Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Iam in no rush for my stuff so I will just wait out the storm. I figure with everybody canceling their order mine will just move up the line faster.

 Chute82 wrote:
Iam in no rush for my stuff so I will just wait out the storm. I figure with everybody canceling their order mine will just move up the line faster.

Ha ha! If only you could cancel that would be great. But everyone has their limits and I hope it goes well for you.

PalmerC wrote:
This thread was never stated as a call to everyone that Zuzzy miniatures is engaging in theft in the legal sense or fraud. I only agreed that I believe it to be theft but stated I do not say this in the legal sense and never mentioned fraud. You seem to be focusing not in the original post or what I have been saying but the later. Just because a lack of service and support has been long standing doesn't mean it can't get worse or is acceptable or that "everyone" is aware of it. And lastly that it shouldn't be communicated in public where they do their business (in public.)

I am focused on that because that is what of the thread I take issue with. Like I said - if you wanted to highlight just the bad service you received...more power to you. You agreed with another poster in the thread who called it theft, it isn't theft. It isn't even fraud (yes, I added fraud - because if it were to be a crime that he was committing...that would be the crime, which it isn't).

Crappy service, possibly (probably) false advertisement regarding the production delays.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

PalmerC wrote:
I purchased four Zuzzy Mats from Zuzzy Miniatures (owner James Hubbs) end of June 2014. I have used Zuzzy Mats at my local gaming club and liked the product, particularly because it lends to my interest in painting everything I use verses using ready made products.

Sean_OBrien wrote:Theft and fraud are rather strong words to be tossing about...criminal even...as I have seen, he hasn't gotten to that level. Matts still go out (albeit at a very, very slow pace - found a couple of posts for people who received them as recently as December).

From the Zuzzy Website:
Orders may take 4 to 10 weeks to process and ship. And an additional 1 to 2 weeks for orders outside of the USA.


Zuzzy has had this guy's cash for around 34 weeks...

I call that taking someone's money and not delivering a product. Coupled with an almost total lack of communication, apology or statement.

If I pay for something and someone takes that money from me and does not give me what I paid for, that's theft.

It would be fraud, but more than that - we have seen no evidence that it is either. I have seen no claim from anyone saying they paid and never got their product. Either they get it, eventually or they cancel their order. Until people start saying they never got their order and he kept their money...then it could escalate to fraud.

Communication, apology or otherwise wouldn't be a factor in whether it is or isn't fraud though, merely whether or not the product gets delivered for the payment received. Now, apparently that means at least 37 weeks wait now - but, that long wait alone does not mean fraud either.

Read back two of us haven't gotten our product in 7 months. Just because others have gotten there product in the past doesn't change that. And if you look at the forum on their website we are not alone. I will leave the theft and fraud point with you as I am not concerned about it. Sorry if you take issue with it.

 filbert wrote:
If he can't produce enough mats per day to service the backlog then maybe he should, you know, stop taking new orders? Put a notice on the website informing people of that? This isn't a new phenomena with Zuzzy; they have had a reputation for years for being slow. If he can't produce mats in a timely fashion to the extent where orders are piling up around his ears he should either subcontract out, scale up or stop taking orders.

Exalted for Stripes reference

 Swan-of-War wrote:

 filbert wrote:
If he can't produce enough mats per day to service the backlog then maybe he should, you know, stop taking new orders? Put a notice on the website informing people of that? This isn't a new phenomena with Zuzzy; they have had a reputation for years for being slow. If he can't produce mats in a timely fashion to the extent where orders are piling up around his ears he should either subcontract out, scale up or stop taking orders.

Exalted for Stripes reference

Ha ha cheers for noticing that image just came to me

Appreciate this being posted ; i was on the verge of getting one of their mats, but was hedging because 4-10 weeks seemed like a long time.

34 is not just a long time, it's an excessively long time. I'll stick with my insulation foam boards for now.

 Haight wrote:
Appreciate this being posted ; i was on the verge of getting one of their mats, but was hedging because 4-10 weeks seemed like a long time.

34 is not just a long time, it's an excessively long time. I'll stick with my insulation foam boards for now.

No problem Haight your not knowing about them having delays this long is further evidence that it's not common knowledge with everyone so I am glad it helps you make your decision.

 filbert wrote:
If he can't produce enough mats per day to service the backlog then maybe he should, you know, stop taking new orders? Put a notice on the website informing people of that? This isn't a new phenomena with Zuzzy; they have had a reputation for years for being slow. If he can't produce mats in a timely fashion to the extent where orders are piling up around his ears he should either subcontract out, scale up or stop taking orders.

This would be the appropriate thing to do, so too bad he's not.

