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.

 wildphilldude wrote:
have a look at this from EOTS FAQ a fantastic piece of fiction a booker prize right there,

Aren't you just another faceless webstore after a quick profit?

Absolutely not! We're not some fly-by-night company with a poor record and even poorer service, our bricks-and-mortar store has been trading since 2009, and we have taken a number of years to research what every wargamer wants in a webstore: a genuinely cheap, no hassle service from people that know the industry and gets items to them quickly.

Our team is always willing to help you and we're also steeped in wargaming experience - if we can't help you, nobody can!

quite how anybody they still owe is suposed to swallow this i don't know but funny how the things that were in stock on MG a couple of weeks ago are now in stock at EOTS down to the same colour of paints.
perhaps people should email ETOS about thier outstanding orders.

It is different firm with a different owner.

And not at all closely connected to Maelstrom Games or Robert Lane in any way at all...

Those rose tinted glasses you are wearing makes you look fat.

Yeah, huge fan of MG, but EOTS is close enough to be the same company. If people don't get orders fulfilled and EOTS continues this could be odd.

blingman wrote:

 wildphilldude wrote:
have a look at this from EOTS FAQ a fantastic piece of fiction a booker prize right there,

Aren't you just another faceless webstore after a quick profit?

Absolutely not! We're not some fly-by-night company with a poor record and even poorer service, our bricks-and-mortar store has been trading since 2009, and we have taken a number of years to research what every wargamer wants in a webstore: a genuinely cheap, no hassle service from people that know the industry and gets items to them quickly.

Our team is always willing to help you and we're also steeped in wargaming experience - if we can't help you, nobody can!

quite how anybody they still owe is suposed to swallow this i don't know but funny how the things that were in stock on MG a couple of weeks ago are now in stock at EOTS down to the same colour of paints.
perhaps people should email ETOS about thier outstanding orders.

It is different firm with a different owner.

In fact no it's not it has the same physical address and phone number as maelstrom, it is owned by Rob Lane and apparently the physical shop still has the scratch marks from where the Maelstrom sign was removed.

All though it looks like Rob's being doing the hokey cokey with the name again at companies house as it's not eye of the storm ltd anymore,

One more time, I guess... especially for the new guy with 16 posts who is absolutely not a mole... this one goes out to you, baby!

Maelstrom Games:
https://www.duedil.com/company/04724863/maelstrom-games-limited
Maelstrom Games Limited was registered on 07 Apr 2003 with its registered office in Nottinghamshire. The business has a status of active. They were founded by Robert Lane, and Andrew Chesney. There are 2 shareholders of Maelstrom Games Limited. They have no known group companies. The company has assets totalling £375,518 plus liabilities totalling £567,481. They owe £567,388 to creditors and are due £130,137 from trade debtors. Their net worth is £-132,432, and the value of their shareholders' interest is £4,523.
Registered Address
106 Carter Lane
Mansfield
Nottinghamshire
NG18 3DH
United Kingdom
http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/

Eye of the Storm - Name changed 2 days ago to Maunsfield Gaming:
https://www.duedil.com/company/08112392/maunsfeld-gaming-ltd
ABOUT MAUNSFELD GAMING LTD
Maunsfeld Gaming Ltd was registered on 20 Jun 2012 with its registered office in Nottinghamshire. The business has a status of active. They were founded by Robert Lane, and Graham Cowan. They have no known group companies.
Registered Address
106 Carter Lane
Mansfield
Nottinghamshire
NG18 3DH
United Kingdom
http://www.eye-of-the-storm.co.uk/

Mierce Miniatures:
https://www.duedil.com/company/06830539/mierce-miniatures-limited
ABOUT MIERCE MINIATURES LIMITED
Mierce Miniatures Limited was registered on 26 Feb 2009 with its registered office in Nottinghamshire. The business has a status of 'Non-trading'. They were founded by Robert Lane, and Graham Cowan. Mierce Miniatures Limited have a single shareholder; Robert Lane. They have no known group companies.
106 Carter Lane
Mansfield
Nottinghamshire
NG18 3DH
United Kingdom
http://www.mierce-miniatures.com/

Feel free to compare founders, shareholders, websites, and registered addresses.


I'm mostly staying out of this thread at this stage, but every time some new (or old) poster (or RL) comes along and posts BS to disassociate Maelstrom-EOTS-Mierce-Maunsfield Gaming from one another, I'll repost this info. Unti we all get out outstanding orders and they start answering the phones and emails, at least...

