Jump to content

pheaton

DJM - Statement of Affairs released

AY Mod

Can you please keep posts on topic. Off-topic content is being removed.

Message added by AY Mod

Recommended Posts

 
1 hour ago, Richard E said:

 

But a directors guarantee supported by a second mortgage on the house is supported by that claim. The second mortgage doesn't mean he has borrowed against the house but has put up his equity in the property to support the company. The lender and the guarantor sign a mortgage deed that means the lender has a claim on the equity in the property if the guarantor fails to pay up under the terms of the guarantee.

 

The bottom line is that, in all likelihood, there is a lender out there with a second mortgage over DJ's house.

 

The "David Jones" creditor line on the statement of affairs says nothing about director's anything - is that significant, or is it always assumed that because the named person is a director then it is a director's loan/guarantee?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Working on past posts from DJ

 

The 'King' wasn't fully subscribed but a trade order (Digitrains) 'has pushed it over the line'

I'm not sure about the Cass 92 but the implication of various posts was that there was sufficient crowdfunder support to proceed with the project. 

The 00 APT was definitely stated to have not only achieved the required number of crowdfunders but had a 10% surplus above the number needed.

 

That's a summary of what was said and the actual position might of course differ (even considerably).

 

The OO APT initially had the numbers plus a small buffer to cover for folk dropping out.  Then we had all the negativity on the forum, coupled to the PAyPal withdrawing their permission to use their service.  Then after the money had been refunded, just over half continued to be crowdfunders in the project.  

 

From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, which was the point I realised that i’d Probably never see the the model and my deposit was as good as lost.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidH said:

 

The "David Jones" creditor line on the statement of affairs says nothing about director's anything - is that significant, or is it always assumed that because the named person is a director then it is a director's loan/guarantee?

 

The statement of affairs is as supplied by DJ - it cannot be relied upon, at this point in time, as a definitive document until the liquidators have properly proved the position. I am not saying it has happened but it is conceivable that any guarantee and supporting security has been 'forgotten'.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Andy Mac said:

 

The OO APT initially had the numbers plus a small buffer to cover for folk dropping out.  Then we had all the negativity on the forum, coupled to the PAyPal withdrawing their permission to use their service.  Then after the money had been refunded, just over half continued to be crowdfunders in the project.  

 

From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, which was the point I realised that i’d Probably never see the the model and my deposit was as good as lost.

This alsmost feels like your blaming the forum and PayPal for all this.

 

The negativity about his filing his accounts was valid and he should have thought about the impact of using a personal PayPal account for processing hundreds/thousands of pounds in deposits.

 

Whether by ineptitude or design Dave was the architect of his downfall

  • Like 1
  • Agree 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Andy Mac said:

 

The OO APT initially had the numbers plus a small buffer to cover for folk dropping out.  Then we had all the negativity on the forum, coupled to the PAyPal withdrawing their permission to use their service.  Then after the money had been refunded, just over half continued to be crowdfunders in the project.  

 

From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, which was the point I realised that i’d Probably never see the the model and my deposit was as good as lost.

I realise neither of us have the numbers to back up the statements but I do not recall a huge amount of people saying they were not going to reinvest from memory I think he needed 300 orders and finished with about 168 ish. I don't believe he had the numbers in the first place but hoped to pick more up as the project continued or use funds from other projects to make up the numbers but I have no proof of this.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Mac said:

 

The OO APT initially had the numbers plus a small buffer to cover for folk dropping out.  Then we had all the negativity on the forum, coupled to the PAyPal withdrawing their permission to use their service.  Then after the money had been refunded, just over half continued to be crowdfunders in the project.  

 

From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, which was the point I realised that i’d Probably never see the the model and my deposit was as good as lost.

 

22 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

This alsmost feels like your blaming the forum and PayPal for all this.

 

The negativity about his filing his accounts was valid and he should have thought about the impact of using a personal PayPal account for processing hundreds/thousands of pounds in deposits.

 

Whether by ineptitude or design Dave was the architect of his downfall

 

Quite.

 

If after the PayPal debacle and the re-funding via a proper account there were less than 200 commitments for the APT (against a likely target of 400) it should have been blindingly obvious that the project had failed, and the plug should have been pulled, and the money returned (less bank charges).

 

Under £200K in total funding (after 4 calls) would never have produced a RTR APT

 

I'm not sure the basis for the recollection that almost half of the crowd-funders were lost after the PayPal debacle , or the  statement that "From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, " , as no-one else has so far supplied that info or any detail as to what level of commitments DJM actually achieved, so further background or references on this would be useful.  Dave Jones certainly gave the impression repeatedly that he had enough people who had paid up (But then "he would say that, wouldn't he?")

