Liquidity Services Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because Liquidation's rules stated that there was only one account per household or business. I do not share a household or business with the other customer, only a shipping address. They could have asked for my driver's license or tax returns to validate that. I would have changed my shipping address if Liquidation had told me that their policy extended to that requirement. Instead, they cut me off without warning, so that I could not even view my own orders. Subsequently, one of my orders arrived and was salvage instead of returns, and was entirely different items. I was unable to provide proof about the original order to Liquidation because they had locked me out of access to my account history. This made the process very complicated, but they eventually approved my return, sent me a return shipping label, but I cannot access the return label because, again, my account was deactivated, and I am getting no response when I request that they send me the return label as an attachment instead. 
It was just a very rude way of doing business. They could have blocked shipments until the matter was resolved, or some other civil way of handling it. It is not as hard as Liquidation seems to think, to simply be courteous and accommodating while still maintaining their rules. Also, the rules should be stated more clearly, since my situation did not match the unauthorized situations their terms of service describe and their Revdex.com response references.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 21, 2015Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase...

agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of thirty (30) items, including designer & brand bags, purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 4th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. [redacted] said that she had received “one (1) [redacted] bag and the other 29 were all low end brands, there were NO other high end brands”. She requested a partial refund.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she felt that most of the lot contained “low end brands”. The auction description clearly lists “collection of classic and durable designer & brand handbags, the selection will not be in equal proportions”. Furthermore, [redacted] received 30 bags in total and Liquidity Services cannot validate her claim based on her opinion of low end brands. Also, the dispute was denied as there was no support provided within the allotted time to support her claim.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
Amanda O
Compliance Associate

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: there is a difference between untested to salvage, untested means some should be working or not in great shape, to receive all not working or broken units is not called returned, seller used this so they can get away with disputes, buyers are not protected in this business, better protection for buyers has to be in place 
Regards,
[redacted]

May 17, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear **. [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 50 men’s designer leather gloves in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that 44 of 50 gloves had sticky residue on then and that many also had tears or scuffs that made them unsuitable for sale. He believes that these gloves are more properly classified as Salvage condition rather than Returns.
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the gloves were in a condition other than advertised. The defects described by **. [redacted] fall within the acceptable range set by the definition of Returns merchandise on our website. While these defects may not be typical of Returns auctions, they can occur given the broadly acceptable returns policies of various retailers. This particular lot would require additional work to prepare for sale in some outlets, but that is not to be completely unexpected for Returns merchandise. **. [redacted] expected merchandise in better condition within the Returns designation, but this is not always the case. Most buyers expect the upper end of the range, but we cannot control the returns policies of the various retailers from whom our sellers obtain merchandise to list on Liquidation.com.
Regarding the other transaction mentioned in **. [redacted]’s complaint, no dispute was filed. Further, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for both transactions. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.
We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

January 7, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the...

Revdex.com.  [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he had not received his purchase or a refund, but he has since been refunded in full.On November 28, [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 34 medical devices and equipment in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  When he did not receive his shipment after several weeks, he filed a chargeback with [redacted] on the transaction.Shortly after the shipment should have been delivered, we discovered that the tracking number for the shipment was incorrect and therefore the shipment could not be located.  On December 8, it was decided that we would issue a full refund if we did not receive confirmation of delivery from the carrier.  In the meantime, we waited for delivery confirmation to arrive.  After three weeks, we moved forward with the refund and authorized a full payment of $288.65 to [redacted]’s account on December 26.Further, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated as a result of the chargeback he filed with [redacted].  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in the user agreement which [redacted] agreed to follow when he registered as a user on our website.  There was no record of a dialogue between [redacted] and our customer service team to attempt to settle the matter, and it does not appear that an effort was made by [redacted] to request a refund.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.Regards,Cary H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

April 13, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the...

