OO gauge Crowdfunded APT-P (Warley announcement)

[Darius43]

But this is where DJM has been posting about refunds/payments, and if previous customers choose not to re-order it could directly affect the project.  Shouldn't that be within the relevant thread.

No refund for me as yet and no communication from DJM as yet. Presumably if this status does not change it means my payment has been used already.

 

If, as Chris points out, refunded customers choose to walk away and not make a new payment then the project could fail and those whose payments have been used will lose out.

 

As has been said before, that is the risk of crowdfunding, but the current situation means that the risk is definitely not shared equally amongst all the crowdfunders. This may be ok for some of the “disciples” on this thread but it is a poor situation.

 

Darius

[tetsudofan]

There you go.

 

 

But this is where DJM has been posting about refunds/payments, and if previous customers choose not to re-order it could directly affect the project.  Shouldn't that be within the relevant thread.

 

Following your amendment of my post above, seeing that you are back here posting, I was somewhat surprised to see that in your posting on the Locomotion Stirling thread you had purchased two of these locos which, if you did the same as me, involved a 50% pre-payment.

 

When you amended my post above you wanted to bring to the attention of those ordering the APT that they were extending free credit to a manufacturer. Isn't that very similar to what you did when you ordered your Locomotion Stirling locos? I can't recall you bringing this to the attention of all those ordering the Stirling?

 

Keith

[ThaneofFife]

I don't know anyone who thinks you can't look out for yourself, but we're just pointing out for the umpteenth time that DJM's accounts are 3 months overdue at Companies House; now a week since he promised they were going in (new accountant) and 28 days since they were previously promised they were going in (previous accountant).

 

It really is the most basic of tasks by which a company proves that it is competent to handle thousands of pounds of our money.

 

Every time Hornby issue results, it is pored over to the nth degree by every man and his dog on here; Coopercraft was pulled to bits on here; but for some reason DJM is the only modelling company exempt from even the most basic scrutiny.

 

David

 

Although legally/ultimately the responsibility to file on time lies with the company, here I believe DJMs accounts had been prepared and submitted to the accountant but DJM was left in limbo due an accountant that had failed to file them in the correct time frames with Companies House ( or is that with HMRC who then update the company financial status on the Companies House databases) either way I am not sure DJM has failed to meet that basic task you refer to.  Companies House data is also not a paragon of absolute fact at any given time and is subject to the odd error.

 

Amazed to be honest that a thread of model trains has got into this level of depth on financial affairs.............quite the eye opener.

[tetsudofan]

I don't know anyone who thinks you can't look out for yourself, but we're just pointing out for the umpteenth time that DJM's accounts are 3 months overdue at Companies House; now a week since he promised they were going in (new accountant) and 28 days since they were previously promised they were going in (previous accountant).

 

It really is the most basic of tasks by which a company proves that it is competent to handle thousands of pounds of our money.

 

Every time Hornby issue results, it is pored over to the nth degree by every man and his dog on here; Coopercraft was pulled to bits on here; but for some reason DJM is the only modelling company exempt from even the most basic scrutiny.

 

David

 

Am I correct in assuming that, as you mention the competency to handle "thousands of pounds of our money" that you are a crowd-funder in this project?

 

Keith

[Chris Chewter]

But this is where DJM has been posting about refunds/payments, and if previous customers choose not to re-order it could directly affect the project.  Shouldn't that be within the relevant thread.

 

I read DavidH's post #971 is a generalisation on the running of DJM, and not about the APT project, hence my comment to keep on topic or post in a different thread.

[Colin_McLeod]

The issue is that this is not the place to be posting it.  I wouldn't post about Hornbys financial status under a thread about Pecketts!  This is a thread about the development of the APT model, and not about DJMs financial condition.  I want to see how the project is developing, not logging on to see the same circular discussions about how Dave should be running his business.  Can we move this back on topic please?

This IS the place because while I for one don't doubt Dave's intentions and technical skills to produce the APT-P I also need to be confident that the business can be run without losing my money. This is different from Hornby, Bachmann etc as they have not asked me to pay them hundreds of pounds in advance of them producing the locos I have pre ordered.

 

In addition some of the deposits already paid are being returned and we are now required to re place our orders. Apparently because PayPal suspects us all of money laundering, though why if that is the case, they are permitting Dave to return such money instead of holding it and calling the cops I don't understand. (Note: I held back on that comment until after I got my money back. )

 

In post No. 930 I stated "I am aware that there may be a slight delay between submitting the accounts and their appearance on the CH website, but it would be nice to know that they have been submitted". To date Dave has not confirmed that they have been submitted despite his appearance on the thread since my post.

