Jump to content

BR Blue

DJM, the end.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, spamcan61 said:

A very sensible viewpoint. Have DJM actually been declared insolvent ?; IANAL but I recall continuing to trade when insolvent is illegal.

It may be that the insolvency process has just begun, they will take control of the website and replace it with something appropriate in due course.

 

Alternatively they may still be establishing if there is a business to salvage hence the website is still up and running - like many other businesses which continue to trade whilst in administration.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Dave was meant to have refunded all deposits taken from Paypal as they view Crowdfunding as risky (seems they were proven correct).

 

If Dave hasn't refunded you already then it may be you were one of the few whose money was already spent.

 

I would raise a case with Paypal and see where it takes you, as they don't support Crowdfunding they might have a mechanism to extract the funds.

 

I never received a refund of my paypal payment. I shall try and pursue the matter with Paypal.

I did contact DJM at the time and he assured me that all was well and he never answered my question asking about the Paypal debacle.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, newbryford said:

 

I never received a refund of my paypal payment. I shall try and pursue the matter with Paypal.

I did contact DJM at the time and he assured me that all was well and he never answered my question asking about the Paypal debacle.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Ditto Mick - I've emailed PayPal to see what the score is - I suspect their '180 days to file a dispute' rule may be cited. 

  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mozzer models said:

I think you will fined the largest creditors will be the customers

Collectively, possibly; but individually, probably not.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens to money paid via Paypal is an interesting question.

 

Paypal is, generally, very buyer-friendly, and will typically refund even against the seller's wishes if they consider it justified (and, often, they do). But the funds in DJM's Paypal account (or any bank account linked to the Paypal account that Paypal can draw on via direct debit) are not the property of Paypal, they are the property of DJM - or, to be more precise, now, the liquidators. Which means that, legally, they have to be used to pay preferential creditors first. Paypal has no right to refund customers using funds belonging to the liquidators if that reduces the amount available for creditors higher up the tree than customers.

 

Fro a legal perspective, therefore, Paypal should freeze DJM's account and allow no transfer of funds into or out of it without the authorisation of the liquidators (or, failing that, a court order). But I don't know if, in, practice, they will actually do that. And it may be that the liquidators will consider it to trivial to be worth pursuing.  

 

Having said that, crowdfunding payments are explicitly excluded from Paypal's "Buyer Protection" scheme, so your chances of getting Paypal to refund them are minimal anyway. Payments made specifically to purchase a model that definitely exists (including, where appropriate, pre-orders) would be covered, but only if the complaint is that the item is not received or is "significantly not as described".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

That all assumes that for the models that never reached production that Dave doesn't owe those companies money for which they might claim ownership of any assets related to that work.

Indeed lets not forget the road to ruin started with the loss of access to the toolings, not forgetting that the some of us thought ship wasn't sailing the right way prior to that.

 

Any salvage of tooling will need the cooperation of the Chinese manufacturers, however they will want to recoup any losses where possible, and their are long established relationship channels with other manufacturers and UK businesses.

So there is hope for the metal work.

 

the CADs will only be valuable if someone is prepared to commit money to metal.. if... but I struggle to see value in a 92 etc.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an entirely different note, I would like to congratulate the creator of this thread for successfully resisting the temptation to indulge in typical journalistic railway cliches in the title. It could so easily have been "DJM, is this the end of the line?" or "DJM - has it hit the buffers?" :)

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see, but not unexpected IMHO. When he cancelled the N gauge class 17 I felt rather pleased with myself for waiting before investing. I found a KATO model virtually identical to the Class 17 some time ago and repainted two into BR colours. Not perfect, but better than nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

What happens to money paid via Paypal is an interesting question.

 

Paypal is, generally, very buyer-friendly, and will typically refund even against the seller's wishes if they consider it justified (and, often, they do). But the funds in DJM's Paypal account (or any bank account linked to the Paypal account that Paypal can draw on via direct debit) are not the property of Paypal, they are the property of DJM - or, to be more precise, now, the liquidators. Which means that, legally, they have to be used to pay preferential creditors first. Paypal has no right to refund customers using funds belonging to the liquidators if that reduces the amount available for creditors higher up the tree than customers.