I did place a order with them last year, when alot of people were complaining about the delays. It was about a 2-3 mounth wait with no communication before they sent out my mat. They do get sent out, you just have a long wait before you see them show up.

From what I understand one of the things that create the huge delays is that he makes these in his garage, so he only has the room to cast so many of his molds at once, and the rubber he uses has a slow set. It's not just a man power thing, but the space it takes up to make one of these mats.


He need to be more upfront about the wait, or expand to meet market demand.


=/

I would totally order more mats from him, if I could get a realistic estimate on the time for them to be made. The product is amazing.

 Lockark wrote:
I did place a order with them last year, when alot of people were complaining about the delays. It was about a 2-3 mounth wait with no communication before they sent out my mat. They do get sent out, you just have a long wait before you see them show up.

From what I understand one of the things that create the huge delays is that he makes these in his garage, so he only has the room to cast so many of his molds at once, and the rubber he uses has a slow set. It's not just a man power thing, but the space it takes up to make one of these mats.


He need to be more upfront about the wait, or expand to meet market demand.


=/

I would totally order more mats from him, if I could get a realistic estimate on the time for them to be made. The product is amazing.

I am glad this worked out for you last year but many of us have been waiting in excess of 6 months and for me it will soon be 8 months. I have asked for a refund three times and have not gotten a response. If you feel comfortable doing business with a person like this thats up to you. He doesn't say on his website he is a garage operation and falsely states his delivery times.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

PalmerC wrote:
I purchased four Zuzzy Mats from Zuzzy Miniatures (owner James Hubbs) end of June 2014. I have used Zuzzy Mats at my local gaming club and liked the product, particularly because it lends to my interest in painting everything I use verses using ready made products.

Sean_OBrien wrote:Theft and fraud are rather strong words to be tossing about...criminal even...as I have seen, he hasn't gotten to that level. Matts still go out (albeit at a very, very slow pace - found a couple of posts for people who received them as recently as December).

From the Zuzzy Website:
Orders may take 4 to 10 weeks to process and ship. And an additional 1 to 2 weeks for orders outside of the USA.


Zuzzy has had this guy's cash for around 34 weeks...

I call that taking someone's money and not delivering a product. Coupled with an almost total lack of communication, apology or statement.

If I pay for something and someone takes that money from me and does not give me what I paid for, that's theft.

It would be fraud, but more than that - we have seen no evidence that it is either. I have seen no claim from anyone saying they paid and never got their product. Either they get it, eventually or they cancel their order. Until people start saying they never got their order and he kept their money...then it could escalate to fraud.

Communication, apology or otherwise wouldn't be a factor in whether it is or isn't fraud though, merely whether or not the product gets delivered for the payment received. Now, apparently that means at least 37 weeks wait now - but, that long wait alone does not mean fraud either.

That's ridiculous. The OP is someone who has not gotten their product. You're weird slant that 'they'll get them eventually' overlooks the fact that there are lots of people, right now, who have paid for a product and are double or triple the time stated for delivery. According to your logic, if they get the product in some decades to come, that's just fine because it's a delay, despite no communication to that effect ever taking place. You are entirely inferring that it's all just more delay and the seller has not instead decided to keep the cash without fulfilling the obligation of producing a product. In a void without communication from the seller at all, the buyer can be expected to be deeply concerned that a criminal activity has occurred.

If I pay for a product, with a stated delivery time, it's not for the seller to just ignore that delivery time and deliver on a whim... You can split hairs about the legal definition all you want, zuzzy has taken money and failed to fulfill it's end of the unspoken contract between buyer and seller, the company is in breach of it's stated delivery times, by a frankly huge margin. That is taking someone's money and not giving what was understood in the transaction to be the outcome. That is stealing, until the contract is fulfilled and the buyer receives their goods.

If I walk into a butchers, and say 'I'll take a side of beef' and hand over cash, it's not for the butcher to then stop talking to me, walk away and decide he'll hand over what I paid for when he's quite ready, which might be tomorrow, next Wednesday or the year 2250... There exists an unwritten contract between buyer and seller, of what a realistic waiting period is, moreover this company even states it's (highly excessive) waiting times, which it is in clear breach of.

There is no communication or explanation of delay. There is therefore no onus on the buyer to expect delay further than has been stated on the website as turnover time. Therefore, once the turnover time passed, with the seller still in possession of the money, and providing no indication to the buyer of reasons why the stated deadlines have been passed yet still no actual product has been delivered, the seller has effectively stolen from the buyer. Zuzzy is in breach of the FTC's prompt delivery rules, by a country mile.




http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules.pdf

That was very well stated much better than I could do thank you very much for the links I am going to look into this further and refer to this info on the facebook group I created.

PalmerC wrote:
He doesn't say on his website he is a garage operation...

Doesn't need to state what is already a known...