^Ah this is useful.

They split my order today. Hopefully means I'll be getting it soon.

Mierce has a status of "non-trading"?

Like many here, I had a fairly awful experience with Maelstrom over the summer. Ordered some Malifaux items, was messed around with delivery dates etc (ordered in-stock items, only to find out they were out of stock, received repeated promises of it'll be shipped out next week, and finally cancelled after 5 weeks of waiting. The CS rep - Simon - was rather brusk and curt throughout, but the refund was at least done instantly after I requested it.

I can't say I'm surprised to hear they are going under. What is sadder in many ways is that they managed to treat so many of their admirably loyal and devoted customers so badly in doing so when, in fact, many of them would probably have been willing to help out had the company just come clean much sooner. Had they put up their hands at the start of the summer and said 'we're a little low on cash flow and are running a big sale accordingly' I think the overwhelming majority of us would have stumped up our hard-earned cash immediately, in good faith, because they had never done us wrong before. But now? Forget it, I'd rather order a plague rat from a corpse cart than associate with that company again.

By the way, has anyone noted that the phone number on the new web company (slash old store front) Eye of the Storm is identical to the one listed in the dying Maelstrom site? Surely they can't get away with trying to claim that they are separate businesses when they have the same phone number?

I honestly do hope that the owner of the various stores (Maelstrom, EotS and the other ones) gets reported to an appropriate statutory authority. It may be that he's innocent of any wrong doing, but this deserves investigation at the least.

Anyway, yes this is my first post (long time lurker, this thread induced me to join to vent my $0.2) but I am a regular participant on the Warhammer Dark Elves forum - Druchii.net - as Red... for any who worry about my validity as a poster!

 Dysartes wrote:
Mierce has a status of "non-trading"?

I'm pretty sure that's a hangover from their last account filing as they were formed in 2009 they would have to submit that they are non-trading so HMRC know what to expect in the way of tax. If they came active after Feb 2012 then I would think they would still show as non-trading until their next set of accounts are filed.

Hahaha why would i be a mole ?
I just game at eye of the storm regularly, as do a lot of people. Check the find a game section.

blingman wrote:
Hahaha why would i be a mole ?
I just game at eye of the storm regularly, as do a lot of people. Check the find a game section.

Then you should know it's all the same guy, The whole eye of the storm thing was just Maelstrom's name for his gaming venue, it wasn't even a separate company to begin with.

Basically as far as I can tell no-one actually supplies EOTS - it all goes to Maelstrom and he then puts stock in EOTS shop. If there is no balancing or payments from one to the other in theory all that stock belongs to Maelstrom (or their suppliers).

 SoulDrinker wrote:

blingman wrote:
Hahaha why would i be a mole ?
I just game at eye of the storm regularly, as do a lot of people. Check the find a game section.

Then you should know it's all the same guy, The whole eye of the storm thing was just Maelstrom's name for his gaming venue, it wasn't even a separate company to begin with.

Basically as far as I can tell no-one actually supplies EOTS - it all goes to Maelstrom and he then puts stock in EOTS shop. If there is no balancing or payments from one to the other in theory all that stock belongs to Maelstrom (or their suppliers).

Nope, EOTS has seperate stock, its even an official GW supplier as rayvon mentioned.

That's only useful if the invoices are made out to Eye of the Storm - if they have separate accounts with suppliers. I'm pretty sure they don't from my contact with some of their suppliers. It's just listed as a store address for the company to show where the bricks and mortar shop is. The company who hold the accounts with the suppliers (and who have been cut off) is Maelstrom Games, therefore EOTS won't have any supplies coming in. Lets face it no supplier is going to supply any company owned and run by Rob Lane after this debacle.

EDIT - main reason I'm mentioning this is to give a little hope to the people waiting for their stuff, if it's been "moved" to EOTS then it's entirely possible that any administrators can "move" it back if it hasn't been properly bought by / invoiced to EOTS and people might at least get some of the stuff they are owed..............I live in hope

Update on my last order from MG.

Partially delivered this morning, about half of what I ordered on Monday 29th.

Missing several items which were claimed to be in stock at the time of ordering-yep some of the very few!

I've used the contact us form to ask for an update and will continue to pursue until I have my items, although it is still marked as packing.