 

Fro a legal perspective, therefore, Paypal should freeze DJM's account and allow no transfer of funds into or out of it without the authorisation of the liquidators (or, failing that, a court order). But I don't know if, in, practice, they will actually do that. And it may be that the liquidators will consider it to trivial to be worth pursuing.  

 

Having said that, crowdfunding payments are explicitly excluded from Paypal's "Buyer Protection" scheme, so your chances of getting Paypal to refund them are minimal anyway. Payments made specifically to purchase a model that definitely exists (including, where appropriate, pre-orders) would be covered, but only if the complaint is that the item is not received or is "significantly not as described".

Paypal froze his account last year, he was only able to refund deposits and not transfer the money elsewhere - however it appear some of the money had already been spent before the freeze so Dave made a decision that rather than give every one a partial refund he would refund some people in full and others got nothing.

 

Whether you could argue that Paypal were in breach by not spotting the account's usage earlier and putting a stop to it I don't know.

 

Raising a dispute though with Paypal is the only way to find if there is a means of resolution open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Paypal froze his account last year, he was only able to refund deposits and not transfer the money elsewhere - however it appear some of the money had already been spent before the freeze so Dave made a decision that rather than give every one a partial refund he would refund some people in full and others got nothing.

 

Whether you could argue that Paypal were in breach by not spotting the account's usage earlier and putting a stop to it I don't know.

 

Raising a dispute though with Paypal is the only way to find if there is a means of resolution open.

Sadly a 6 month cutoff , on Paypal refunds. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still raise it with them and see what they say. Given they 'flagged' Dave's account you may find things are different, although yes, that is certainly their default time limit. Depending on how you funded the payment I'd also raise with your card provider as was discussed on the previous page. 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly PayPal came straight back - even though I paid with credit card on PayPal, the 180 cutoff clearly delivers an automated 'no'. The credit card chargeback route may still be available I guess, but that will take a direct call to PayPal I suspect - plus a letter to the card provider. 

  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, philiprporter said:

Sadly PayPal came straight back - even though I paid with credit card on PayPal, the 180 cutoff clearly delivers an automated 'no'. The credit card chargeback route may still be available I guess, but that will take a direct call to PayPal I suspect - plus a letter to the card provider. 

 

I had a similar automated reply, but it did say to reply to them if this wasn't the answer.

 

That I have done, citing Paypal's initiation of the crowdfund refund.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree with Phil Parker on this one, and here's my (very) recent experience of the same thing.

 

Company goes to the insolvency practitioner who will go through assets, money in bank etc etc, and then draw up an reason for insolvency. Once this has been done, HMRC will indeed be a priority, along with any SECURED creditors. Any customers will be unsecured creditors and therefore be at the bottom of the pile. Given the fact that the Company doesn't have any assets as such, or cash, this makes things a little awkward as there won't be anything to claim from - we had a Company go under recently owing us tens of thousands of pounds, which almost wiped out our business. 

 

*edit* I have no idea where the PayPal / Crowd Funding Money went but if it was in a 'ring fenced' account, then that may have some bearing on the outcome.

 

It's sad news for a lot of people, but this happens many times with business ventures.

Edited by scoobyra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check your insurance to see if it has legal protection. If so you might be able to use it to get money back.

(I used mine once for a hotel charge, though nothing to do with DJM nor trains).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed-farms said:

Presumably in all this the company assets will be sold to pay some of the debts - not sure what in terms of equipment in their old UK offices will be such as computers and phones etc. But obviously the tooling in China will be classed as such, so mermaids and sharks will hopefully be bought by someone who can produce from them such as Dapol, its matters such as the King and 92 which will now having not be tooled have nothing to produce from, even then those who ordered Kings (I had 2 ordered myself and had paid 50% deposit for each) and 92's will certainly be left without models now

That's assuming the factories are not owed any money - in which case they might well decide to take possession of any DJM tooling (which doesn't amount to very much when you think about it) in leu of the debt being cleared.   An interesting question then arises about what they might do with that tooling especially in the light of reports that a factory he used previously has in the past sought UK customers to take on models from DJM tooling.  The important thing in all of this is that DJM customers' tooling is secured by them outwith any claim against DJM although I have been led to believe, from various sources, that is already the case.

