DJM, the end.

[Phil Parker]

I would suggest that we let the professional liquidators decide what they are going to do first.

 

If someone is desperate to arrange a meeting then all you have at the moment is a room full of angry people with no plan and no idea what the next step is, a bit like this thread if I'm honest. They would have the added joy of having shelled out money to travel that they won't get back either.

 

The liquidators will need to form a plan - I strongly suspect that they have already done this sort of thing before and don't want or need our advice on doing their jobs.

 

If you can't wait for the people handling this to come up with suggestions then head off and organise your posse, but not with the assistance of RMweb. Quite what the rush is though, everyone was perfectly content to wait an indeterminate time for Dave to deliver something, now you're tripping over yourselves to start a new process.

[spikey]

Speaking as somebody who once served his time as the UK moderator of a very "lively" international forum, I would like to place on record my admiration for the way in which the bold Mr Parker is keeping a grip on this thread.  Verily, he's doing a grand job. 

 

When the dust finally settles, I vote we have a whip round and buy the poor chap a drink.

[Scottish-Exile]

2 minutes ago, spikey said:

When the dust finally settles, I vote we have a whip round and buy the poor chap a drink.

 

Crowdfunded?

[Ravenser]

This is one crowd-funding I might sign up for

[County of Yorkshire]

Hmm, all picked up 'as part of a job lot'...

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

Surely a creditors' representative on a creditors' committee is not there to be impartial but to represent the creditors' interests.

 

I put that badly. I believe different crowdfunders are going to have different views of what is acceptable. By impartial I meant amongst the crowdfunders, not between crowdfunders and the liquidators.

Roy

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

I would suggest that we let the professional liquidators decide what they are going to do first.

 

If someone is desperate to arrange a meeting then all you have at the moment is a room full of angry people with no plan and no idea what the next step is, a bit like this thread if I'm honest. They would have the added joy of having shelled out money to travel that they won't get back either.

 

The liquidators will need to form a plan - I strongly suspect that they have already done this sort of thing before and don't want or need our advice on doing their jobs.

 

If you can't wait for the people handling this to come up with suggestions then head off and organise your posse, but not with the assistance of RMweb. Quite what the rush is though, everyone was perfectly content to wait an indeterminate time for Dave to deliver something, now you're tripping over yourselves to start a new process.

 

I fully agree there, which is why I have now clarified what I mean by impartial in one of my posts. If we, the crowdfunders, could appoint a representative that was impartial, but who would represent us, that would take emotion out of any discussions with the liquidators.

Roy

[Colin_McLeod]

If crowdfunders are creditors, then that's the way the liquidators will treat them. I.e. to maximise how much, if any, money that's owed to them will they get.

 

If crowdfunders are investors, then the liquidators will probably determine that they are not owed anything until after all creditors are paid in full. Since none of us have got any investors agreement that states what return we should expect (other than the models that are now cancelled) then if any money is left it will go to the shareholders of the company.

 

If crowdfunders want money back then I suspect  we should be considered creditors.

 

Separate all of the above from any dreams of getting a King, 92, APT or whatever. Those dreams are now over for DJmodels.  What happens to the assets that could be used to complete the models depends on who they are sold to, not the creditors.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Colin_McLeod
typo

[Stoker]

1 hour ago, Scottish-Exile said:

 

Crowdfunded?

 

It's just the name:

 

"Limited run pre-order only crowdfunded IPA".

 

It's a small batch, naturally.

[Roy Langridge]

26 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

If crowdfunders are creditors, then that's the way the liquidators will treat them. I.e. to maximise how much, if any, money that's owed to them will they get.

 

If crowdfunders are investors, then the liquidators will probably determine that they are not owed anything until after all creditors are paid in full. Since none of us have got any investors agreement that states what return we should expect (other than the models that are now cancelled) then if any money is left it will go to the shareholders of the company.

 

If crowdfunders want money back then I suspect  we should be considered creditors.