 

Certainly it would tally with my hypothesis that the OO APT minimum order number was indeed 400, as for the N gauge APT. But if you were aware of those numbers, and the fact that the project was less than 50% subscribed, then others on here should have  been too

 

(I admit when failure became likely at DJM I was fully expecting some folk in the hobby  to claim it was down to "all the negativity on the forum" and imply DJM's demise was really down to us - but thus far I've been pleasantly surprised by the lack of such comments. The shortfall in the cash in the Statement of Affairs points in another direction)

 

P.S. I've just seen Markwj's comments. I'm astonished anyone could proceed on a RTR project with just 168 orders.... That in itself was wildly irresponsible

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

If after the PayPal debacle and the re-funding via a proper account there were less than 200 commitments for the APT (against a likely target of 400) it should have been blindingly obvious that the project had failed, and the plug should have been pulled, and the money returned (less bank charges).

 

P.S. I've just seen Markwj's comments. I'm astonished anyone could proceed on a RTR project with just 168 orders.... That in itself was wildly irresponsible

 

I very much doubt that he did proceed with the class 92, King and APT projects. I've not seen any evidence to suggest that he issued an order to a factory to start tooling and cut metal. 

 

Effectively he did pull the plug on them, but with no money (it probably being spent elsewhere such as on scanning, CADs, website, advertising, salaries, etc) to return/refund deposits paid his option was to liquidate the company.

 

G.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Quite.

 

If after the PayPal debacle and the re-funding via a proper account there were less than 200 commitments for the APT (against a likely target of 400) it should have been blindingly obvious that the project had failed, and the plug should have been pulled, and the money returned (less bank charges).

 

Under £200K in total funding (after 4 calls) would never have produced a RTR APT

 

I'm not sure the basis for the recollection that almost half of the crowd-funders were lost after the PayPal debacle , or the  statement that "From memory, I think he ended up with less than 200 commitments for the APT, " , as no-one else has so far supplied that info or any detail as to what level of commitments DJM actually achieved, so further background or references on this would be useful.  Dave Jones certainly gave the impression repeatedly that he had enough people who had paid up (But then "he would say that, wouldn't he?")

 

Certainly it would tally with my hypothesis that the OO APT minimum order number was indeed 400, as for the N gauge APT. But if you were aware of those numbers, and the fact that the project was less than 50% subscribed, then others on here should have  been too

 

(I admit when failure became likely at DJM I was fully expecting some folk in the hobby  to claim it was down to "all the negativity on the forum" and imply DJM's demise was really down to us - but thus far I've been pleasantly surprised by the lack of such comments. The shortfall in the cash in the Statement of Affairs points in another direction)

 

P.S. I've just seen Markwj's comments. I'm astonished anyone could proceed on a RTR project with just 168 orders.... That in itself was wildly irresponsible

 

Has there ever been any real proof of the numbers for the APT-P?

 

On other projects, there have been published figures and he clearly was not getting close.

 

Now maybe he was close enough just before the paypal debacle but when that was announced, he had already arranged and practically done the scanning party. And that needed paying.

 

We could say that he was short of numbers after the paypal and accounts debacles which was then followed by the website and new payment system delays, as some funders are known to have thrown the towel in at this point but he had a hefty scanning invoice coming.

With hindsight we also now know about having to pay a loan within 12 months and there not many ways for DJM to bring in money (though spares was one area he never explored despite having them).

 

Curiously he fixed a deadline at the original price and those increased the price some 35% which either means he got the original price wrong or was an additional bullet to dissuade new people joining - this at a time when the project needed extra buyers. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Has there ever been any real proof of the numbers for the APT-P?

 

On other projects, there have been published figures and he clearly was not getting close.

 

Now maybe he was close enough just before the paypal debacle but when that was announced, he had already arranged and practically done the scanning party. And that needed paying.

 

We could say that he was short of numbers after the paypal and accounts debacles which was then followed by the website and new payment system delays, as some funders are known to have thrown the towel in at this point but he had a hefty scanning invoice coming.

With hindsight we also now know about having to pay a loan within 12 months and there not many ways for DJM to bring in money (though spares was one area he never explored despite having them).

 

Curiously he fixed a deadline at the original price and those increased the price some 35% which either means he got the original price wrong or was an additional bullet to dissuade new people joining - this at a time when the project needed extra buyers. 

 

 

 

168 crowd-funders at £250 initial payment is £42K  (400 crowd-funders would be £100K, and this +10% margin would be £440K)

 

I struggle to see the "hefty invoice" and the scanning party coming to more than £10K. So surely there should still have been quite a bit of money left over?