Revdex.com.  [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because her disputes were denied.Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 122 handbags and clothing accessories in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 22, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags and other items she received did not match the auction photos and that the items received were much lesser quality than pictured, particularly the jewelry.  [redacted] requested a partial refund of $642.00 to offset the expected value against the actual value of the merchandise shipped.Our disputes team reviewed her claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the seller had provided the merchandise described in the auction listing.  The photos accompanying the auction were for illustrative purposes only.  The seller provided detailed documentation validating the authenticity of the merchandise sent to [redacted].  [redacted] asked to discuss the dispute by phone, but she did not file a reopen request.Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 40 women’s designer sleepwear items in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 25, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing and grossly misrepresented.  She said that she received one item with a significant stain and another with a tear in the fabric.  Among the items received, [redacted] suggested that she would only be able to sell a small percentage because the items had not come in matching sets, but were largely mismatched.  She said that the merchandise seemed to be Returns rather than Shelf Pulls condition sleepwear.Our disputes team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  The support provided showed items similar to those described in the listing.  Further, there was no indication in the listing that any of the items would be matching sets.  The two stained and torn items were disturbed as a result of handling as described in our Shelf Pulls definition on the auction:Shelf Pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns and have been exposed to appreciable customer contact. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Shelf Pulls can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 60 assorted handbags in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On March 1, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags that she received did not look at all like the handbags pictured in the auction photos.  She added that the handbags received were low-quality with little variation, which differed substantially from her expectations.Our disputes team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  [redacted] received 60 assorted handbags as promised.  There were no statements made in the auction advertising that failed to be met.  Again, the auction photos were generic and used for illustrative purposes only and were not photos of the actual items to be shipped.Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 88 handbags and clothing accessories in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On March 1, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags received did not resemble the photos accompanying the auction listing.  She asked that we contact the seller and hold the seller to a higher quality standard.Our dispute team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  Again, the listing statements matched the items received.  [redacted]’s expectations were based on the auction photos which were generic and not intended to show the actual merchandise to be shipped.Our disputes team considers each dispute received on a discrete basis solely on the evidence and support provided.  Our marketplace provides a platform for buyers and sellers to meet to conduct auctions of merchandise.  In these cases, each seller provided the merchandise that was described in the auction wording with no false statements.  Therefore, it would have been improper for our dispute team to overturn the transactions.  If the buyer support had shown an auction statement to be false, then the dispute would have resulted in a refund.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that these matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

November 28, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. Regarding Transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted] with seller [redacted], disputes were reopened on these transactions, and [redacted] sent samples to our warehouse for inspection. After receipt of his samples, we sent [redacted] the following message on July 30 explaining the process: We are reaching out to you as a courtesy to advise you that your dispute claims are under investigation and will be provided a final resolution accordingly. We would like to thank you for your patience as our reopen requests are handled in the order received and do take additional time for a proper conclusion. We have reached out for a professional response from authenticators concerning your units in claim and the seller’s supporting documentation, and upon receiving the results we will provide you with an update. This process is a protocol to insure all aspects of the investigation claim are reviewed and considered for validation. Once again we are only contacting you to assure you that your claims are not disregarded and action is currently in process for a resolution of your dispute claims. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact our customer service department. Please be advised that our customer support team is only able to review transaction notes as well as add any further comments or support you may want to communicate. Our customer support team is unable to provide dispute resolution. You may also respond to this e-mail or communicate via e-mail to our disputes department at [email protected]. Thank you for your patience and professionalism throughout the dispute process. After thorough review, the disputes team concluded that these transactions should receive a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Refund payments for these transactions in the amounts of $531.79 and $267.77, respectively, were processed to [redacted]’s account on August 13. Additionally, several other transactions between [redacted] and seller [redacted] were refunded on the same day. Regarding Transaction ID [redacted] with seller [redacted], there was no dispute form properly filed on the transaction so there is no open dispute. The transaction notes show that [redacted] sent an e-mail describing his concerns and that our customer service personnel left a voicemail for him on July 14 asking for more information. We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we have worked with him to settle where he has followed our procedures for resolution. We consider these matters closed with the refunds. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

April 28, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear **. [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **....