 

Separate all of the above from any dreams of getting a King, 92, APT or whatever. Those dreams are now over for DJmodels.  What happens to the assets that could be used to complete the models depends on who they are sold to, not the creditors.

 

I ordered an APT from DToS at a time when the website made no mention of crowdfunding, just that it was being developed in conjunction with DJM. It said to place a pre-order and if enough people are interested a deposit would be asked for. Be interesting if they tried to claim I was not a creditor.

 

Roy

Edited June 10, 2019 by Roy Langridge
typo

[wellseasoned]

18 minutes ago, Stoker said:

 

It's just the name:

 

"Limited run pre-order only crowdfunded IPA".

 

It's a small batch, naturally.

Small beer then

[Roy Langridge]

2 hours ago, spikey said:

Speaking as somebody who once served his time as the UK moderator of a very "lively" international forum, I would like to place on record my admiration for the way in which the bold Mr Parker is keeping a grip on this thread.  Verily, he's doing a grand job. 

 

When the dust finally settles, I vote we have a whip round and buy the poor chap a drink.

 

When the dust settles I will gladly buy Phil a drink or two without a whip round. He is doing an immense job in very difficult circumstances.

Roy

Edited June 10, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[Yorkshire Square]

Word to the wise.

 

I’d suggest anybody who thinks they might be entitled to any money to put a written, evidenced, claim to the liquidator immediately. Don’t rely on the records of DJ Models to evidence what you might be owed.

 

Then forget about it. Go drink beer or do some modelmaking or even take the better half out to dinner. Anything other than worrying this subject like an old bone.

 

Whatever extra you might recover by “getting involved “ will not be worth the effort and it’s highly likely you will get no more than if you put your claim in and walk away.

 

That, I believe is the top and bottom of it.

[Legend]

I suspect Yorkshire Square is correct . I suppose it depends how much you invested . But I think you should log your claim and go away and do something else. If you get something back  great , but don’t let it eat you up.  And if DJ turns up again , don’t touch with a barge pole. 

[steve45]

I doubt if there will be crowdfunded projects for a long time after this, let us learn a lesson here. 

 

IMHO its ok to pay a deposit to secure an order, but the project should be funded by the manufacturer, it makes them hungry to finish the project as they are personally at risk. Crowdfunding shifts this hunger to the customer, therefore the manufacturer has less incentive to deliver and the customer is only too eager to throw more money at the project as they believe this will be the means by which they will obtain their model.

[friscopete]

Can I sue Jones for the extreme angst and distress cause by this thread .I dont have any thing on order but its become addictive and corrosive just reading it all .Its full of bile .hate .common sense and bad acting .A bit like East Enders I gather.I think i will start smoking again just to calm down .

[truffy]

3 minutes ago, steve45 said:

I doubt if there will be crowdfunded projects for a long time after this

There are good and bad crowdfunded projects. Some projects are already ongoing. The outcome depends on many factors that have been discussed here and elsewhere on RMWeb...and elsewhere elsewhere!

3 minutes ago, steve45 said:

 Crowdfunding shifts this hunger to the customer, therefore the manufacturer has less incentive to deliver and the customer is only too eager to throw more money at the project as they believe this will be the means by which they will obtain their model.

I don't think that is at all thr case for projects that are properly managed. The problem with DJM was not crowdfunding, but the lack of proper project (and business) management.

[steve45]

8 minutes ago, truffy said:

'but the lack of proper project (and business) management'

 

Actually I think you have just qualified my statement, if it had been his own money he would have had more incentive to seek professional help to  manage the business when things started to go wrong. It doesn't hurt so much if its someone else's money.

[Grovenor]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

I ordered an APT from DToS at a time when the website made no mention of crowdfunding, just that it was being developed in conjunction with DJM. It said to place a pre-order and if enough people are interested a deposit would be asked for. Be interesting if they tried to claim I was not a creditor.