 

Through PM and on here I suggested to Dave that he pop the accounts in the post himself but he appears to be relying on the accountant. Now the accountant may be telling him not to worry because late filing of accounts will not of itself cause a strike out, but either the accountant or Dave does not appear to fully comprehend that this failure to file is causing PR damage irrespective of CH response.

 

Dave you have a lot of support on here, self included, but despite PMs and public posts patience is running out.

 

 

This is more important/urgent than ever now if the project is not to fail as a result of refundees not re ordering. That would leave you with a messy claim from those who did not get refunded and good luck explaining the rationale behind chosing who got a refund.

 

In summary; For $^#€$# s sake get the %/@¥% accounts submitted!! (my own censorship) then we can ALL concentrate on the APT itself to the delight of everybody - both those who are concerned with the accounts and those who wish we would stop talking about them.

 

Colin

[chris p bacon]

Following your amendment of my post above, seeing that you are back here posting, I was somewhat surprised to see that in your posting on the Locomotion Stirling thread you had purchased two of these locos which, if you did the same as me, involved a 50% pre-payment.

 

When you amended my post above you wanted to bring to the attention of those ordering the APT that they were extending free credit to a manufacturer. Isn't that very similar to what you did when you ordered your Locomotion Stirling locos? I can't recall you bringing this to the attention of all those ordering the Stirling?

 

Keith

 

That's because the business model of Rapido and Locomotion is different to that here.  

 

The Single was a deposit of £50 (not 50%) payable to secure a model within a limited production run, those that chose the Sturrock tender which wasn't produced due to limited take up, were offered their money back or to set against the Stirling tender. The balance has only been due at the time of delivery, I chose to pay in full part way through for 2 locomotives as I had the funds, I did check with Locomotion that if the Single was not delivered that my money would be refunded in full which they confirmed.

Rapido is the manufacturer and Locomotion are the commissioner and retailer and have ordered a specific number against expected sales.  The deposit asked is no different to other product ordering and is covered under existing consumer legislation. 

 

 This project is being manufactured by a company (DJM) but with the funding coming from the customer base in advance of payments being required.  It really is a different business model, and the fact that some are not getting refunds while others are proves that all are funders not equal.  I want this to succeed as I think it'll be a great model* but the process of financing and manufacturing needs to a lot more open and organised. If it didn't succeed the likelihood is that either funders lose their money or DJ loses his house, neither is a scenario I would ever want to see.

 

* I nearly got a trip from Euston to Glasgow but it was cancelled and I couldn't get a another day off.

[DJM Dave]

That's because the business model of Rapido and Locomotion is different to that here.  

 

The Single was a deposit of £50 (not 50%) payable to secure a model within a limited production run, those that chose the Sturrock tender which wasn't produced due to limited take up, were offered their money back or to set against the Stirling tender. The balance has only been due at the time of delivery, I chose to pay in full part way through for 2 locomotives as I had the funds, I did check with Locomotion that if the Single was not delivered that my money would be refunded in full which they confirmed.

Rapido is the manufacturer and Locomotion are the commissioner and retailer and have ordered a specific number against expected sales.  The deposit asked is no different to other product ordering and is covered under existing consumer legislation. 

 

 This project is being manufactured by a company (DJM) but with the funding coming from the customer base in advance of payments being required.  It really is a different business model, and the fact that some are not getting refunds while others are proves that all are funders not equal.  I want this to succeed as I think it'll be a great model* but the process of financing and manufacturing needs to a lot more open and organised. If it didn't succeed the likelihood is that either funders lose their money or DJ loses his house, neither is a scenario I would ever want to see.

 

* I nearly got a trip from Euston to Glasgow but it was cancelled and I couldn't get a another day off.

Agreed some will not get refunds, but i would hope they understand the crowdfunding principal, and realise that it was impossible, under PayPals instructions to refund percentages of the initial payment.

 

And besides i'd be asking for the payment back very soon anyway, so their order is still valid.

 

Giving a percentage back to everyone, if it was possible, would create a nightmare if paperwork and hassles, as monies had started to be paid out for services received with regards to scanning, the party etc, crewe hire etc.

