DavidH

9 hours ago, roythebus said:

To save a lot of speculation, has anybody on here actually bothered to look at the state of affairs of DJM on the Companies house website? I have.  

Is this the statement of affairs linked to on the very first page of this topic, about which the majority of the discussion has been (bar side-tracks on cake or loco running qualities), or have you found another one?

Just now, JSpencer said:

 

We know that happened for a class 74 image. Whereby a CAD image of a class 71 was photoshopped to look like a 74 (there was no cliam at the time that this was an official CAD though). We also from that that he used an expert in photoshop to do this. So the CADs were probably real enough.

No claim, but a forum assumption created by statements like this?

8 hours ago, JSpencer said:

From day one, when so many products were announced and he even had CADs for them

Or did he? Quite easy to mock up a CAD-style drawing in Photoshop or similar programme if you have the knowledge, and require an image for your product announcements. No intent to deceive, I should add, just a wish to make the product announcement look better.

8 hours ago, JSpencer said:

He even commented at the time that he would not announce anything else for 2 years as he thought people would be complaining about non delivery

Dave spun us the idea that crowdfunding simply meant he could slip in a non-main range model and do it quicker. I'm afraid that despite a few sceptical voices at the time, most accepted this.

6 minutes ago, Legend said:

If the CADS are shown as an asset in the company  (at this stage it doesn't matter they were later written down), why is the money received from crowdfunders not shown as a liability ?

Possibly, because in Dave's interpretation of bookkeeping, this was simply income that is now spent?

Regardless of the right and wrong way of doing it, if you're treating the deposits as income for the company then presumably you won't list it as a liability once it's gone (regardless of statements made on here that the money was for a particular model [he did say the money was ring-fenced, didn't he? Or was that another collective assumption, like the re-mortage?]).

10 minutes ago, Legend said:

so far it seems the liquidators are not engaged

I think that's an assumption based on reports from possibly two or three people here, and your reading of their interpretation of the response they got from the liquidator.

The person with DJM on their desk will have other work, and they'll do a bit at a time as information comes in. It's early days. Who knows what they turn up in time - or, they'll do the statutory minimum because there aren't enough assets to pay for their time to do any more?

16 minutes ago, Legend said:

as enthusiasts we seem accepting that we will just write off the money

Quite a lot of RMWebbers said exactly that when they were signing up for APTs and were being warned about the lax documentation or other issues.

22 minutes ago, Legend said:

Its true I don't think anyone will get any money back

Other than the people who have already said they've got it back or are getting it back?

23 minutes ago, Mike Bellamy said:

 

Someone in the City must know something - now Funding Circle is in trouble . . . . . . . ! !

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48837598

 

.

"But in April, the company's shares took a hit after it announced plans to wind down a fund that financed a number of small business loans." (from the BBC article)

Coincidence? It might have set in motion a train of events, or it may not.

13 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But to do that you need to know what account your money went into (did the Paypal route offer any information on that, I don't know as I avoid using it?).

Paypal tells you the name of the account you are paying in the receipt and in your activity statement. What you can't tell (as far as I know) is how the account you are paying is set up - business or personal. A quick online search doesn't throw up any advice - it's all about how do you tell if your own account is business or personal.
 

Talking of statements and while it was up on my screen just now, I noticed the tick boxes. I thought we were working off the assumption that Dave had called in the liquidators? Apologies if I missed the discussion. Appointment was made by the/one of the creditors.

3 hours ago, jcredfer said:

The result of the Liquidator's assessment is what is in their statement.

Interesting. As far as I originally interpreted it, it's the initial statement as provided by and signed off by DJM.

The pdf on companies house says clearly it is the director's statement, and Andy York clarified it as well. It's dated 30 May (see below); the company voted to wind up on 4 June; the liquidator was confirmed on 4 June (these other two dates are all on companies house); the liquidator's signature on this document is then 5 June. Are you saying that the liquidator did all the bold stuff in your posting before their (official) appointment and then signed it off as the director's statement?

19 minutes ago, amwells said:

Or it means that the liquidators don’t think they can sell them for anything

The realisable value came from DJM not the liquidators, as said a few pages back:

On 26/06/2019 at 12:19, AY Mod said:

 

The liquidator advised that the realisable value was submitted by the Director when I asked.

22 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Clearing out returns, NQP and your own new models at a trade stand is fine, selling your own personal items should have raised alarm bells.

It did, but people have to be willing to listen.