Without even bothering to look at his costs - you can run rough calculations based off what is readily available...pretty much any way you slice it, there is no way for it to be economically viable in any other location than a garage (or maybe backyard shop).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's ridiculous. The OP is someone who has not gotten their product. You're weird slant that 'they'll get them eventually' overlooks the fact that there are lots of people, right now, who have paid for a product and are double or triple the time stated for delivery. According to your logic, if they get the product in some decades to come, that's just fine because it's a delay, despite no communication to that effect ever taking place. You are entirely inferring that it's all just more delay and the seller has not instead decided to keep the cash without fulfilling the obligation of producing a product. In a void without communication from the seller at all, the buyer can be expected to be deeply concerned that a criminal activity has occurred.

If I pay for a product, with a stated delivery time, it's not for the seller to just ignore that delivery time and deliver on a whim... You can split hairs about the legal definition all you want, zuzzy has taken money and failed to fulfill it's end of the unspoken contract between buyer and seller, the company is in breach of it's stated delivery times, by a frankly huge margin. That is taking someone's money and not giving what was understood in the transaction to be the outcome. That is stealing, until the contract is fulfilled and the buyer receives their goods.

If I walk into a butchers, and say 'I'll take a side of beef' and hand over cash, it's not for the butcher to then stop talking to me, walk away and decide he'll hand over what I paid for when he's quite ready, which might be tomorrow, next Wednesday or the year 2250... There exists an unwritten contract between buyer and seller, of what a realistic waiting period is, moreover this company even states it's (highly excessive) waiting times, which it is in clear breach of.

There is no communication or explanation of delay. There is therefore no onus on the buyer to expect delay further than has been stated on the website as turnover time. Therefore, once the turnover time passed, with the seller still in possession of the money, and providing no indication to the buyer of reasons why the stated deadlines have been passed yet still no actual product has been delivered, the seller has effectively stolen from the buyer. Zuzzy is in breach of the FTC's prompt delivery rules, by a country mile.

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules.pdf

I don't really think it is a weird slant. It is an informed consumers position. It takes a very long time for stuff to show up from Zuzzy. You will not get communication. You will get your product. It has been that way for years now. If we look at your butcher scenario - I wouldn't have an issue if the butcher did that...let the market sort it out, and likely that butcher wouldn't last too long. Though, to make it more precise - it isn't a slab of beef, it is a rare cut from a minke whale. That butcher is the only butcher who has access to the meat, and many people feel their business practices are worth dealing with.

The stated time frames may seem excessive, but again - there is a reason that there is only one company who produces these on this scale. It is time and space intensive with little financial return at the price point. Granted, if there was no backlog and orders were placed at the maximum or 2 matts per day (allowing for weekends and holidays - maybe 500 a year) then it could be feasible to have a one week turn around on them. Now, hope you don't get sick have to attend funeral or otherwise have anything unexpected ever happen - because as soon as it does, the delays start...

Regarding the FTC - very good. A rule. Not a law. As I had stated from the get go. One thing about an FTC rule is that they have almost no teeth. There is no criminal act going on. Probably the "best" outcome of a thread like this would be that he shuts down entirely. They have no ability to force refunds, they have limited ability to apply fines. The best way for these to shake themselves out is for consumers to make informed decisions.

I don't buy anything based off from what a company may claim (whether it is quality or even delivery estimates). I do a bit of research and then make a determination based off from that. Based off from all accounts, the quality of the product is excellent - that alone might be enough for many people to wait. If you want it tomorrow (or next week or next month...) it probably isn't a good fit for you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for a business like that within a market like this.

Your stating what is known is hearsay Sean and how his business circumstances relate to what he says he will provide is irrelevant especially when he provides a terrible service.

I don't care about technical legal terms here. If he takes someone's money and doesn't give them the product he said he would when he said he would and also doesn't respond to any communication or demands for refunds, he is a thief.

He may or may not have violated the criminal code of a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't change the facts of money taken, no product, no response, no refund, 6 months later.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's ridiculous. The OP is someone who has not gotten their product. You're weird slant that 'they'll get them eventually' overlooks the fact that there are lots of people, right now, who have paid for a product and are double or triple the time stated for delivery. According to your logic, if they get the product in some decades to come, that's just fine because it's a delay, despite no communication to that effect ever taking place. You are entirely inferring that it's all just more delay and the seller has not instead decided to keep the cash without fulfilling the obligation of producing a product. In a void without communication from the seller at all, the buyer can be expected to be deeply concerned that a criminal activity has occurred.

If I pay for a product, with a stated delivery time, it's not for the seller to just ignore that delivery time and deliver on a whim... You can split hairs about the legal definition all you want, zuzzy has taken money and failed to fulfill it's end of the unspoken contract between buyer and seller, the company is in breach of it's stated delivery times, by a frankly huge margin. That is taking someone's money and not giving what was understood in the transaction to be the outcome. That is stealing, until the contract is fulfilled and the buyer receives their goods.