 

Roy

Then, if your pre-order involved paying money to DToS you should be claiming your money back from them. If you only paid when the deposit was requested, then your claim is on whoever you paid. The liquidator will need evidence that you paid DJM Models, not DToS and not Mr David Jones personally.

[steve45]

6 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Then, if your pre-order involved paying money to DToS you should be claiming your money back from them. If you only paid when the deposit was requested, then your claim is on whoever you paid. The liquidator will need evidence that you paid DJM Models, not DToS and not Mr David Jones personally.

 

Agreed, the claim should be against whoever you paid, your contract is with them. If DToS subsequently paid money to DJM then they will be DJM's creditor, not you.

[roythebus]

On 04/06/2019 at 13:39, Legend said:

HMRC are always preferential creditors , so get paid first . Depends what Dave has shelled out but customers might get some refunds, assuming the worst has happened.

 

This is not good but the writing was on the wall even before his infamous statement

 

However, spare a thought for Dave . While people may have lost money on this , he seems to have disappeared . I hope he is OK.

HMRC have not been preferential creditors for a number of years. All creditors are dealt with equally. But, if there's no cahs and no assets to be realised, then nobody will get anything.

The first people to get money back if there is any to have back are the insolvency practitioners. I know from bitter experience when a bus company I was involved in was shut down. As there were very few assets the liquidators got virtually nothing and it took them over 15 years to finally close the company. At least with the company I was with it was a priority to make sure the staff were paid first and funds from the main county council covered all the outstanding wages, but not redundancy or outstanding holiday pay. The government covered that. People think there will be an angry creditors meeting, well it just doesn't happen. Creditors will be asked to stake their claim and a meeting will be held. the one i was involved in had 4 creditors there. Good luck to one and all.

[brianCAD]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes your final point is in my view a very important reason why the crowdfunders need to make sure they make their presence know to the liquidator.  While they are presumably unsecured creditors and right at the end of any queue making their presence known might be useful for them if near worthless 'assets' such as CADs without .STL files come under consideration.

 

Mike (Stationmaster),

 

I'm puzzled by your constant references to .STL files - and that they have value (very limited in my view).

   

STL files are a byproduct format ex CAD, used primarily for 3D printing processes.  The files are no more than a mesh of triangles, which if not saved at a high resolution can significantly degrade the information contained in the vastly more valuable originating CAD file, comprised of vector information.  Perhaps they could be likened to a pixelated reproduction of a line drawing (which they are when the triangles are shaded) ?

 

While an STL file can transfer data as a "dumb solid" (and might be used where a designer was required to conceal how a design was arrived at), the vector data of CAD files is the real McCoy for the generation of G code CAM data for any CNC work, and that is where the value lies.

 

  

[Roy Langridge]

8 hours ago, Grovenor said:

Then, if your pre-order involved paying money to DToS you should be claiming your money back from them. If you only paid when the deposit was requested, then your claim is on whoever you paid. The liquidator will need evidence that you paid DJM Models, not DToS and not Mr David Jones personally.

 

I didn't paid any money to DToS. As I said I placed an order with them for a 14-car APT with only mention of a deposit being due later if enough orders were received. My point was that at the point of ordering (i.e. when the contract was formed) there was no mention of crowdfunding.

 

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20171201161322/http://durhamtrainsofstanley.co.uk/my_store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=371

 

Roy

[Colin_McLeod]

My understanding of contract law is that there has to be an agreed consideration (price) and a commitment to provide the goods.  Neither of these conditions wete met at that point so no contract at that point.

[Joseph_Pestell]

51 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

My understanding of contract law is that there has to be an agreed consideration (price) and a commitment to provide the goods.  Neither of these conditions wete met at that point so no contract at that point.

 

When the "consideration" (payment) is made is not material to a contract being in existence.

 

DToS made an "offer". RL "accepted"  and a "consideration" was set. Ergo - a contract.

 

There was, presumably, a similar contract between DJM and DToS.