EquipNet, Incorporated

One portion of this customers order was misplaced by the packing vendorOnce reported by this customer we notified the vendorOnce the vendor identified where the missing equipment was, this customer requested they dialogue with the vendor directly to set up their own pick upApparently this vendor was not returning this customers callsWe contacted the vendor yesterday and they e-mailed this customer to arrange for the pickupThe lesson learned is to let us do our job and this may have been resolved several weeks earlierI would imagine this missing equipment will be on its way to the customer next weekBecause this equipment was located at a remote sellers location we had to rely on a local vendor who clearly do not do their job properlyOnce the problem was identified EquipNet did what they could to rectify the situation

The customer asked about the equipment before purchasing itWe told them we could not verify whether it was functional or not and we encouraged them to inspect whatever equipment they were interested in before proceeding with their purchaseThey did not inspect and purchased several items anywayMany of the items they purchased did work while some did notWe can not refund them in full for the non-functional items as these items were purchased through an auction and were acquired at a price far below their true retail valueAs a customer courtesy we offered the customer a $2,refund for their trouble yet they refused this offerThe customer originally complained of in-transit damage but then did not provide the proof necessary to support this claim, and then changed their story to say the items were non-functionalOur terms are very clear that all items are purchased as is where is, as we are only brokering the sale and do not test the equipment before selling itThis buyer was well aware of the risk when entering this sale and proceeded with their purchase and did acquire several items at favorable pricesThe refund offer still stands if they wish to accept it at this point

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] We do not have a recording of telephone conversations so it is true we have no evidence that we were told that machinery was in operation just prior to being taken out of service for sale and, in the case of the [redacted] , had been well looked after by an Italian technicianHowever, it seems that whether that conversation occurred should have more importance than whether we can prove it did.Further, it does not seem reasonable that our complaint that much of the machinery was non-functional and unfixable once unloaded and inspected should negate the complaint there there appeared to be shipping damage and that the expected crating and skidding of the [redacted] did not occur.Ultimately the equipment in question was worthless and has been junked and we have suffered over $14,in lossesThat fact does not seem to be in dispute although others do.The discrepancies in the final lines of the last response by Equipnet indicate the problem we had trying to find a resolution to this matterAt the end of the response it states: "we did not hear from them for a few more weeks, when we did they were threatening to go to the Revdex.com."The reality was: We were told some compensation would be coming after sending photos on April 4thWhen we did not hear back we attempted numerous times to communicate sending an email May 18th asking for a response and outlining the issues again; another May 31st; left a voicemail June 7th and sent another email June 13th asking for a reply by a specific date (within days) which was finally answeredIn replying to that email from Equipnet we stated: "Since it seemed like I was getting no responses I prepared the attached for the Revdex.com, just before sending the last email thinking it would be worthwhile to have a third party give advice (that's part of the reason I asked for a reply by a specific date, I was planning on sending it Monday anticipating getting no reply again)"The Equipnet response goes on to state " [redacted] stepped in and tried to negotiate a resolution"However what occured was: after offering us a refund of only $on June 28th, a reply from us the same day went unanswered and a followup July 7th in which we stated "You had mentioned mutually coming up with a resolution - I'm available any time for a phone call or will respond to any email within a day." got the response "The $refund offer is final, and there is no room for negotiation"Considering all factors previously written about, characterizing our loss as based on our misinterpretation of how the equipment is sold does not seem reasonable and is why we deemed the $offer as insufficient Regards, [redacted]

Our records indicate that a refund of $was processed to your credit card on June 13th which is shortly after the amount was agreed toYou should retract all negative comments about us because they are completely untrue and if anyone's character should be questioned it should be your ownA copy
of the credit is attached

After reviewing the details of this claim, it does not appear as though the buyer followed the terms and conditions they agreed to when registering with EquipNetOur terms clearly state: If items invoiced are either damaged, stolen, lost or in some other way altered or discovered to be
different from the information provided on the listing prior to Company picking up items, then Company will in good faith attempt to work out with the Seller an arrangement satisfactory to all parties.To my knowledge, this buyer has made no attempt to work out a resolution with the sellerAlso, in my estimation the buyer submitted a low offer for this equipmentThe offer was $4,against an ask price of $8,000, and the buyer's offer said the pump needed to be included when it was never part of the listing in the first placeSo why they felt they could ask for additional equipment that was not available in the first place is beyond me.Lastly, the buyer seems to think that they should be compensated at the full replacement value for used equipmentWell that is simply not reasonable.The EquipNet team had been willing to work with this customer but their expectations are far from reality, and they are unwilling to follow the terms and conditions they agreed to