If I walk into a butchers, and say 'I'll take a side of beef' and hand over cash, it's not for the butcher to then stop talking to me, walk away and decide he'll hand over what I paid for when he's quite ready, which might be tomorrow, next Wednesday or the year 2250... There exists an unwritten contract between buyer and seller, of what a realistic waiting period is, moreover this company even states it's (highly excessive) waiting times, which it is in clear breach of.

There is no communication or explanation of delay. There is therefore no onus on the buyer to expect delay further than has been stated on the website as turnover time. Therefore, once the turnover time passed, with the seller still in possession of the money, and providing no indication to the buyer of reasons why the stated deadlines have been passed yet still no actual product has been delivered, the seller has effectively stolen from the buyer. Zuzzy is in breach of the FTC's prompt delivery rules, by a country mile.

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules.pdf

I don't really think it is a weird slant. It is an informed consumers position. It takes a very long time for stuff to show up from Zuzzy. You will not get communication. You will get your product. It has been that way for years now. If we look at your butcher scenario - I wouldn't have an issue if the butcher did that...let the market sort it out, and likely that butcher wouldn't last too long. Though, to make it more precise - it isn't a slab of beef, it is a rare cut from a minke whale. That butcher is the only butcher who has access to the meat, and many people feel their business practices are worth dealing with.

An 'informed customer'? It can be strongly claimed that a customer of an online business doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of the frankly terrible shortfalls of this company but can be said to be an informed customer if they take the time to read the statement of expected waiting time on the company's website...

And you not taking issue with a person taking your money and not giving you your end product is your odd business, the rest of humanity has an expectation of product for payment in a business transaction, and entirely within their rights as a consumer to take issue with a 'business' that takes money and does not produce product, within understood and self-established timelines.

Your further suggestion that because this product has some air of exclusivity, it remains beyond the purvey and reach of standard business practice, again, this is daft. Rarity does not suddenly facilitate stealing money and breaching one's own standards of production. The company gave a statement of delivery and then breached it and then refuses to engage with a customer (or perhaps 'victim') who is now without money and without product.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

The stated time frames may seem excessive, but again - there is a reason that there is only one company who produces these on this scale. It is time and space intensive with little financial return at the price point. Granted, if there was no backlog and orders were placed at the maximum or 2 matts per day (allowing for weekends and holidays - maybe 500 a year) then it could be feasible to have a one week turn around on them. Now, hope you don't get sick have to attend funeral or otherwise have anything unexpected ever happen - because as soon as it does, the delays start...

Again you're seeking to alleviate blame and you've no leg to stand on.
We don't care how intensive the business is, that's the owner's affair. We don't really care about his or her financial returns for the product, that, again, is their affair. The customer is without their money and without their product yet you're claiming that the owner is 'having a tough time of it' and, again, we don't care. They have taken money and not produced product, even anywhere near their own massive turnaround timeframe. It's inexcusable and here you are trying to excuse it.

And all your smoke and mirrors of funerals and poor returns conveniently ignore the willful lack of communication from the seller.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Regarding the FTC - very good. A rule. Not a law. As I had stated from the get go. One thing about an FTC rule is that they have almost no teeth. There is no criminal act going on. Probably the "best" outcome of a thread like this would be that he shuts down entirely. They have no ability to force refunds, they have limited ability to apply fines. The best way for these to shake themselves out is for consumers to make informed decisions.

If the rules of the FTC are broken, there is room for censure and prosecution. The Rule is not a Law, breaking the rule, however, opens you up to prosecution under Law, something I cannot believe you don't already grasp...

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

I don't buy anything based off from what a company may claim (whether it is quality or even delivery estimates). I do a bit of research and then make a determination based off from that. Based off from all accounts, the quality of the product is excellent - that alone might be enough for many people to wait. If you want it tomorrow (or next week or next month...) it probably isn't a good fit for you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for a business like that within a market like this.

Whilst you have the luxary of affording time for a full scale business investigation into any and everything you buy, like some purchasing Columbo, the rest of the consumer world relies on the protections of the law, 'reasonable expectation' and, perhaps especially pertinent in this case, the actual statement of delivery time beyond standard 30 days, by the selling company.

I find your entire commentary in this thread to be summed up as 'it's a great product, you should be thankful your getting it (perhaps) one day and should have carried out an investigation into the company before trusting the company'... Which is victim-blaming, for a would-be customer who took a company trading online at their statement and handed money over in good faith with entirely realistic trade expectations.