 

There were some very odd situations with further funding. Dave Jones may well have got his numbers wrong - an earlier posting with some "back of the envelope costings" suggested £400K was a bit optimistic for producing an APT. If the target was later reduced from 400 to 300 , in line with Markwj's recollection of the target , then a price increase of 33% would have been necessary to compensate

 

But to keep going with only 60% of a reduced target achieved?? And to block off new funders by hiking the price?  

 

I was startled by the idea of a RTR all-singing all-dancing APT , very startled by the small numbers involved - but a RTR model with only 168 buyers leaves me speechless

 

(I do start to wonder if the crowdfunders who were not repaid after the PayPal episode in fact represent money used to pay for the scanning party. To deduct a small element from the repayments to cover bank charges and repay everyone would seem a much better proposition than paying back some and leaving others with nothing. If what he did cost DJM half its crowdfunding on the APT , then deducting ten quid to cover bank charges surely wouldn't  have been worse)

 

Then there was the very odd way the second call for the OO Class 92 was announced twice as imminent - but no invoices went out.

 

While a failing business will obviously keep sending out positive messages until the last moment, in practice DJM could have cancelled a project without too much damage. The Class 74 refund did not really damage customer confidence in DJM , though it may have finally torpedoed the relationship with Kernow

 

I note JSpenser's comment about proof for the numbers on these projects, which is why I was a bit surprised to see  firm numbers suddenly being quoted so late in the discussion, and am interested to know the background to them

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's still a lot of stuff on his site. N gauge progress here, https://djmodels.co.uk/n-gauge-product-update

If he's having to live off of what came in, then that is a regular expenditure of, say 2K/month roughly. This could be equivalent to  Initial crowdfunding payments for, say 10 models per month, then say trip to China, maybe an additional 20 models. It does not take long for all the crowdfunding income to be spent - he did say you wouldn't get it back!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is on page 49 of the apt thread posted September last year. The previous page states we need 300 pre orders or thereabouts.

 

 

Hi everyone,

A month in since the new e-commerce site went live, and a few figures for you.

 

We are currently at 168 deposit payments for the APT so i think thats quite good bearing in mind some haven't received e-mails or read social media that often, and as the info will be propagating through the media and more of the original expressions and refunded orders will be back on board.

 

As with the N gauge King, i cannot seem to get a 3D company to print the APT (4 cars) so if anyone knows someone who can print the APT from the STL files, then please PM me.

 

Cheers

Dave

 1

GordonC reacted to this

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

168 crowd-funders at £250 initial payment is £42K  (400 crowd-funders would be £100K, and this +10% margin would be £440K)

 

I struggle to see the "hefty invoice" and the scanning party coming to more than £10K. So surely there should still have been quite a bit of money left over?

 

 

Doubtful. I guess money would have been spent on more than just a scanning party such as on CADs, trips to China, advertising, the re-development of the DJM website, loan interest prepayments and, or course, his own salary. Even for the APT project work. And then there is some doubt that everyone who expressed interest/placed an order actually paid any deposit. Finally there were those who saw the writing and managed to get a cancellation refund. I'd assume there would be very little money left over, if any.

 

It'll be difficult to prove there is 'quite a bit of money left over' and probably even more difficult to ascertain where it is 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually found this a bit lower down page 49

 

the project needed 300 product 'expressions' converted to orders.

like i said, i am confident this will happen, but may take time.

 

after all, the initial 'spurt' last time went quiet and then picked up....... almost 'ebbing and flowing' as it progressed, can usually account for this ebbing and flowing by holidays, christmas, job changes, other more important bills to pay etc.

 

Did he refund over 100 people- I can't see it myself!

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

 

Did he refund over 100 people- I can't see it myself!

 

He certainly refunded all who had paid deposits for the N gauge class 17 when that ran in to difficulties. I guess there would have been more than 100 of them.

 

G

Edited by grahame
Speeeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he never refunded my apt deposit. The class 17 was announced as dead so those should have been refunded. Just checked the apt newsletters he sent as he stopped posting on rmweb shortly after September. As far as I can tell he never announced the apt had reached 300 crowdfunders/ deposits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day some one will forensically go back over the saga that was DJM and possibly be able to answer some pertinent questions.  If PayPal suspected money laundering then why did they not contact the authorities and suspend the account?  Why would they insist that money be refunded to the senders?  Over the years I have had relatively considerable sums of money passing through my personal PayPal account and not once was I questioned by PayPal as to the reasoning for the income and expenditure.   With a company with a potential income from crowdfunding amounting to almost half a million pound how is it that it almost was deregistered due not submitting returns in a timely manner?  How is it that the proprietor was using his own personal account and apparently a free email account to handle what potentially could have been a lot of money?

