# Should the TTOC take the Wax Wizard to court?



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

*Should we take the WaxWizard to the small claims court?*​
Yes4887.27%No712.73%


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

As above. Should the TT Owners Club take Mark (Wax Wizard) to the small claims court to recover the money owed?

If successful, then the ******** could also recover it's owed money.

I just want to understand the depth of feeling from the membership that resides on the ********.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I understand the reasons for taking him to court, but what are the reasons (if any) for not...?


----------



## Matthew (Oct 6, 2003)

nutts said:


> I understand the reasons for taking him to court, but what are the reasons (if any) for not...?


Much as I like Mark, I can't honestly think of one. *Sigh*. Maybe letting him know of the intention to go to SCC and giving one last opportunity (with a deadline) would be a good option. This would be possible by sending a registered letter as-well as an e-mail and an attempt to reach him on the 'phone. If you still get no response then move it forward. A deal IS a deal and if Mark hasn't delivered and appears to have no intention of doing so, what other choice does he give you?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The more I think about it, the worse it gets...

I'm sure Swissol could have taken him to court for "passing off" but probably took the "kinder" option - but I daresay they did so IF and ONLY IF he

a) stopped selling his own stuff as "theirs"
b) followed their rules - I seem to remember he was required to refund or replace with proper Swissol stuff

Now whilst Swissol may be "satisfied" that he is fulfilling his obligations to them, maybe they should also be made aware that a number of his customers PLUS the TTOC and the TT Forum are still waiting for the situation to be resolved. Perhaps Swissol still have some clout, as threatened legal action from them would probably hold more weight than a CCJ from the SCC.

Like I said, it maybe that Swissol have declined further action, and are giving him chance to sort stuff out in a friendly manner. If he's not doing so, maybe they need to know about it...

In a roundabout way, what I am saying is, it might be better NOT going through the SCC straight away, but approaching Swissol instead... for all we know, he may have signed an agreement with them to rectify everything amicably - something he is surely now in breach of...


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

I've had no dealings with WW and don't profess to know him from Adam, but i have read the threads relating to this and one thing I do know is that it would seem that he has had ample opportunity to address this situation and has failed to do so, worse he has ignored everyone apart from Matthew.

Whatever you want to call it his failure to fulfil his obligations is out of order - he has taken peoples money be it with intention to supply in good faith or knowingly with no intention of supply, either way,

it's wrong!

which is echoed by his silence!

up to you guys really but i'd take action.

just my two penneth :roll:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I have left Mark another VM :roll: and informed him that unless he talks to me, we (the TTOC committee) are coming under increasing pressure to take legal action to recover our debt... :?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

IMO although what Mark aka Waxwizzard has done is beyond belief but saying that i wouldn't take it to the small claims court for a few reasons.

1/ How do you actually prove how much is owing, due to the fact no records were kept by the TTOC or Forum regarding purchases of Swissol product because members ordered directly from him and not via the Club or Forum.

2/ There is'nt actually any contract stating what % would be contributed other than E-mails and posts and again no way of actually proving what quantaties were orded.

3/ Mark requested the online form to be removed many months ago which could be construde as the contract has ended.

I feel the risk would be too great and expensive to the TTOC for what would be minimal gain, I also think Jae should have a say in this as he is also owed monies in the same way the TTOC is owed.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

We have emails from Mark that state the amount he believes he owes us.

That in my book is tantamount to an admission of a contract... and that is bbefore we all dig out our emails/threads regarding how and why the commission was set-up...

IIRC the small claims court costs a minimal amount.

The TTOC and the ******** * could do it together and I did suggest that one might want to progress it first. I would be open-minded about it  Just like I'm open-minded about whether to proceed on a legal basis.

* remember though, that the OC is "owned" by the members and the Forum is owned by Jae.



jonah said:


> IMO although what Mark aka Waxwizzard has done is beyond belief but saying that i wouldn't take it to the small claims court for a few reasons.
> 
> 1/ How do you actually prove how much is owing, due to the fact no records were kept by the TTOC or Forum regarding purchases of Swissol product because members ordered directly from him and not via the Club or Forum.
> 
> ...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark,

If you need to cover costs of instigating an SCC claim, I'm happy for you to utilise the Brooklands "Recorded Delivery" money of mine, unless, of course, it was donated to the given charity...

:lol:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

It supported the Brooklands AGM "first round of drinks" :lol:



jampott said:


> Mark,
> 
> If you need to cover costs of instigating an SCC claim, I'm happy for you to utilise the Brooklands "Recorded Delivery" money of mine, unless, of course, it was donated to the given charity...
> 
> :lol:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

btw this is not true... 



nutts said:


> It supported the Brooklands AGM "first round of drinks" :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

nutts said:


> It supported the Brooklands AGM "first round of drinks" :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right.... what's the address of the SCC website again?! :twisted:


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

nutts said:


> btw this is not true...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

for note - I got my (non Swissol) wax just in time for Brooklands.

Without wishing to sound un-patriotic to the OC here - *my* opinion is that it is more important that those people (particularily OC members) who are still awaiting product are sorted out before any commision payments.

Bearing in mind I have no idea how much Â£s or indeed how many people are outstanding.

However, given that previous attempts have not worked.... :?


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

could someone post why we need/want to take him to the SCC - reading between the lines it's because he hasn't given the TTOC their commission - how much is this??