If the rules of the FTC are broken, there is room for censure and prosecution. The Rule is not a Law, breaking the rule, however, opens you up to prosecution under Law, something I cannot believe you don't already grasp...

Breaking a rule opens you to a warning (if anyone could be bothered). Following a warning, you get a second warning. Following that, they may decide to file a civil law suit on behalf of the people - but only after a lot of red tape and very high level actions agree to do so (generally involving a vote by the commissioners).

And you not taking issue with a person taking your money and not giving you your end product

No, I do take issue with that - but that is not this.

within understood and self-established timelines.

Which have been well documented to not be accurate for years.

Your further suggestion that because this product has some air of exclusivity, it remains beyond the purvey and reach of standard business practice, again, this is daft. Rarity does not suddenly facilitate stealing money and breaching one's own standards of production. The company gave a statement of delivery and then breached it and then refuses to engage with a customer (or perhaps 'victim') who is now without money and without product.

...what the real rarity (point to another supplier) does grant wide berth. If you want it - you deal with it. If you don't want to deal with it - you won't likely get it. Numerous people have commented that they have placed orders and cancelled them after weeks (or months). Many people feel the wait is worthwhile, and still place their orders.

The reality is that no amount of complaining will change the situation regarding production. An additional reality is that there is not a large number of people doing this work - so, if you were to file complaints and actually manage to get a regulatory body to do something about it...the result would not be lead times dropping from months to days or weeks - rather the loss of a unique product from the market place.

No skin off my back either way, I have the knowledge and capability to do the work myself if I wanted a textured matt...I could have one in a few days time. It would be unfortunate for those who don't have that option.

Again you're seeking to alleviate blame and you've no leg to stand on.

Not at all, there is blame. Blame for poor communication. Probably blame for being over his head. Likely blame for poor business sense (based on the demand and capacity - prices should be higher to get the lead time lower). While unfortunate, not illegal. More than that though, it is an accurate assessment of the likely situation which exists. You don't have to care - but not caring doesn't mean that anything will change - other than the business and the product going away entirely.

Whilst you have the luxary of affording time for a full scale business investigation into any and everything you buy, like some purchasing Columbo, the rest of the consumer world relies on the protections of the law, 'reasonable expectation' and, perhaps especially pertinent in this case, the actual statement of delivery time beyond standard 30 days, by the selling company.

I find your entire commentary in this thread to be summed up as 'it's a great product, you should be thankful your getting it (perhaps) one day and should have carried out an investigation into the company before trusting the company'... Which is victim-blaming, for a would-be customer who took a company trading online at their statement and handed money over in good faith with entirely realistic trade expectations.

And they are worse off for relying on the protections of the law. I would much rather take responsibility for my own choices, and generally speaking I am less often disappointed with the results. And it is victim blaming (in so much as the result is entirely predictable). I have no problem stating, "What did you expect" when you consider a company that has 7 years worth of delays and lack of communication.

Would be nice to be able to cancel I asked for a refund three times. As was stated already James Hubbs circumstances do not matter what he says on his website does. The fact he doesn't change his info is indicative of his motives. As well the lack of communication removed any chance I would be understanding of his circumstances essentially there was no chance of that after December for me. I understand being the devils advocate Sean but really you don't seem to think consumers should have any rights in these situations. Why you would defend someone that clearly feels entitled to people's money without meeting his end of the bargain on his own website is quite baffling. Why you sympathize so strongly with James and show little or no same sympathy for everyone misled by his website and powerlessly dealing with his non responsiveness is quite perplexing to me. But regardless I am at least happy to see that I am not alone in feeling a scam artist like Janes Hubbs should be accountable to his customers.

I know it's little help for those who ordered before paypal's policy update, but I believe the time for making claims has been extended quite a bit. If you ordered in the last while, there may still be time to get out of it.

James Hubbs who runs Zuzzy knows he can't fulfil an order within 6 months and yet he is telling people they'll have the product within half that time. He's not giving refunds nor even answering any communication. He's just taking money and keeping it.

If you can get out, get out before your paypal claim window closes.

I feel sympathy for no one in this situation.

I think he probably should shut down. Probably should have never started up.

I think you probably shouldn't have placed the order.

What you see as a defense of him, is simply explaining the process (and illustration why I can buy other styles of game matts from a dozen different companies - but there is only one who provides this style).

I can't explain your position though. Why would anyone place an order with a company with this history and expect anything other than a repeat of the past to occur?

I can easily explain Lockark's position. He is happy with the product, but not with the long and variable waits...so, he doesn't place another order.

The consumer has all the power when it comes to what companies are successful and which fail. They get to choose who gets their money. That you feel powerless dealing with his non-responsiveness is a bit like me saying I feel powerless talking to a wall. Of course the wall doesn't respond, it never has and never will.