 

As it stands i'm about to reveive a reasonable 5 figured invoice for the completion of the scanning, plus the start of cad cam development on China.

 

However, if it agrieves anyone that i randomly didnt choose them for a refund due to the above, i'll find their monies from somewhere and refund them. However, i am still refunding customers at this time, although its a slow process rather than just 'bulk refunding'.

 

The interesting thing will be whether we get everyone to re-enlist in the project in a few days once the e-commerce web site is up and running.

 

Cheers

Dave

[tetsudofan]

….and me too.

 

Keith

[chris p bacon]

The interesting thing will be whether we get everyone to re-enlist in the project in a few days once the e-commerce web site is up and running.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

 

Thanks for the reply Dave. That is the part where I think the project has vulnerabilities, we can all be guilty of complacency but not spending some time earlier, on an e-commerce site, could cost you more time now.

Hopefully it doesn't as I would like to see this running.

[Colin_McLeod]

….and me too.

 

Keith

Me too but only when Companies House no longer shows the accounts as overdue. The ball is in your court Dave.

[Clearwater]

Apparently because PayPal suspects us all of money laundering, though why if that is the case, they are permitting Dave to return such money instead of holding it and calling the cops I don't understand. (

On money laundering, if you suspect an individual or an organisation of money laundering you are to report it. In a large financial organisation, there will be an Anti-Money Laundering Officer to whom you must report any suspicions. It's then their call on what to report to the police. However, you must be extremely careful not to "tip off" the person/entity you suspect of money laundering. The penalty for tipping off is the same maximum imprisonment term (from memory over 10 years) and fine (I think unlimited but its a while since I've done a course on this albeit the salient points have stayed in my memory). Therefore, PayPal or whomever cannot tell Dave that the reason they have with held monies or delayed a repayment process is because they suspect money laundering. If you are in a position where money laundering is suspected, any finance officer will be instructed to continue to treat the customer in the normal fashion.

 

David

[DavidH]

Although legally/ultimately the responsibility to file on time lies with the company, here I believe DJMs accounts had been prepared and submitted to the accountant but DJM was left in limbo due an accountant that had failed to file them in the correct time frames with Companies House ( or is that with HMRC who then update the company financial status on the Companies House databases) either way I am not sure DJM has failed to meet that basic task you refer to.  Companies House data is also not a paragon of absolute fact at any given time and is subject to the odd error.

 

Amazed to be honest that a thread of model trains has got into this level of depth on financial affairs.............quite the eye opener.

 

I argue that DJM has failed to meet this basic task.

 

Colin asked politely last week for reassurance from Dave, and Dave has conspicuously failed to address that issue despite posting twice about PayPal and the refunds.

 

Posting accounts with company house is a basic requirement of a company and it is the director's (or directors') responsibility to ensure it is done. Hiding behind blaming an accountant is a poor show, because a qualified and reputable accountant would not let it get that far (providing they had all the information they needed).

 

Companies house is separate from HMRC but the paperwork can be filed together (note: "You file your accounts with Companies House and your Company Tax Return with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). You may be able to file them together if you have a private limited company that doesn’t need an auditor." Lots more stuff on this at: https://www.gov.uk/prepare-file-annual-accounts-for-limited-company).

 

So, with apologies to the people who really don't want to discuss the financial health of the company some are proposing to give a thousand pounds to, once again:

 

Dave, can you give us the reassurance that your accounts have been filed with companies house?

Edited July 29, 2018 by DavidH

[adb968008]

There’s a lot of pressure to get DJ on top of the accounts, but equally HMRC and Companies house do allow some mitigating factors.

 

https://www.gov.uk/tax-appeals/reasonable-excuses

 

If you read back a few months you will find DJ probably has a valid point from the above list.

 

The current track certainly looks a bumpy one and a white knuckle ride, but before the gloves slip off let the ride conclude.

 

I don’t have a dog in this race, I dropped from the APT early on, as it feels a bit too risky, and certainly as a bystander it’s not felt more comfortable watching the ride so far, but if it pans out I may rejoin later.

 

I don’t think the ride is quite finished yet, and there may be further uncomfortable reading, but we should let Companies house be the judge and jury at least, if the ride is becoming too uncomfortable, you can always get an impartial opinion from companies house by calling them, but equally Dave has said he’s open to people who want out, earlier in the thread.

However, if it agrieves anyone that i randomly didnt choose them for a refund due to the above, i'll find their monies from somewhere and refund them.