Clearly this customer's recollection of the sequence of events is very slanted to support their argumentWe do not guarantee that any equipment we sell will be fully functional as we sell used equipment that cannot be thoroughly tested before it is soldAll customers are encouraged to inspect whatever equipment they are interested in before making their purchase and this customer elected to ignore that adviceThe following is a description of events once the equipment arrived w\hich supports our contention that this customer originally complained of freight damage and then changed their tune to say the equipment was non-functional when we claimed it would beDo they have proof of this claim, no, and we have e-mail eveidence supporting what was communicated to them, as per the attached.What occurred after the equipment arrived is as follows:*** from *** called logistics when the truck arrived at their siteThey were claiming that the equipment was damaged and loaded in a manner that prohibited them from being able to unload the truckI gave *** guidance on how to proceed: take photos, write on the BOL that the equipment was damaged, take pictures of each piece as it comes off the truckWe called *** *** and had him confirm how the equipment was loaded, so we could give more guidance to *** on how to move forwardWe also arranged for the truck to hold overnight to allow them more time to unload and work through the claimed transit damageI followed up with *** over the next week, requesting the photos they were instructed to take and copies of the BOL so a claim could be pursuedThey were never providedApprox weeks later, ***(***'s) husband called me about the issues*** began to explain that they were frustrated at the condition of the equipment and that some of the equipment had labels indicating it was not functionalI clarified that we were not actually talking about transit damage, just dissatisfaction with the purchase in generalThat is when *** starts talking, she was on the call, but *** had not told me she was listening inIt quickly became clear that their frustration with the purchase was related more to the condition of the equipment in general, and not that there was any transit damageShe did feel that more could have been done to prep the equipmet for shipping, she mentioned that some electric eye's for one of the machines had come loose, some nuts and bolts seemed to have fallen to the trailer floorMost important, they felt they were simply duped on what they were purchasing*** said she was told by the sales rep "The machines were all running and in perfect working order up until the moment they were shut down for the auction"I asked if they had inspected the equipment, they had notI asked *** and *** to provide pictures of the items and details regarding the issuesthey explained they were leaving for Hawaii and would send them to me but would not be availabel to follow up until they returned*** sent one picture, of a reflector on the floor of the trailer, with no other appearant damageswe did not hear from them for a few more weeks, when we did they were threatening to go to the Revdex.comI engaged *** and went over the events*** stepped in and tried to negotiate a resolution

We are looking into your order and will provide an update as soon as I determine what our next staps areWe intend to complete this sale to your satisfaction

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. We do not have a recording of telephone conversations so it is true we have no evidence that we were told that machinery was in operation just prior to being taken out of service for sale and, in the case of the [redacted], had been well looked after by an Italian technician. However, it seems that whether that conversation occurred should have more importance than whether we can prove it did.Further, it does not seem reasonable that our complaint that much of the machinery was non-functional and unfixable once unloaded and inspected should negate the complaint there there appeared to be shipping damage and that the expected crating and skidding of the [redacted] did not occur.Ultimately the equipment in question was worthless and has been junked and we have suffered over $14,000 in losses. That fact does not seem to be in dispute although others do.The discrepancies in the final lines of the last response by Equipnet indicate the problem we had trying to find a resolution to this matter. At the end of the response it states: "we did not hear from them for a few more weeks, when we did they were threatening to go to the Revdex.com."The reality was: We were told some compensation would be coming after sending photos on April 4th. When we did not hear back we attempted numerous times to communicate sending an email May 18th asking for a response and outlining the issues again; another May 31st; left a voicemail June 7th and sent another email June 13th asking for a reply by a specific date (within 3 days) which was finally answered. In replying to that email from Equipnet we stated: "Since it seemed like I was getting no responses I prepared the attached for the Revdex.com, just before sending the last email thinking it would be worthwhile to have a third party give advice (that's part of the reason I asked for a reply by a specific date, I was planning on sending it Monday anticipating getting no reply again)"The Equipnet response goes on to state "[redacted] stepped in and tried to negotiate a resolution"However what occured was: after offering us a refund of only $2000 on June 28th, a reply from us the same day went unanswered and a followup July 7th in which we stated "You had mentioned mutually coming up with a resolution - I'm available any time for a phone call or will respond to any email within a day." got the response "The $2000 refund offer is final, and there is no room for negotiation"Considering all factors previously written about, characterizing our loss as based on our misinterpretation of how the equipment is sold does not seem reasonable and is why we deemed the $2000 offer as insufficient.
 Regards,
[redacted]

One portion of this customers order was misplaced by the packing vendor. Once reported by this customer we notified the vendor. Once the vendor identified where the missing equipment was, this customer requested they dialogue with the vendor directly to set up their own pick up. Apparently this...

vendor was not returning this customers calls. We contacted the vendor yesterday and they e-mailed this customer to arrange for the pickup. The lesson learned is to let us do our job and this may have been resolved several weeks earlier. I would imagine this missing equipment will be on its way to the customer next week. Because this equipment was located at a remote sellers location we had to rely on a local vendor who clearly do not do their job properly. Once the problem was identified EquipNet did what they could to rectify the situation.

I need to confirm the details of this complaint with our sales dept and will respond back with our intentions to resolve

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in...

reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
[Rejecting in order to keep the case open since no further response has been received since the message that it is being looked into - and the 10 day response requirement on my part is approaching]
Regards,
[redacted]

The customer asked about the equipment before purchasing it. We told them we could not verify whether it was functional or not and we encouraged them to inspect whatever equipment they were interested in before proceeding with their purchase. They did not inspect and purchased several items anyway. Many of the items they purchased did work while some did not. We can not refund them in full for the non-functional items as these items were purchased through an auction and were acquired at a price far below their true retail value. As a customer courtesy we offered the customer a $2,000 refund for their trouble yet they refused this offer. The customer originally complained of in-transit damage but then did not provide the proof necessary to support this claim, and then changed their story to say the items were non-functional. Our terms are very clear that all items are purchased as is where is, as we are only brokering the sale and do not test the equipment before selling it. This buyer was well aware of the risk when entering this sale and proceeded with their purchase and did acquire several items at favorable prices. The refund offer still stands if they wish to accept it at this point.