I do of course (and the only thing that I have actually held as a strong opinion) feel that the claims of theft - and now "scam artist" are wrong. That isn't what is going on here, there is no evidence of it being a scam, theft, fraud or anything else. Claiming a crime has happened - especially with regards to a business is dangerous grounds, and while you might not be too happy with the service you have received...it is a real crime in most places (defamation - and it wouldn't be too hard to prove direct harm caused by your statements either).

If I know I'm providing misleading information on my website and I continue to take orders and then just keep the money and not send the product out, what am I?

Scam artist.

I think that's justified. And if I was intending to send the product out at some unknown time in the future and the customer asked for a refund when the delay became longer than I originally said, I'd give a refund. Otherwise I'm just keeping the money that rightfully belongs to the customer. Which would make me what?

A thief.

It's not defamation if it is true is it? We know that he knows his timelines on his website are wrong because he has outstanding orders of longer wait times than he is indicating. We know he has been asked for a refund and just ignored the contact by the customer.

.

Zuzzy Miniatures wrote:ZUZZY Miniatures order confirmation

This was sent to me on September 5th. I ordered because the PayPal account was active again and a number of people were reporting that they were getting their mats. Five months later I've not heard anything, nor have they replied to any of my attempts to contact him.

I will not be ordering product from him in the future, nor will I recommend him to others.

You'd think that being an author (unless that's his name) he'd be capable of at least some level of communication other than nothing.

Wish I had found this before I ordered:
http://www.bbb.org/upstate-new-york/Business-Reviews/miniatures-collectors/zuzzy-miniatures-in-chittenango-ny-235969068/

Sean, I hope it's not a breach of rule 1 and if it is I apologize as it was not intended to be, but you're talking absolute and total bollocks. Your whole angle is based on assumption of an intimate knowledge of an online company's practices, practices that don't obey the rules they themselves have cited for their delivery. Your attitude that people 'ought to know better due to the company's previous behavior' is victim blaming.

It's just total bollocks that a company utterly fails to meet it's own deadlines, ignores any sort of communication and then some smart chap like you comes along to tell the people who've paid good money for an item that it's all their own fault for not investigating the company that's taken their money.


Victim blaming bs.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I feel sympathy for no one in this situation.

I think he probably should shut down. Probably should have never started up.

I think you probably shouldn't have placed the order.

What you see as a defense of him, is simply explaining the process (and illustration why I can buy other styles of game matts from a dozen different companies - but there is only one who provides this style).

I can't explain your position though. Why would anyone place an order with a company with this history and expect anything other than a repeat of the past to occur?

I can easily explain Lockark's position. He is happy with the product, but not with the long and variable waits...so, he doesn't place another order.

The consumer has all the power when it comes to what companies are successful and which fail. They get to choose who gets their money. That you feel powerless dealing with his non-responsiveness is a bit like me saying I feel powerless talking to a wall. Of course the wall doesn't respond, it never has and never will.

I do of course (and the only thing that I have actually held as a strong opinion) feel that the claims of theft - and now "scam artist" are wrong. That isn't what is going on here, there is no evidence of it being a scam, theft, fraud or anything else. Claiming a crime has happened - especially with regards to a business is dangerous grounds, and while you might not be too happy with the service you have received...it is a real crime in most places (defamation - and it wouldn't be too hard to prove direct harm caused by your statements either).

And yet "Scam" is my favorite description in regards to Zuzzy or James Hubbs. Stating when to expect your order and continually not meeting that but still taking peoples money knowingly is exactly that in my opinion. And I am not afraid of any implications that statement has.

I dont expect anyone to feel sorry for me but there are basic expectations that a business will communicate with customers around a transaction. Nothing on Zuzzy's website indicates this will not happen when you contact them at their contact information. It is good at least to see you take somewhat of a balanced viewpoint. to a degree. However I feel quite justified calling out James and Zuzzy as I have done and even the one poster on dakka last night indicating they were considering ordering but now finding out matt's take this long will not order is a worthwhile result if it provided him additional info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

Zuzzy Miniatures wrote:ZUZZY Miniatures order confirmation

This was sent to me on September 5th. I ordered because the PayPal account was active again and a number of people were reporting that they were getting their mats. Five months later I've not heard anything, nor have they replied to any of my attempts to contact him.

I will not be ordering product from him in the future, nor will I recommend him to others.

You'd think that being an author (unless that's his name) he'd be capable of at least some level of communication other than nothing.