My cynical side (which I've been using a lot where MG are concenred recently) wonders if they are leaving orders at the "packing" stage so that they can claim that they have not formed a contract with customers. It's is a surprisingly common clause in T&C's for webstores that the contract is not formed until items are sent out- although i'm not surehow the T&C's would stand up in court when compared to things like the consumer protection laws and the unfair contract terms legislation, particularly when payment is taken upon receipt of the order- anyone have any thoughts on that?

Also has anyone actually tried physically going to MG to see about their order? I'm quite prepared to do this if required, just wondering if anyone else has tried that tactic, as I'm fairly sure by now the phone and e-mail route is pretty much useless.

Winact wrote:
My cynical side (which I've been using a lot where MG are concenred recently) wonders if they are leaving orders at the "packing" stage so that they can claim that they have not formed a contract with customers. It's is a surprisingly common clause in T&C's for webstores that the contract is not formed until items are sent out- although i'm not surehow the T&C's would stand up in court when compared to things like the consumer protection laws and the unfair contract terms legislation, particularly when payment is taken upon receipt of the order- anyone have any thoughts on that?

Anyone who says that is lying, stupid or both. It would make more sense to say that the contract is concluded when items are sent out, but even that is in violation of consumer protection laws.

Yeah there can't be any legal basis for the contract only starting on shipping. The contract starts when the money is received; it's just as yours when it's being packed as when it's in transit. Their claim would never stand up in any court.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Winact wrote:
My cynical side (which I've been using a lot where MG are concenred recently) wonders if they are leaving orders at the "packing" stage so that they can claim that they have not formed a contract with customers. It's is a surprisingly common clause in T&C's for webstores that the contract is not formed until items are sent out- although i'm not surehow the T&C's would stand up in court when compared to things like the consumer protection laws and the unfair contract terms legislation, particularly when payment is taken upon receipt of the order- anyone have any thoughts on that?

Anyone who says that is lying, stupid or both. It would make more sense to say that the contract is concluded when items are sent out, but even that is in violation of consumer protection laws.

I'm well aware of my rights with regard to contract (as are you by the sound of things!) but I'm just trying to look forward a little to see what the point of doing things the way the MG have been doing is?

If they are deliberately staying in the "packing" stage longer than you'd expect, I'd suggest it might be because it looks better than "processing". Once it's actually packed there's no reason not to send it out ASAP, but the sooner it starts "packing" the sooner you're telling the customer "It's okay, just a few more days before you have it in your hands."

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah there can't be any legal basis for the contract only starting on shipping. The contract starts when the money is received; it's just as yours when it's being packed as when it's in transit. Their claim would never stand up in any court.

Here are a typical couple of examples of why so many companies do this:

1. You purchase something from a website and then the vendor cant get the item, maybe it has gone discontinued. If the contract started when you made the purchase the purchaser would then have legal grounds to sue the vendor because they couldnt supply the item, they could sue for damages and consequences of not being able to get the item.

2. You purchase a pre order item from a website and then the manufacturer decides to not release the item at the time.

As you can see the above are examples of when a vendor needs to have the legal right to not supply the item at the price offered and cancel the purchase if they wish. That is why it is merely an offer when you buy and only becomes a contract once the goods are dispatched. A good analogy would be a supermarket, the contract is only made once the physical goods have been inspected by the cashier, they have aggreed to sell them at the prices advertised and the customer hands over the money. The contract is only then made once all 3 of those things are done. Similarly when a purchase is made online the contract only exists when the customer has paid, the vendor has the goods in their posession and are willing to ship them.

The above would stand up in court because there are no consumer laws or sales laws that override the above terms for the above reasons.

However a company taking the money, not supplying the goods and not refunding it has nothing to do with the contract, that is a straight forward case where you are protected by the appropriate law, sales of goods act, distance selling regulations etc and has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a contract with the vendor or not.

The reason why the contract doesnt end when the items are dispatched as someone pointed out in a previous post is because if that was the case then the vendor wouldnt be responsible for any losses/damages in transit which they are. Hence why the contract ends when the customer has received the goods in adequate condition.

rocketboy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah there can't be any legal basis for the contract only starting on shipping. The contract starts when the money is received; it's just as yours when it's being packed as when it's in transit. Their claim would never stand up in any court.

Here are a typical couple of examples of why so many companies do this:

1. You purchase something from a website and then the vendor cant get the item, maybe it has gone discontinued. If the contract started when you made the purchase the purchaser would then have legal grounds to sue the vendor because they couldnt supply the item, they could sue for damages and consequences of not being able to get the item.