Assuming business operations are normalised, what contingency exists to cover for project drop outs, as the price already had a premium attached once the initial order book closed ? - would that cause a project delay until orders catch up ?

 

I’m sure when they are filed they will be in CH’s top 10 downloads hat week and heavily scrutinised, but as an FYI I recently reviewed 30 years of Hornby accounts and found that the shareholders report and companies house filing often did not match, additionally the current year vs previous sections on the tables also often didn’t agree with previous, which lead me to assume accountancy is an art not a science.

Edited July 29, 2018 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

I argue that DJM has failed to meet this basic task.

 

Colin asked politely last week for reassurance from Dave, and Dave has conspicuously failed to address that issue despite posting twice about PayPal and the refunds.

 

Posting accounts with company house is a basic requirement of a company and it is the director's (or directors') responsibility to ensure it is done. Hiding behind blaming an accountant is a poor show, because a qualified and reputable accountant would not let it get that far (providing they had all the information they needed).

 

Companies house is separate from HMRC but the paperwork can be filed together (note: "You file your accounts with Companies House and your Company Tax Return with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). You may be able to file them together if you have a private limited company that doesn’t need an auditor." Lots more stuff on this at: https://www.gov.uk/prepare-file-annual-accounts-for-limited-company).

 

So, with apologies to the people who really don't want to discuss the financial health of the company some are proposing to give a thousand pounds to, once again:

 

Dave, can you give us the reassurance that your accounts have been filed with companies house?

 

A couple of points - 

 

Firstly these accounts are in respect of the financial year which closed on 31 July 2017, i.e almost a year ago.  That suggests that if they had not been finalised within, say 6 months (allowing for reasonable outstandings etc) it would be an awful lot harder to finalise them getting on for, as it now stands, a year later - and now less than a week before the second level of Penalty Charge (for late submission) kicks in.  The 'accounts' are of course actually a Micro-Entity balance sheet and can be submitted electronically but any request for an extension of the submission date must be agreed before the original due date.  Noting 'adb968008's' comments about Hornby it will be seen that some year-on-year items in DJM's balance sheets do not agree either however the differences in scale of the numbers are vast of course and in this case we are talking about a very small business.

 

Secondly It is possible that the 2017 balance sheet is already with Companies House as I understand it can take up to 5 days to process before appearing on the website which shows DJModels filing history -

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08601496/filing-history

[Legend]

On money laundering, if you suspect an individual or an organisation of money laundering you are to report it. In a large financial organisation, there will be an Anti-Money Laundering Officer to whom you must report any suspicions. It's then their call on what to report to the police. However, you must be extremely careful not to "tip off" the person/entity you suspect of money laundering. The penalty for tipping off is the same maximum imprisonment term (from memory over 10 years) and fine (I think unlimited but its a while since I've done a course on this albeit the salient points have stayed in my memory). Therefore, PayPal or whomever cannot tell Dave that the reason they have with held monies or delayed a repayment process is because they suspect money laundering. If you are in a position where money laundering is suspected, any finance officer will be instructed to continue to treat the customer in the normal fashion.

David

Wouldn’t it just have been as simple as PayPal noted a sudden increase in activity with the initial payment of deposits . Taking in large amounts of cash suddenly and then passing onto a third party for scanning etc may have looked suspicious . That makes sense if PayPal are only allowing refunds back to the source of the money. I tend to avoid PayPal,reluctantly using it only where I need to, so I don’t really know , but maybe it’s more used for individual transactions eg through eBay rather than running a business through it.

[jjb1970]

Paypal offer a full suite of business services and although I am not their biggest fan their systems seem pretty slick. If it is a business account then there should be no issue with receiving a lot of money.

If this was linked to POCA then PayPal cannot inform the customer that they have been flagged under POCA then it is more likely that the account would be frozen while the matter was investigated and there would be no refunds. If it's not a POCA matter then PayPal should be able to offer a full explanation, it may be a T&C issue or something.

[Colin_McLeod]

On money laundering, if you suspect an individual or an organisation of money laundering you are to report it. In a large financial organisation, there will be an Anti-Money Laundering Officer to whom you must report any suspicions. It's then their call on what to report to the police. However, you must be extremely careful not to "tip off" the person/entity you suspect of money laundering. The penalty for tipping off is the same maximum imprisonment term (from memory over 10 years) and fine (I think unlimited but its a while since I've done a course on this albeit the salient points have stayed in my memory). Therefore, PayPal or whomever cannot tell Dave that the reason they have with held monies or delayed a repayment process is because they suspect money laundering. If you are in a position where money laundering is suspected, any finance officer will be instructed to continue to treat the customer in the normal fashion.