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied; however, it has since been resolved in his favor.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 476 cell phone and tablet cases in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 2, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was missing a large number of units advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he only received 74 of 476 items advertised, including 52 items from the manifest and 22 more items not listed on the auction manifest. The shipment was so different from the listing that the buyer felt that he may have received the wrong shipment entirely. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and erroneously sent a denial related to another matter. After being alerted to the error, the review concluded that **. [redacted]’s dispute could not be honored because the weight of the package sent by the seller matched the weight of the package delivered by the carrier [redacted]. This would indicate that the items sent by the seller reached the buyer; however, soon thereafter, the seller contacted us to inform us that they had in fact made an error in the transaction. Therefore, on February 15, we notified **. [redacted] that the dispute was ruled in his favor and that a full refund would be provided upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After receipt of the return was confirmed, a full refund of $835.13 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on March 4.
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
First of all, let me state that I appreciate Liquidation.com's response to my complaint.  It does give me hope that we can come to an amicable resolution.  As far as I can tell, Liquidation.com's proposed remedy to the issue/complaint is: "[redacted] (sp) may have his Liquidation.com user account re-activated if he wishes".  While that may lead to further activity in resolving this issue (although that is not specifically stated), the reactivation of my account in and of itself does not in any way make me whole again.  The response provided by Liquidation.com seems to indicate that they do now seem to understand the issue and facts pertaining to this case and now in fact realize that I neither have the merchandise nor the $650+ that I paid for said merchandise.  If I have misunderstood Liquidation.com's remedy, then I apologize and please clarify your position.While I would gladly agree to take possesion of the original auction item as presented on the Liquidation.com website that I bid on and won, I doubt that they still have it or can locate it if they do.  Alternate to that solution, I would like to have the payment that I made refunded.  As I said, I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in not asking for reimbursement for automobile expenses, meals, etc. related to this action.  I would just like the merchandise or to have my money refunded.  A couple points of note.  First, the lot in question (Auction ID# [redacted]) was supposed to have 46 items in it, not 20 as stated in the response.  I just wanted to clarify that for the record.  Secondly, it is true that the chargeback was initiated after exhausting all other courses of remedy in dealing with Liquidation.com customer service and warehouse personnel.  Once I was essentially called a liar for saying that I never contacted Liquidation.com customer service, I could see that there was nothing else I could do to seek remedy from the company without some kind of escalation to/from a third party.Once again, thank you for your response and I look forward to final resolution of this complaint.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 17, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 
RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear **. [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by...

**. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of four (4) items, including an [redacted] 7-inch [redacted] tablet, purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he had expected to receive four [redacted] tablets, but that he had only received one tablet and some accessories. He requested that three more tablets be sent to him or that he be allowed to return the shipment he received for a full refund. 
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that he was missing items. The auction manifest clearly lists each of the four items: 7” [redacted] Tablet, Ac charger, USB Cable, and User Manual. Buyers are responsible for performing due diligence before bidding on an auction. The users of our website are equal, professional buyers and sellers conducting transactions via our Liquidation.com marketplace. A bidding mistake by the purchasing party cannot be grounds to reverse a completed transaction by a seller.
We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

June 24, 2015
 
Dear [redacted]...

[redacted], 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for one lot of designer women’s clutches, wallets and wristlets (used), purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 10th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “according to the manifest and pictures posted on your site I was supposed to receive, I just received dirty wallets. Lots of them with no brand tag.” [redacted] submitted a video to support her dispute.
 
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she did not receive unit brands and types in the condition represented in the auction listing. The auction listing clearly states “Designer inspired bags, used condition; you will be receiving items similar to the ones in the pictures, wallets may contain stains and scuffs from normal wear.” Also, the auction listing did not include a detailed manifest of each item.
 
Our disputes team replied to [redacted] stating “the support video you have provided shows unit brands and unit types received as represented in the auction listing. The auction listing has provided details of unit types to be received however the seller has not provided a detailed manifest of specific units to be received. The seller has advised a mixed lot to be expected consisting of genuine and designer inspired wallets. The unit’s types and conditions match the units received from the support shown. The units have been properly classified as used condition”. As such, her claim was denied.
 