Wish I had found this before I ordered:
http://www.bbb.org/upstate-new-york/Business-Reviews/miniatures-collectors/zuzzy-miniatures-in-chittenango-ny-235969068/

I have found a kindred spirit I think

I know it is very bold but I think that future folks that do business with james as an author need to know where his business ethics moral compass points and that is why I created the facebook community called "Author James Hubbs aka Zuzzy Miniatures are a scam" https://www.facebook.com/Zuzzymatsjameshubbs

Feel free to stop by or like if you want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I know I'm providing misleading information on my website and I continue to take orders and then just keep the money and not send the product out, what am I?

Scam artist.

I think that's justified. And if I was intending to send the product out at some unknown time in the future and the customer asked for a refund when the delay became longer than I originally said, I'd give a refund. Otherwise I'm just keeping the money that rightfully belongs to the customer. Which would make me what?

A thief.

It's not defamation if it is true is it? We know that he knows his timelines on his website are wrong because he has outstanding orders of longer wait times than he is indicating. We know he has been asked for a refund and just ignored the contact by the customer.

.

Yes I am in agreement that scam artist is appropriate as well frozenwastes

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's ridiculous. The OP is someone who has not gotten their product. You're weird slant that 'they'll get them eventually' overlooks the fact that there are lots of people, right now, who have paid for a product and are double or triple the time stated for delivery. According to your logic, if they get the product in some decades to come, that's just fine because it's a delay, despite no communication to that effect ever taking place. You are entirely inferring that it's all just more delay and the seller has not instead decided to keep the cash without fulfilling the obligation of producing a product. In a void without communication from the seller at all, the buyer can be expected to be deeply concerned that a criminal activity has occurred.

If I pay for a product, with a stated delivery time, it's not for the seller to just ignore that delivery time and deliver on a whim... You can split hairs about the legal definition all you want, zuzzy has taken money and failed to fulfill it's end of the unspoken contract between buyer and seller, the company is in breach of it's stated delivery times, by a frankly huge margin. That is taking someone's money and not giving what was understood in the transaction to be the outcome. That is stealing, until the contract is fulfilled and the buyer receives their goods.

If I walk into a butchers, and say 'I'll take a side of beef' and hand over cash, it's not for the butcher to then stop talking to me, walk away and decide he'll hand over what I paid for when he's quite ready, which might be tomorrow, next Wednesday or the year 2250... There exists an unwritten contract between buyer and seller, of what a realistic waiting period is, moreover this company even states it's (highly excessive) waiting times, which it is in clear breach of.

There is no communication or explanation of delay. There is therefore no onus on the buyer to expect delay further than has been stated on the website as turnover time. Therefore, once the turnover time passed, with the seller still in possession of the money, and providing no indication to the buyer of reasons why the stated deadlines have been passed yet still no actual product has been delivered, the seller has effectively stolen from the buyer. Zuzzy is in breach of the FTC's prompt delivery rules, by a country mile.

http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules.pdf

I don't really think it is a weird slant. It is an informed consumers position. It takes a very long time for stuff to show up from Zuzzy. You will not get communication. You will get your product. It has been that way for years now. If we look at your butcher scenario - I wouldn't have an issue if the butcher did that...let the market sort it out, and likely that butcher wouldn't last too long. Though, to make it more precise - it isn't a slab of beef, it is a rare cut from a minke whale. That butcher is the only butcher who has access to the meat, and many people feel their business practices are worth dealing with.

An 'informed customer'? It can be strongly claimed that a customer of an online business doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of the frankly terrible shortfalls of this company but can be said to be an informed customer if they take the time to read the statement of expected waiting time on the company's website...

And you not taking issue with a person taking your money and not giving you your end product is your odd business, the rest of humanity has an expectation of product for payment in a business transaction, and entirely within their rights as a consumer to take issue with a 'business' that takes money and does not produce product, within understood and self-established timelines.

Your further suggestion that because this product has some air of exclusivity, it remains beyond the purvey and reach of standard business practice, again, this is daft. Rarity does not suddenly facilitate stealing money and breaching one's own standards of production. The company gave a statement of delivery and then breached it and then refuses to engage with a customer (or perhaps 'victim') who is now without money and without product.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

The stated time frames may seem excessive, but again - there is a reason that there is only one company who produces these on this scale. It is time and space intensive with little financial return at the price point. Granted, if there was no backlog and orders were placed at the maximum or 2 matts per day (allowing for weekends and holidays - maybe 500 a year) then it could be feasible to have a one week turn around on them. Now, hope you don't get sick have to attend funeral or otherwise have anything unexpected ever happen - because as soon as it does, the delays start...

Again you're seeking to alleviate blame and you've no leg to stand on.
We don't care how intensive the business is, that's the owner's affair. We don't really care about his or her financial returns for the product, that, again, is their affair. The customer is without their money and without their product yet you're claiming that the owner is 'having a tough time of it' and, again, we don't care. They have taken money and not produced product, even anywhere near their own massive turnaround timeframe. It's inexcusable and here you are trying to excuse it.

