond incompetence as to why companies fail. Unfortunately it seems that whilst we are not in full possession of facts as to the DJ failure, assuming it was all down to mismanagement may be a bit harsh.

Roy

[Hot.In.Sing]

1 minute ago, Roy Langridge said:

Do you run a business? From your statements I am assuming not.

 

When you run a business you rely on others to do their job and you cannot be an expert in every field. For example, chartered accountants have been responsible for a fair few failures over the years - do you expect every business boss to be as equally well versed in accountancy law as somebody who hold qualifications? In law, the business owner is still liable as the accountant is an agent of the company, but you will find many cases online of the accountancy firms having to pay out on these failings. Sadly, the damage may already have been done at that point.

 

For us, the challenges have been vast. My business in in aviation law and compliance. Whilst working in this field (not all of it with my company) we have had to face: 2 Gulf Wars, the Balkan crisis, SARS, 9/11, the European Banking crisis, introduction of the Euro - all of which have had major negative influences on the business. We have watched competitors and companion organisations fail to those events.

 

Yes, many failures are bad to bad planning, or indeed a dumb idea in the first place  - selling ice cubes to the Eskimos etc. But to suggest "all" or even  "usually" is pushing it.

 

Roy

 

Yes, I own my own Ltd company. Though I'd concede its a simple one, and that dealing with the virtually unending amount of Admin is painful.

 

As I think you agree legal reality is that if you sign off the accounts you are responsible for them. You can divorce yourself as much as you want from that morally, but legally I think you are on the hook ?

 

You cite a whole bunch of items that have (marginally) affected overall growth in the airline industry. I would assume you won't be surprised when the next one occurs, because you know you need to plan for the unknowns ? Because they just keep happening.....

 

As for the suggestion you might rely on your accountants to get things right - I assume you are joking ?  (apologies to the accountants viewing)

 

[H2O]

If DJ models has gone belly up it does not seem to be reflected in the website djmodels.co.uk where you appear to be able to send money. I'd of thought by now it would say "presently suspended" or "not accepting new interest" while they sort out what may happen to what is left of the business.

Edited June 7, 2019 by H2O
typo & quotes added

[Phil Parker]

All of this suggests everyone has run out of relevant things to talk about. I don't recall DJM being involved in the airline industry or selling cakes.

 

I'm not given to locking threads unless I have to, but this one is generating lots of waffle right now yet needs constant attention it seems. 

[truffy]

1 minute ago, H2O said:

If DJ models has gone belly up it does not seem to be reflected in the website djmodels.co.uk where you appear to be able to send money. I'd by now it would say presently suspended or not accepting new interest while they sort out what may happen to what is left?

This was addressed earlier in the thread by woodenhead.

The answer appears to be that no money can be taken (I haven't tried it though!)

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, H2O said:

If DJ models has gone belly up it does not seem to be reflected in the website djmodels.co.uk where you appear to be able to send money. I'd by now it would say presently suspended or not accepting new interest while they sort out what may happen to what is left?

 According to an earlier poster, you can't pay. The site hasn't been updated apart from this despite suggestions we would have something a couple of days ago.

[Roy Langridge]

I found this advice: https://www.gov.uk/register-creditor-bankruptcy 

 

I have not seen anybody else post this - if they have I apologise. 

 

Roy

[H2O]

I'd of thought the new owners (liquidators) are obliged to ensure any remaining publicity is accurate. If you look at the 'official' website you would not know anything had changed, e.g. if you were an investor and wanted to see what the company was up to (and wasn't looking on this website).

[Phil Parker]

6 minutes ago, H2O said:

I'd of thought the new owners (liquidators) are obliged to ensure any remaining publicity is accurate. If you look at the 'official' website you would not know anything had changed, e.g. if you were an investor and wanted to see what the company was up to (and wasn't looking on this website).

 

The firm handling this are professionals. I'd assume they know what legally needs to be done and when. A website update would be desirable, and may be in progress. 