 

David

 

This is why I have difficulty understanding the explanation given for the refunds that Paypal suspected money laundering.

[woodenhead]

If you read the thread about crowdfunding you will see a link I placed there relating to PayPal.

 

They simply don't like Crowdfunding, likening it to gambling.

 

It is likely that they recognised what the account was being used for and stopped further activity allowing only refunds, not something illegal like money laundering.

 

What some people on here are looking for is evidence the company is trading and solvent and then they can sit back and wait for their APT.

[jjb1970]

According to the PayPal website they support reward crowdfunding (but not equity crowdfunding) subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions appears to be notifying them that you are using their platform to support a crowdfunding effort. Which indicates it is a T&C issue and nothing to do with POCA. If it is about POCA then DJM should report PayPal for tipping them off as the law is rather strong when it comes to a financial institution warning people that they may be suspected of money laundering.

[55020]

There are quite a few on here who believe that only those who have given money to DJM have a right to post, so to them I apologise as I am going to post anyway!

 

I've been following this thread for a while and I couldn't help but draw parallels with a crowdfunded project I almost bought into through a website called Indiegogo.  This website hosts crowdfunded projects, sometimes raising millions.  Although they do charge for their hosting and other services (just as Paypal do), it provides both the entrepreneurs and backers a framework in which to operate.

 

The project was for the development and production of a modern day Sinclair Spectrum called the Spectrum Vega +.  In 2016 a UK company called Retro Computers raised more than £500,000 and have yet to deliver anything but promises and excuses.  Most backers went along with the "lies" issued by the company for about 18 months, then things started to fall apart.  It looks like legal costs incurred by Retro now account for about 75% of the cash that individuals have given to Retro.

 

The latest news is that Indiegogo are now going after Retro to try and recover some of the cash, something that will no doubt result in Retro becoming insolvent and the backers getting a fraction of the money they donated to the directors of Retro.

 

Of note is that Retro have not filed their 2017 accounts with Companies House!!

 

There is a lot of information on a website called theregister.co.uk if you'd like to read more.  Just search for Retro Computers.

 

I am not saying that there are direct parallels between Retro Computers and DJM.  What I am highlighting is that crowdfunding both works and can fail.  Sadly it is the customer who carries the risk.

[timward55]

There is a parallel discussion on crowdfunding in Modelling Musings and Miscellany. It includes an assertion (which I don’t recall being covered here though I may have missed it) that this type of arrangement is covered by consumer legislation. As I understand it this means that the seller has a contractual obligation to deliver the product and the buyer has 14 days to return the item if they are not satisfied and receive a refund.

 

The buyer would also have the right to a refund if the product is not delivered - according to this interpretation.

 

There are some uncertainties so I would recommend reading the thread if you havent already done so.

 

The critical point for me is that unlike investment type crowdfunding the seller cannot pass on to, or share the risk with, the buyer. It remains the seller’s responsibility to deliver the product.

 

There does always remain the risk that a claim for a refund is not met as in the Retro case above although it may be possible to mitigate by using a credit card depending on the payment vehicle used. Again there is more on this on the thread on crowdfunding.

[55020]

Tim, I agree with everything you state.  Let's hope this project doesn't drag down DJM, and that Dave today has a thriving business that delivers what could be a great model rather than using this influx of cash to keep his boat afloat. 

 

However the lack of published accounts for FY 2016-17 is a red flag, which will hopefully metamorphose into a red herring sometime soon  

[black and decker boy]

However the lack of published accounts for FY 2016-17 is a red flag, which will hopefully metamorphose into a red herring sometime soon

Didn’t we go through all this nearly a month ago with the CH strike off event (and thread) and lots of promises made then seem now to be massively over time and outstanding.

 

It does make you wonder

[LongRail]

There are quite a few on here who believe that only those who have given money to DJM have a right to post, so to them I apologise as I am going to post anyway!

.

I personally have no problem with people posting who have no intention of buying the model. What I do question is when non puchasers seem intent on finding fault with Dave business and almost appear to be hell bent on trying to make the project fail.