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

qually the odd thing is that a factory which somehow  was 'involved in a dispute' with DJM has quite happily carried on working with other UK customers including in one case on a project which at one time had a DJM involvement.

Would that be the factory making the model that Kernow requested advance payment for a while back? Was that the gate stock or the Bulleid diesels?

1 hour ago, Colin_McLeod said:

However you describe the crowdfunders, a percentage of the value of the finished model is due to them.

 

APT high estimate: £250 × 1,000 = £250,000

 

APT low estimate; £180 × £700 = £126,000.

 

Add the figures for the 92 and the King and even at low estimates the total creditors are a multiple of the figure in the statement of affairs.

The problem with these back of the envelope calculations is how would anyone other than Dave, his "accountant" and now the liquidator know that these are accurate figures?

I'll make a small prediction: the numbers signed up for the APT barely touch half those numbers. That might then explain why he was trying to get new sign-ups so recently rather than accepting defeat earlier: one last attempt to get enough sign-ups to cover whichever CAD or tooling bill he was about to commit to.

However, the problem for Dave being that as he used RMWeb almost exclusively as his active marketing channel, and then withdrew from it, he was pretty much limited recently to marketing to his own customers.

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

... it was treated as a director's loan (for which there is not evidence as yet, I might add)

But there is one - £50,000. Bear with me, but is there a reason why this can't be the crowdfunded money, rather than deferred salary?

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The liquidator didnt share that opinion either

That statement is Dave's statement - yes the liquidator name is at the front, but Dave's signed it off. See page 2.

10 minutes ago, ThaneofFife said:

tbh i'm shocked at the level of (and still ongoing) scrutiny some quarters have taken with this whole affair when all we really want to do is play trains at the end of the day but to rip the accounts and statements apart for every last scrap of detail seems such a waste of your energy levels.   its why ive only bothered to skim read half the comments here...……..

If discussion about Dave's finances and plans had not been overwhelmed by this sort of attitude before it dug down deep enough to reveal what is now coming out ... just maybe Dave would have listened.

It's never just playing trains when hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved.

7 minutes ago, Legend said:

The £50k Directors Loan is likely the amount of cash Dave Jones gave to the company . Although he was a shareholder , I think one  share , he will have funded the business by this loan.

That's what I think too - although when it was loaned, and whether it was left out of early accounts is a moot point that only someone like the liquidator will be able to ascertain.

9 minutes ago, Legend said:

Given that there is no listing of Crowdfunders at all, I am now beginning to wonder if the whole crowdfunding thing was kept outside of this company . It would be interesting if anyone knows if they were contracting with DJModels limited or sent the money to David Jones esquire. 

I don't recall this point ever being satisfactorily answered even when Dave was still willing to answer questions here.

12 minutes ago, thedman said:

IIRC, the £50k could also be what he thinks he is owed by the business for his time/salary/dividend from the business.

It's more likely, I feel, to be the money with which he started the company. He's going to have drawn a salary/taken a dividend - presumably - and taken expenses, but the loan would remain until paid (he pays himself) back.
 

I'm assuming that, like other much larger companies do, it suits his tax situation to have a loan outstanding with the company. It'll be whatever is most tax efficient I expect.

At least, that is what I've assumed.

His partner. Best to leave her out of it?

Where is the "ringfenced" crowdfunders' money?

It isn't, but the DJM model assumes the cab narrows to a straight front edge, whereas the Hornby one carries the bodyside curve to the front, like the real thing.

 

10 hours ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

they have used this arrangement before without issue.

This could be true, because their standard of engineering is better than that on certain other recent 00 models, or it could be that they never had to stand the cost of all those reported 14XX returns.

1 hour ago, maico said:

 

 

Fast cars perhaps... https://davejonesphotography.zenfolio.com/p717717743

That's DJ in the Aston Martin

There are a couple of impressive pictures of northern lights in Iceland in there, however.

1 hour ago, truffy said:

That might explain my wife’s navigation 

It's only the 1950s in our model railways, you know.

In that case, whatever you do, don't search Facebook or elsewhere for "DJ models". I did once, but I think I got away with it.

22 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Great. I wake up, check my phone

Crazy man!  Why would you want to check your phone this early anyway? Do you get paid overtime for that?

What happened to the other moderators?

37 minutes ago, njee20 said:

The company I work for is in administration, has been for a year now, I'm still here, there will still be people here at the end of next year I suspect. Our plants were also all leased and were ignominiously collected early in the days of the administration!

Bishop's Castle Railway. Almost its entire life spent in receivership.