[Yakcamp]

  I would like to thank DJM for my two BR Class 71’s one via the crowdfunding the other via ‘Kernow,  also the Kernow push pull gated stock.  The 71 imho has minor faults, and so  does the spoiler Hornby version .

  I feel that Dave has lost a whole lot more than us, possibly not collectively.  

  I wish him well In the dark place he may be in currently,  and a  speedy return to developing the model rail industry we are all, so so passionate about. 

[lyneux]

Could the crowd finders be seen as debitors and the remaining payment instalments called in by the liquidators to settle debts to the creditors?

[Roy Langridge]

1 minute ago, lyneux said:

Could the crowd finders be seen as debitors and the remaining payment instalments called in by the liquidators to settle debts to the creditors?

 

Unlikely, we were only debtors in return for a model which we are now not getting. Further, as each payment was identified against key project milestones, if they were to try that I would have my lawyer on the case quickly as the milestone was not reached and, therefore, I was not a debtor for it.

 

Roy

[Crantock]

I would hope that as a hobby we can be understanding about this.  DJ has tried to to something and has ultimately not succeeded.  I have lost nothing others have lost amounts that by the nature of the hobby they could do without.  DJ will have lost more.

 

No doubt in time he will have something to say but lets remember there is a man and a family out there.  Lets be supportive at this stressful time and lets not hound him out of an hobby that has been his life.

[dogbox321]

Maybe the IP thing was a way to protect value in tooling, cad-cam etc..  I suppose whilst the business owns the work, what rights do those who paid for it have? (I'm expecting none).

 

In hindsight (a wonderful thing!), I'm annoyed that I went for a small fleet of Class 92's (via credit card), and exceptionally thankful that I never re-paid my APT money! 

 

Its not the amount of money that I think people are wholly annoyed about, but the fact that they trusted an entity with experience in the industry with their hard earned cash, and that once a project passed its viability point, and then with payments made, then it "should" have continued forward as a progressive project. 

 

Likewise,  regarding the "lost money" - is anyone telling their other half?  I think the reply would be, "Well your not risking buying anymore model trains...."

 

 Regards,

 

C.

Edited June 7, 2019 by dogbox321
More concise

[Matt C]

If the other half attacks just ask them how many clothes, shoes, handbags, jewellery they bought in the last year . . They back down fast , 

 

Crowdfunding. . If you cant afford to lose it   DONT spend it.

 

Phil,  make that TWO large bottles of a half decent brew he owes you. . Sneaky begger must have had inside information of the chaos that was coming   

[96701]

2 hours ago, dogbox321 said:

but the fact that they trusted an entity with experience in the industry with their hard earned cash,

 

How do you know that my cash is hard earned? 

[GWR-fan]

Something that the DJM failure has shown us is that as well as being a businessman,  a crowdfunded manufacturer needs to respect all individuals, not just those who personally pledge funds. It would seem that Dave had a Jekyll and Hyde personality and one moment an individual was treated with disdain and the next moment he was his "mate".  Hard questions were ignored and finally Dave went offline to all discussion.

 

Another crowdfunder has a similar attitude to the public.  He continues to claim anonymity, has disabled access to the recent visitors block on his personal profile page, ignores pertinent questions other than from those expressing financial interest in his project and has only revealed a minor part of his past history in the hobby after questions were asked several times as to his business acumen.  While claiming anonymity he is wanting funders to place their trust in him.  I am not inferring any criticism as to the success of his project but merely pointing out that a manufacturer relying on crowdfunded support needs to be very frank and open with his funders, including his past experience as well as regular communication with the public.  If an order book is still open then any individual is a potential crowdfunder,  not just those who have already committed financially to a project.  I do find it odd that so many crowdfunders are willing to "invest" their money in a standalone project in that a manufacturer is basically unwilling to reveal either his identity or his past experience in dealing with such a complicated project.  Personally,  I would not touch such a project with a long pole as there are too many red flags,  but for the sake of those who have provided funds for the project I sincerely hope that it succeeds.