2. You purchase a pre order item from a website and then the manufacturer decides to not release the item at the time.

As you can see the above are examples of when a vendor needs to have the legal right to not supply the item at the price offered and cancel the purchase if they wish. That is why it is merely an offer when you buy and only becomes a contract once the goods are dispatched. A good analogy would be a supermarket, the contract is only made once the physical goods have been inspected by the cashier, they have aggreed to sell them at the prices advertised and the customer hands over the money. The contract is only then made once all 3 of those things are done. Similarly when a purchase is made online the contract only exists when the customer has paid, the vendor has the goods in their posession and are willing to ship them.

The above would stand up in court because there are no consumer laws or sales laws that override the above terms for the above reasons.

However a company taking the money, not supplying the goods and not refunding it has nothing to do with the contract, that is a straight forward case where you are protected by the appropriate law, sales of goods act, distance selling regulations etc and has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have a contract with the vendor or not.

The reason why the contract doesnt end when the items are dispatched as someone pointed out in a previous post is because if that was the case then the vendor wouldnt be responsible for any losses/damages in transit which they are. Hence why the contract ends when the customer has received the goods in adequate condition.

To be honest I am just wondering if there is an angle they are trying to play there? I understand the point of the contract not being formed until dispatch (which as you point out is legitimate use of terms and conditions to protect the business) but I wondered if anyone else could see a point in holding at the packing stage when it has been dispatched- at least partly (becasue it has arrived!) or whether I'm reading too much into it and they haven't got around to splitting/dispatched status updates yet?

Got an email this morning that Paypal had found in our favour with the dispute we had with Maelstrom and they have refunded us the money we spent on pre-ordering Relic. Result.

rocketboy wrote:
As you can see the above are examples of when a vendor needs to have the legal right to not supply the item at the price offered and cancel the purchase if they wish. That is why it is merely an offer when you buy and only becomes a contract once the goods are dispatched. A good analogy would be a supermarket, the contract is only made once the physical goods have been inspected by the cashier, they have aggreed to sell them at the prices advertised and the customer hands over the money. The contract is only then made once all 3 of those things are done. Similarly when a purchase is made online the contract only exists when the customer has paid, the vendor has the goods in their posession and are willing to ship them.

This is incorrect. The terms of the contract might say the vendor can terminate the contract by giving a refund, but a contract still exists in order for that obligation to exist.

so heres my latest update:


first order: most of it arrived, one item split off/processing fair enough


second/third order have now arrived but with missing or wrong items!
some missing items are even STILL showing as in stock >.<

not the best performance really in this ongoing saga!

Thought I'd share my experience with MG during their "FINAL-FINAL-PENULTIMATE-ARMAGEDDON-APOCALYPSE-WAREHOUSE-MOVES-SALE".

On Oct. 5th. I ordered some WarmaHordes at greatly reduced prices, £56 total cost. All items were listed as in stock at the time of purchase.
Got an order confirmation right away and everything looked hunky-dory. The order confirmation informed me that I would get an a new email when the parcel had been shipped, along with an invoice.

This was on a Friday. Tuesday or Wednesday the next week I had still not gotten any shipping confirmation so I logged back onto MG to check my order history. Here's what I found: (copy-paste directly from the order history) "This order is complete and was dispatched on 30·11·-1. "
Does that look correct to you? Nope, me neither. So I filled in their contact form asking for a confirmation that the items had been sent and waited for a reply.

Oct. 26th I had heard nothing from MG, so I thought "Okay, maybe it has been shipped and is being held by Norwegian customs without any notice of it landing in my mailbox. Things like that happen from time to time". I called up both Customs and the Postal services, and they had no records of any parcels addressed to me from MG searching as far back as August. So I write a new email to MG, again through their contact form, reporting a missing order.

Oct. 29th, no reply as of yet. I try calling them instead, only to find that the phone number listed on the website is not in use (maybe I've messed up the whole "calling abroad"-routine with extra digits, but I've tried every possible way I can think of. Can anyone confirm that their phone has been disconnected?). So I write a third email, this time directly to their contact email, outlining everything so far about my missing order.

Today, November 1st. Still no reply from MG. I called up Royal Mail to hear if they have any records of a parcel addressed to me from MG but as I haven't gotten a shipment number and it's being sent international, they are unable to track it. Sent a 4th email, again outlining everything. This time, however, I added that I expected a reply by the end of working hours tomorrow, Nov. 2nd, and that if I hear nothing, I will start looking into taking legal action against MG.