And all your smoke and mirrors of funerals and poor returns conveniently ignore the willful lack of communication from the seller.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Regarding the FTC - very good. A rule. Not a law. As I had stated from the get go. One thing about an FTC rule is that they have almost no teeth. There is no criminal act going on. Probably the "best" outcome of a thread like this would be that he shuts down entirely. They have no ability to force refunds, they have limited ability to apply fines. The best way for these to shake themselves out is for consumers to make informed decisions.

If the rules of the FTC are broken, there is room for censure and prosecution. The Rule is not a Law, breaking the rule, however, opens you up to prosecution under Law, something I cannot believe you don't already grasp...

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

I don't buy anything based off from what a company may claim (whether it is quality or even delivery estimates). I do a bit of research and then make a determination based off from that. Based off from all accounts, the quality of the product is excellent - that alone might be enough for many people to wait. If you want it tomorrow (or next week or next month...) it probably isn't a good fit for you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for a business like that within a market like this.

Whilst you have the luxary of affording time for a full scale business investigation into any and everything you buy, like some purchasing Columbo, the rest of the consumer world relies on the protections of the law, 'reasonable expectation' and, perhaps especially pertinent in this case, the actual statement of delivery time beyond standard 30 days, by the selling company.

I find your entire commentary in this thread to be summed up as 'it's a great product, you should be thankful your getting it (perhaps) one day and should have carried out an investigation into the company before trusting the company'... Which is victim-blaming, for a would-be customer who took a company trading online at their statement and handed money over in good faith with entirely realistic trade expectations.

I appreciate your articulation step by step of what a business owner should be obligated to do for their customers and how customers shouldn't be expected to look between the thin lines of what a company clearly states.

I can see both sides here (I ordered from Zuzzy a year ago, and received a mat within like 10 - 12 weeks). 37 weeks is getting a bit insane, as in we should be talking in months, getting close to a year. So, I think saying it's gotten a lot worse is accurate. The communication issue is a problem, as any reasonable business would respond in some manner... not doing so is at minimum extremely unprofessional, and even if it's their MO, not acceptable. I do think he'll deliver, but I was already nervous about ordering when I did, and would definitely not consider doing so now given these kinds of timeframes (and behavior).

To maybe couch how unmotivated he appears to be about communicating in context, back along I sent a message asking to purchase a mat he had in stock.

He would have had my money for the work of replying with a price plus shipping, sending a paypal invoice and sticking it in the mail, almost free money, no production work needed.

Must be 18 months and still no answer!

Told me all I needed.

I agree with Sean that people should use their brains and google-fu before they enter into contract with any company where they are required to pay upfront. That is an advice only, however, and does in no way give excuse for poor or effectively criminal behavior from a vendor.

Also, the fact that a shop needs ages to deliver does not make said vendor a thief or fraudster.

However, it strongly smells of fraud (at least in my part of the world) when you ask for a cancellation and refund due to broken contractual statements (delivery time being one) and you do not get your money back (or, in fact, any response at all). Which seems to be the case here.
There might be other reasons for why the vendor might not respond to the such requests (health comes to my mind) but there is reasonable suspicion for fraudulent behavior and as such I would press charges if the amount was worth it.

It is never dumb to go to a consumers' rights association but I have a strong feeling that they will tell you the same: Write a formal letter (signed for), if no response get a lawyer and have him write a letter, if no response start proceedings. If your case is solid, your lawyers' fees will most likely have to be paid by him in the end.

What i don't understand is if after a reasonable time frame (if eta is 10-12 weeks, then 37 is no long reasonable), i requested a refund several times, and no response, and no communication, why have the authorities not been involved ?

Good synopsis of Fraud: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=785 (Full disclosure, the word "intentional" opens up some interesting debate, however even if the didn't originally "intend" to defraud, i think we go back to willful and intentional with the radio silence and the unreasonably long period of time, and most importantly, the ignoring of demands for refunds. That last one in particular think renders any argument of "there's no intent to deprive, so no fraud" moot immediately).

Good synopsis of petty larceny (which most mats would fall under) : http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1526


Because i'll be honest. At week 20 i would have had enough of zero communication, and would have started demanding a refund, with a follow up a week later. At week 22 I would have had a lawyer friend write a certified letter. At week 24 the police would be involved, and i would be resigned to make myself as much of a nuisance as humanly possible. Twice the established lead time with absolutely no communication is being more than understanding in my book.


Also the whole "caveat emptor laissez faire" argument is complete horsegak. It's understandable if it takes time. A lot of time. Stop advertising it takes less, and communicate with your customer. It is not reasonable to take someone's money, go thrice the lead time, have complete radio silence, and then get all fething asshurt when the consumer thinks that something is rotten.