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
 
Regards,
 
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

May 24, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received an acceptable solution via the product warranty.
In October 2013, **. [redacted] contacted our company to initiate a repair of his [redacted] laptop under the 90-day warranty. The laptop had been purchased in August 2013 and was experiencing multiple power failures. **. [redacted] sent his laptop to us for repair; however, upon return the unit was not effectively repaired by our repair partner. For this reason, our company began to search for a suitable replacement laptop. Two different laptops have since been sent to **. [redacted], but both of them have also had problems.
We continue to search for an appropriate replacement for **. [redacted]’s laptop; however, we do not control our inventory from [redacted] so we must wait for a fully functional unit to become available for replacement. 
We regret that **. [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.
 
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I did not threaten a customer server representative. I nicely asked him for the name and address of the President/CEO and he got mad. He not only would not give me the name and address of the President and CEO but instead, deactivated my account. I did not file a charge back. I filed a dispute with [redacted] because I felt that I had no other recourse once my account had been deactivated. When I received the computer back (STILL BROKEN) the [redacted] dispute was ended. I finally had the computer repaired at my own cost.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 16, 2015
Dear [redacted],

size="3"> 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID’s [redacted], and [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of 3 auctions, each for one lot of assorted electronic items, purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 14th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received not in the condition listed and was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “I got few items those are salvage, broken and not usable” [redacted] submitted pictures to support his dispute.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that the items were salvage or broken. The auction listing states all three lots of electronics listed in the condition of “returns”. In the description, it states “the majority of Returns do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing”. The auction manifest also listed each item individually and their grade/condition as “returns”. As such, his claim was denied.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
 
Regards,
 
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

October 15, 2014
 
Mr. [redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
 
RE: Mr. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
 
Dear Mr. Dennis,
 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Better...

Business Bureau. Mr. [redacted] described concerns he had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid him for a completed auction; however, the issue has since been resolved with the proper payment.
 
On September 2, Mr. [redacted] sold an auction for a refurbished [redacted] laptop computer on Liquidation.com. He said that Liquidity Services miscalculated the commission that they collect, charging him $200.00 (the canceled auction default penalty) instead of the standard 10 percent fee, $65 in this instance. Mr. [redacted] contacted his account manager to correct the problem and a request for a correction was submitted. However, over a week later the matter was still not resolved and Mr. [redacted] found that his account manager was no longer with Liquidity Services. Therefore, Mr. [redacted] became concerned that no one would follow up on his request for the $135.00 he was owed.
 
On September 19, a credit of $135.00, the difference between the error amount ($200.00) and the correct commission ($65.00) was processed to Mr. [redacted]’s account.
 
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by Mr. [redacted] and appreciate his cooperation in settling this matter. We consider the matter closed with the $135.00 payment.
 
Regards,
Cary C. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

March 26, 2015[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
[redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Better Business...

Bureau.  [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 200 new bracelets, including bangles, cuffs, and more purchased via Liquidation.com.  On August 15 2014, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  [redacted] said that she “only received one item that was remotely similar to the photos. All others are cheap beaded bracelets and plastic bangles. The photos show beautiful metal and rhinestone bangles, cuffs, and bracelets”.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’* claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that the lot was misrepresented.  The auction manifest clearly states “styles include bangle, cuff and more, assorted colors and sizes, you will receive units similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, her claim was denied. Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services, Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I was not expecting the exact items listed, I was expecting that the actual retail value would be what was stated in the auction listing. The retail value of what I received was not even half of the value stated. Also the pictures are stated as "representative" the quality of the items I received was not near what was shown in the photos and the photos were not representative. I am very dissatisfied and will fight this to the end out of principle. The money is as big as a deal as how your sellers intentionally mislead buyers and you protect them in this practice.
Regards,
[redacted]