Haven't got high hopes about getting my models or my money back, so I guess I'm out £50+ . I will not order from MG or EOTS again.

Looks quite similar to my situation - so far I have tried contacting them ~10 times, but to no avail.

 AlexHolker wrote:

rocketboy wrote:
As you can see the above are examples of when a vendor needs to have the legal right to not supply the item at the price offered and cancel the purchase if they wish. That is why it is merely an offer when you buy and only becomes a contract once the goods are dispatched. A good analogy would be a supermarket, the contract is only made once the physical goods have been inspected by the cashier, they have aggreed to sell them at the prices advertised and the customer hands over the money. The contract is only then made once all 3 of those things are done. Similarly when a purchase is made online the contract only exists when the customer has paid, the vendor has the goods in their posession and are willing to ship them.

This is incorrect. The terms of the contract might say the vendor can terminate the contract by giving a refund, but a contract still exists in order for that obligation to exist.

You are wrong Alex, there is no contract until the vendor accepts it. Acceptance is the third and final part of contract formation, have a readup on UK law and in particular the 3 phases to any UK contract formation, it may be different to your country.

The obligation to refund if you cannot ship exists due to UK laws, not because a contract exists because it doesnt until acceptance (dispatch).

Pretty much every time I've used them the good arrive before the status changes from 'packing' to 'dispatched'

so still some hope there

Cardinal Biggles wrote:
This was on a Friday. Tuesday or Wednesday the next week I had still not gotten any shipping confirmation so I logged back onto MG to check my order history. Here's what I found: (copy-paste directly from the order history) "This order is complete and was dispatched on 30·11·-1. "
Does that look correct to you? Nope, me neither. So I filled in their contact form asking for a confirmation that the items had been sent and waited for a reply.

I had that and the order turned up eventually. I still haven't had any response from them though and that was weeks ago

Hi I have signed up to add to this thread which I have been watching with increasing worry for a few days.

When Maelstrom were doing a 40% discount a few weeks ago I ordered some SOTR stuff for my brother which arrived within a few days. I kept checking their inventory whenever a new level of discount was emailed out and suddenly noticed a Flames of War starter box at 50% off on 26 Oct. As this is something I was thinking about getting around xmas, I immediately placed an order for it and a couple of FOW blisters also 50% off.

Since then I have been looking at this thread and a few others like it with a growing sense of worry. I had only paid £20 but I'm pretty skint right now, so the 50% discount was very tempting.

Today this order arrived. On the Maelstrom site it is still marked as packing, but I seem to recall that their dispatch notices often arrive after the items do.

My reason for posting this is that I know Maelstrom can be pretty bad at responding to emails and so on but they still seem to be honouring their side of the deal as far as I can see. I was worried myself so I know it's easy to become alarmed by the apparent signs of a company in crisis but we won't know for sure whether they are going to have left anyone out of pocket until they shutdown for good. I really hope you guys all get your stuff or get your payment back, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't turn out ok for everyone.

JamesFlames wrote:
Hi I have signed up to add to this thread which I have been watching with increasing worry for a few days.

When Maelstrom were doing a 40% discount a few weeks ago I ordered some SOTR stuff for my brother which arrived within a few days. I kept checking their inventory whenever a new level of discount was emailed out and suddenly noticed a Flames of War starter box at 50% off on 26 Oct. As this is something I was thinking about getting around xmas, I immediately placed an order for it and a couple of FOW blisters also 50% off.

Since then I have been looking at this thread and a few others like it with a growing sense of worry. I had only paid £20 but I'm pretty skint right now, so the 50% discount was very tempting.

Today this order arrived. On the Maelstrom site it is still marked as packing, but I seem to recall that their dispatch notices often arrive after the items do.

My reason for posting this is that I know Maelstrom can be pretty bad at responding to emails and so on but they still seem to be honouring their side of the deal as far as I can see. I was worried myself so I know it's easy to become alarmed by the apparent signs of a company in crisis but we won't know for sure whether they are going to have left anyone out of pocket until they shutdown for good. I really hope you guys all get your stuff or get your payment back, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't turn out ok for everyone.

Flames of War was never 50% off - the highest discount given was 40%. And I hate to say, but if that starter was named "Open Fire", then You got an outdated starter with previous edition rules... The current starter is Achtung! and the new "Open FIre" with plastic infantry was never "in stock" at MG.