[Ian Hargrave]

8 hours ago, Yakcamp said:

  I would like to thank DJM for my two BR Class 71’s one via the crowdfunding the other via ‘Kernow,  also the Kernow push pull gated stock.  The 71 imho has minor faults, and so  does the spoiler Hornby version .

  I feel that Dave has lost a whole lot more than us, possibly not collectively.  

  I wish him well In the dark place he may be in currently,  and a  speedy return to developing the model rail industry we are all, so so passionate about. 

 

There are a number of us who will take issue with you with his Class 71.I have two,one of them being  a Hattons Golden Arrow version. Both models are noisy and chronically underpowered in contrast to the Hornby version which has superior performance .We have no knowledge in any case of either version acting as a spoiler for the other.Do you ? 

[Roy Langridge]

Since the DJ failure there have been a number of people indicating they knew of red flags at the beginning, when others did not. 

 

Why then are we perpetuating such risks by talking about “another crowdfunder”? There is no harm or legal issue with saying “this is what concerns me with the X project...” As long as it is factual (e.g. we don”t know who they are and they have locked their recent visitors), I see no problem with sharing such concerns.

 

I have posted this after GWR+fan”s post but not quoted it as it is only one of several that have used reference to  other unnamed ventures.

 

Roy

Edited June 8, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[NaN]

8 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The firm handling this are professionals. I'd assume they know what legally needs to be done and when. A website update would be desirable, and may be in progress. 

Having made contact with the firm, they have confirmed that they need to notify creditors within 28 days of appointment and will soon be sending out the relevant notices.  A proof of debt form together with a questionnaire will be contained within that correspondence.

 

They have no further information at this stage to share including whether there’s any likely dividend to any creditor.

[Gibbo675]

6 hours ago, 96701 said:

 

How do you know that my cash is hard earned? 

Hi Phil,

 

I quite agree for if hard work was good for you the rich and greedy would have kept it for themselves !!!

 

Gibbo.

[Meld9003]

59 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 

There are a number of us who will take issue with you with his Class 71.I have two,one of them being  a Hattons Golden Arrow version. Both models are noisy and chronically underpowered in contrast to the Hornby version which has superior performance .We have no knowledge in any case of either version acting as a spoiler for the other.Do you ? 

 

After letting Hornby take a kicking on here over the Class 71 duplication, Dave admitted a few months later that he had known the loco was on their to do list... Basically, he tried to poach it from them and got the crowd funders to take the risk

[DY444]

12 hours ago, Yakcamp said:

  I would like to thank DJM for my two BR Class 71’s one via the crowdfunding the other via ‘Kernow,  also the Kernow push pull gated stock.  The 71 imho has minor faults, and so  does the spoiler Hornby version .

  I feel that Dave has lost a whole lot more than us, possibly not collectively.  

  I wish him well In the dark place he may be in currently,  and a  speedy return to developing the model rail industry we are all, so so passionate about. 

 

Unless you were privy to Hornby's confidential commercial plans and internal discussions for the period in question I don't see how you can possibly know with any certainty that their 71 was a spoiler.  If DJM scanned the prototype first it doesn't mean Hornby didn't already have it on their development roadmap.  Hornby do have a history of SE electric prototypes (eg Networker, Javelin, Eurostar, HAL) and so it seems to me that a 71 is not a completely left field choice of prototype for them.   Also the 71 is a strange model to pick a fight over compared to the more mainstream and popular Terrier and 66 and so I see no parallels with Hornby's well documented attempts to upstage what Rails and Hattons were doing.   I also have to say I find it difficult to believe that Hornby perceived DJM to be a serious threat to their business and so without compelling evidence I remain unconvinced that it was anything other than a coincidence. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by DY444
Correcting typos

[Phil Parker]

Considering the development timescales and costs for a new RTR locomotive, no company will deliberatly put out a "spoiler" duplicate model. It makes absolutely no sense financially, even if the concept was practical. When duplication happens, it's just bad luck.