March 31, 2014
Dear **. [redacted],We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with **. [redacted]’s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration...

as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicate that **. [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Thu Sep 22 19:17:47 2011. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when **. [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Thu Jan 2 16:42:23 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. The next business day, January 03, 2014, **. [redacted] was invoiced for Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]. A copy of the invoice is enclosed with this letter. Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]'s removal period was January 03, 2014, through January 17, 2014.Our records indicate that **. [redacted] did not remove the property by January 16, 2014. Therefore, as a courtesy, Government Liquidation sent an abandonment notice to **. [redacted], and it indicated that the property had to be removed by no later then January 23, 2014, in order to avoid abandonment, a process that is outlined in Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions. A copy of the abandonment notice is enclosed with this letter. Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.Section 9. A schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale. You must remove all property awarded within this time limit. If for any reason removal cannot be completed within the time period, it is your responsibility to arrange with our site manager for an extension of time. We are not responsible for property that is not removed within the time allotted. If property is not removed within the specified removal period or scheduled for removal at a later date with our site manager, we will consider the property to be abandoned by you, and you will have abandoned all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property. We are not required to send abandonment or late removal letters to you prior to exercising the right of abandonment.Subsequently, on January 20, 2014, **. [redacted] contacted the Government Liquidation facility that housed the property, [redacted], Pennsylvania, and requested a removal extension until January 29, 2014. Government Liquidation informed **. [redacted] that his request could not be accommodated. In addition, Government Liquidation reiterated to **. [redacted] that the property had to be removed by January 23, 2014, to avoid abandonment.On January 21, 2014, **. [redacted] contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service Department due to the denial of his request. In turn, on January 23, 2014, the Customer Service Department instructed **. [redacted] to file a claim. A copy of the claim form that was sent to **. [redacted] is enclosed with this letter. Instead of filing a claim, however, **. [redacted] initiated a charge-back for the purchase price of the transaction, $192.39.Due to the charge-back, Government Liquidation communicated with **. [redacted], and he indicated that he was aware of the Terms and Conditions but maintained that he was unable to meet the removal deadline due to the [redacted], Pennsylvania, facility’s phone line being down. Government liquidation advised **. [redacted] that we would review the phone records to validate his claim, but **. [redacted] stated that he did not need to continue doing business with Government Liquidation due to the unprofessionalism. Therefore, in accordance with Section 7-Cof the Terms and Conditions, Government Liquidation issued a full refund to **. [redacted]'s credit card, $192.39, and permanently closed **. [redacted]’s Government Liquidation account. Section 7-0 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.Section 7-0. Any Buyer that attempts to rescind a credit card transaction without our express written consent (i.e., charge-back), will have their account immediately and permanently de- activated. If you perform a charge-back after receiving the property, GL may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserves the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover our damages.Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation has determined that a business relationship with **. [redacted] is not conducive.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because, they keep attempting to cover up the fact that they featured one watch and sent me an inferior one. Their desperation is getting very obvious. They know that their actions are simply unethical.
Regards,
[redacted]

June 3, 2016Dear [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of 200 units of 200 New 8-Pin Cables & Wall Adapters - [redacted]...

6, More.  The lot was listed as ‘new’ condition.  This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]’s bid of $200 was the winning bid on 5-13-2016.  The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $266.00.  The product was delivered to [redacted] on 5-19-2016, and [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 5-21-2016 which stated the following:The only cable and plug I used melted while I was at work today, these could''ve burnt down my house.Our disputes department is aware [redacted]’s claim and is working diligently to facilitate a resolution.   We strive to close all claims in as short amount of time as possible, however certain cases may take additional time.  There is usually a need to facilitate correspondence from all parties involved so that the facts of the case can be considered during the resolution process. Our goal is to not have a claim open more than 10 business days.   As of today, [redacted]’s claim has been open for 10 business days.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however I assure you we are aware of the issue and will see to it that the matter is comes to a close as soon as possible.  I have asked one of our agents to contact [redacted] today with an update. We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services