 

As for models which have not (seemingly) thus far been tooled - such as the 'King' and Class 92 the only 'what if' is about ownership of the .STL file.  If the factory has that ownership there would appear on the face of things to be nothing to stop them using it, should they wish, to create the tooling and produce the model under some other label - irrespective of who has paid what towards it.   

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Or someone buys the IP for a nominal amount from the creditors, who has a good working with relationship with China already established.. and in which case can turn something from the tooling in their own name.

Sadly though it wont be an APT or a 92, more likely Class 17, J94 and some N gauge wagons. 

 

As for CADs.. I wouldn't hold much out for anyone wanting them, probably one for the back burner.

However it might take a long time, and I doubt there's too much rush from anyone, especially if one sets price high and the other sets price low.

 

Looks like it's the end, best buy your DJ J94 / Class 71 now they might become rare.

But what use is the IP to anybody?  What counts - where it exists - is ownership of the .STL file and ownership of any tooling (or any debts outstanding in respect of the tooling - if it has actually been carried out).  We don't know who owns either of those in the case of DJM 'own label' models although we do know in respect of earlier models that the factory has the tooling.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from Phils comments above that CG&Co haven't been appointed yet (as what, administrators, receivers, liquidators?) ,is there a danger we might have jumped the gun here ?  While we have suspicions do we know the actual status of the company ?  In such circumstances it might be best to refrain from further comment until this is known , for fear of actually making the position worse . Its a bit like initiating a run on the bank in some ways .   Having said that I think its fair to warn anyone considering placing an order that there are uncertainties over the status of the company. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Legend said:

In such circumstances it might be best to refrain from further comment

 

What a lovely idea...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not sure of the relevance but as recently as 14th May Dave was indicating that the APT-P project is still active.  This is an e mail he sent me in response to my request the previous day for an update on timescale.

 

Quote

From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>


Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:50:48 PM
To: Colin McLeod
Subject: Re: APT-P oo version

 

Hi Colin,

 

coming up on 5m here, and i'm confused? i have posted nothing on any forums, except a place holder on my web site saying i would be away (and i need to update that as the trip is taking longer than expected).

 

I've always said that i wont be invoicing for APT deposit 2-4 until the milestones have been reached..... milestone for deposit 2 is a signoff on the design for tooling to begins, milestone for deposit 3 is the 2nd ep tooking, and milestone 4 for production.

 

China are currently sweating to my demands (hence the trip) as to getting the coaches 3-6 sorted and i am snagging as they go along.

 

It could be a month for the 2nd deposit request, or it could be 3 months. The trouble is, that this is the most complcated OO train produced and is detail ridden, and feature packed and it needs to be right. 

 

Glad theres a starbucks downstairs and i'm off for some caffiene.

 

Hope your well?

cheers

Dave

Edited by Colin_McLeod
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Not sure of the relevance but as recently adas 14th May Dave was indicating that the APT-P project is still active.  This is an e mail he sent me in response to my request the previous day for an update on timescale.

 

 

 

He may have honestly believed at that date his business was still solvent, what we don't know is who he owes money too that might have forced his latest move.  Or he simply may have been doing what any business would and keep on regardless until there is no alternative, you certainly don't post bad news about your finances unless you have to.

 

Lets wait and see what comes out later in the week from CG & Co.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, woodenhead said:

He may have honestly believed at that date his business was still solvent, what we don't know is who he owes money too that might have forced his latest move.  Or he simply may have been doing what any business would and keep on regardless until there is no alternative, you certainly don't post bad news about your finances unless you have to.

Or he may have other reasons to contact CG, such as advice on turnaround.

 

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Lets wait and see what comes out later in the week from CG & Co.

+1

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phone number on his website was "Not recognised" when I rang it a few minutes ago.

 

07923 867847

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, truffy said:

Or he may have other reasons to contact CG, such as advice on turnaround.

 

+1

One can contact CG purely for advice but changing your registered address to theirs is another matter.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.