 

I am sure that a businessman setting up a new company and possibly putting his home on the line would engage a competent accountant to keep on top of things and one of the first suggestions would be a business account to handle any income and expenditure relating to business activities.   I certainly do not believe an accountant would endorse business income being dealt through a personal account as separating personal and business expenses would become problematic unless detailed and accurate accounts were kept.   Was the account considered to be "cash on hand" to be used for all and sundry?     Were hours spent on researching and organising projects fully documented to support expenditure or was a wage merely deducted on a regular basis irrespective of time spent on the projects?

 

New companies fail on a regular basis regardless of how competent the proprietor, usually due to being unable to control the cash flow or poor business decisions.  Some businesses fail because they try to expand too rapidly thus overtaxing the ability of the business to achieve its objectives.  It is a case of before running one needs to first learn to crawl and then walk.  Perhaps Dave's ego and ambitions exceeded his ability to achieve his goals, particularly given the number of "unfortunate" pitfalls and stumbles encountered along the way.  Dave was always optimistic as to his project outcomes and everything was always progressing and imminent,  although in reality most projects were stagnant.

 

Criticism and negativity expressed on this forum prior Dave closing his doors to scrutiny was not the reason that DJM failed but what it did do was expose the fragility of the business and the character of the proprietor.  Let us hope that given the scrutiny that the internet now provides that a phoenix does not arise in the future and if it does then most will be wary of engaging with such a venture.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

He certainly refunded all who had paid deposits for the N gauge class 17 when that ran in to difficulties. I guess there would have been more than 100 of them.

 

G

Not deposits Grahame, we paid up front for the Class 17s in full, no stage payments involved. My outlay was nearly £300 if memory serves. 

 

Roy

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Well he never refunded my apt deposit. The class 17 was announced as dead so those should have been refunded. 

 

That's very unfortunate. I heard that some people did get refunds (probably those who got in quick) and others using credit cards have got money back through their card issuing bank. If you don't fall in that category you need to register with the liquidators.

 

I don't recall the class 17 project as being announced as 'dead' by DJM. He did say that he hoped to ressurect it (so perhaps it was put in abeyance) sometime in the future once he had got the tooling ownership issue sorted (unlikely now). But that episode occured before the class 92, King and APT project issues blew up and forced liquidation.

 

G

Share this post


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

 

That's very unfortunate. I heard that some people did get refunds (probably those who got in quick) and others using credit cards have got money back through their card issuing bank. If you don't fall in that category you need to register with the liquidators.

 

I don't recall the class 17 project as being announced as 'dead' by DJM. He did say that he hoped to ressurect it (so perhaps it was put in abeyance) sometime in the future once he had got the tooling ownership issue sorted (unlikely now). But that episode occured before the class 92, King and APT project issues blew up and forced liquidation.

 

G

Sorry I meant he never refunded me when the PayPal refunds were going out (and I did ask for one). I also agree he didn't announce the class 17 as dead ( my terminology) but it was put on ice and the money refunded which was not the case regarding the apt/ PayPal refunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

Not deposits Grahame, we paid up front for the Class 17s in full, no stage payments involved. My outlay was nearly £300 if memory serves

 

 

Originally it wasn't a crowdfunder project and orders were supposed to be purchased through retailers when completed, but a person I know well said DJM asked for £100 to help see it though to production. I thought that was a deposit on the price but was that the full price? Did you order three?

 

G

Edited by grahame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

One day some one will forensically go back over the saga that was DJM and possibly be able to answer some pertinent questions.  If PayPal suspected money laundering then why did they not contact the authorities and suspend the account?  Why would they insist that money be refunded to the senders? 

Working for a bank, I have to take an annual computer based course on Money Laundering, despite never going near a customer.

 

One thing that sticks in my mind, because it's repeated endlessly, is that you must never ever tell the customer if you (or the bank in general) have suspicions that their account is being used for money laundering. This is called 'Tipping off' and can get you (the person talking to the customer) up to 5 years. Not reporting concerns to the authorities will also get you and the company in to trouble.  

 

I'm slightly confused by the DJM Paypal saga as it doesn't seem to fit in with this. 

 

  • Agree 6
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Originally it wasn't a crowdfunder project but a person I know well said DJM asked for £100 to help see it though to production. I thought that was a deposit on the price but was that the full price? Did you order three?

 

G

Hi Grahame

 

It was full payment for a twin set in green (dummy and powered) and a weathered single, just found the details, total cost was £274.45. Refunded in full.

 

Roy

 

 

Edited by Roy L S
added info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Class 17 was indeed originally a "pre-order" with no monies submitted, but then became a "cry for help" in the respect that he asked for payment "up front"to enable the project to proceed. However, when the tooling ownership problem arose, he put the Class 17 project on indefinite hold and (so far as I am aware) regunded all those who [paid in advance.....myself included.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.