H


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

~Â£700



Hannibal said:


> could someone post why we need/want to take him to the SCC - reading between the lines it's because he hasn't given the TTOC their commission - how much is this??
> 
> H


----------



## Matthew (Oct 6, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> I've had no dealings with WW and don't profess to know him from Adam, but i have read the threads relating to this and one thing I do know is that it would seem that he has had ample opportunity to address this situation and has failed to do so, worse he has ignored everyone apart from Matthew.
> 
> Whatever you want to call it his failure to fulfil his obligations is out of order - he has taken peoples money be it with intention to supply in good faith or knowingly with no intention of supply, either way,
> 
> ...


Yeah - Tough to disagree. It just isn't on. FWIW he also got ScoTTy and Chip their Swissol Onyx Wax at the same time as I got mine, which is the bizarre thing. We got ours while others had been waiting for months. I should also point out though that the stuff I had been waiting for from Mark was NOT Swissol, but his own gear - Nevertheless it took a fair bit of prompting to get it from him, although he did get it to me in the end and it's great.

I know that this is not sorted and I don't want to get into the realms of offering advice on this stuff (since I have no legal knowledge), but in the future maybe TTOC could look into some kind of written agreement (even a simple statement signed by both parties - Two originals - One for each party) when working with companies/individuals who we will be expecting a commission from? Just a thought.

Meantime, I hope that everyone waiting gets sorted. Wish I could do something to help :?


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I'm waiting for a few posts on why we shouldn't start legal proceedings... it seems that the majority of members feel strongly that we should but 5 people have voted against. Could one (or all) post their argument against please :?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I haven't voted either way, but am tempted to agree with Jonah. You could win and still not get anything out of Mark.

As a club it may be that we have to write this one off to experience - after all, it was never money we spent or ever 'had' so shouldn't have been included in any finacial workings out.

Also as a club it should be our duty to ensure that someone we recommend to our members provides them with the servivce we recommended them for - otherwise we could be in danger of recommending anyone on the basis that they give us a kickback :? .

If anything, any money we get from Mark should be evenly distributed among those that are not likely to get their products.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

I'm not actually disagreeing... and by making the threat of "give us the money owed and fulfill our members orders or we shall start legal proceedings". It may make him actually fulfill his obligations...



Kell said:


> I haven't voted either way, but am tempted to agree with Jonah. You could win and still not get anything out of Mark.
> 
> As a club it may be that we have to write this one off to experience - after all, it was never money we spent or ever 'had' so shouldn't have been included in any finacial workings out.
> 
> ...


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

I haven't voted on this .... I had good service from mark but realise others haven't.
If he hasn't responded then maybe the threat of legal action may be enough. I am sorry it has come to this though .... maybe he's getting enough business from wealthy Enzo owners and doesn't need the TT Community any more.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

apart from Mark never returning my phone calls... I've also had nothing but good service from Mark, but hs service to the membership and club has been appalling


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

I haven't voted on this because I had no dealings with Mark other than being present when other forum members had their cars "swizzoled" for free.
Perhaps he thinks that his previous free work makes up for not delivering goods :?


----------



## Jae (May 6, 2002)

From a TT Forum perspective (and also TTOC) Mark (WaxWiz) was provided advertising space on both mediums, on the agreement of a kick back on each product sold as a 50/50 split with the TTOC and TT Forum.

This amount, although not transparent in its accumilation was confirmed by WW as being Â£600 + in Apr this year, with another notification of Â£700 to be presented to both the TTOC and TT Forum by one of WW's customers - JK - at Brooklands.

Now, both the TTOC and TT Forum are run as a business, as they both incur costs and thus need turnover to exist. This is generated by membership fees in the case of the TTOC and advertising revenue for both. WW has benefited finanacially from both organisations on a promise of payment - with none forthcoming - for the promotion and sale of WW products - this was perfectly clear in the WW thread that was stickied at the top of the GB page.

Ultimately, this is tantamount to theft (although a little hard to prove) and as such he should be offering some kind of settlement or even commication.

I therefore can see no reason other than to persue settlement through the courts, if we don't get the money, then to make him accountable for his actions.

Jae


----------



## Jae (May 6, 2002)

What about getting the other forums together on this, to make it more of a force (all though I dont know what their arrangments were with WW?)


----------



## ColDiTT (Sep 6, 2003)

I could be wrong but I may have been one of the last members to speak with Mark (Wax Wizard) face to face, not once but twice on the subject of commission owed to the club.

Our first conversation was on Sunday 25th April 2004, Mark was well aware of monies outstanding/owed by him to the club & forum as he volunteered a figure of Â£700. He went on to say (as Jae has said) that he was going to ask JK to present the cheque to us at Brooklands.

My second conversation on the subject with Mark was on Sunday 9th May at GTi International. Again, we discussed the commission outstanding and again he said a cheque would be presented at Brooklands, this time he said JK would not be there to present it. He did go on to say JK was sending a couple of cars over, these included his Enzo and his RS6.

The rest is history as they say.

Col


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

Has anything ever happened about this? An update either way would be nice.

H


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Nothing yet... I tried to contact him by email twice iirc and a few other times by phoning his mobile.

Then the TTOC was into it's website upgrade, hosting move, etc and this dropped off our radar. We will discuss again at our next committee meeting and try and understand what and how we progress this... thanks for reminding, as it has obviously dropped from our thoughts.


----------

