Liquidity Services Inc

Review: Hi, I contacted Liquidation.com, because I only got 340 pieces of jewelry instead of 400 pieces. Liquidation.com offered me $11.00. But I want the 60 pieces instead. Liquidation said that the seller [redacted] did not reply to them. But there is no way for me to find the address of the company [redacted], I only got the address of [redacted] Illinois.Desired Settlement: I would like to have the 60 pieces of jewelry that are missing in my order. Thank you very much for your time. Please contact me thru email. Have a great day. [redacted]

Business

Response:

January 27, 2014

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 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 she is unhappy with the amount of her partial refund.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 400 fashion jewelry pieces in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 2, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that she was missing 60 units from her shipment. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested that the missing items be sent to her.

Our disputes team alerted the seller to the shortage, and the seller agreed to send the additional units to the buyer. However, the seller never provided tracking evidence showing that the missing items were sent to the buyer. Therefore the best remaining option was to pay out a partial refund to the buyer covering the per unit cost of the missing items. The partial refund amount was calculated along with the quantity variance discount advertised with the auction listing. On December 11, 2013, a partial refund payment of $11.00 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account.

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]. [redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Hi, I do agree that liquidation.com did what they can do to fix it, they were prompt in replying. My complaint is directed to the seller but I could not find the address, I believe I gave you the name. Can Revdex.com contact the seller? This was what I wanted from the start I apologize if I was not clear. Liquidation have the contact information of the seller and can provide you. Thanks so much and have a wonderful day!

Review: I bid on a lot of what I was led to believe was Brand Name perfumes. In the description there are the designer brand names and the fuzzy pictures have the designer name on the boxes. The wording, size of font and the ONE fuzzy picture led one to believe that indeed these were designer brand name perfumes which I was to resell on [redacted].

when I looked at a similar auction (from the same seller three days after I won the auction The same seller had the same listing but this time with additional pictures. One that you could clearly read above the designer name the words, Version Of. And another picture of the Version Of bottles which clearly show that they are indeed copies or as they state when using the designer names and faintly use the words Version of. Broken bottles were in the delivered boxes

I filed a dispute and was declined.Desired Settlement: The seller obviously had been advised, or just by luck added clear pictures and the product out of the box showing the bottles to the same exact product but three days later.

On top of that, I received the items and there were/are two bottles that had broke rendering the rest of the 72 bottles stained and unsellable

I wish I would have read the Revdex.com complaints and other web complaints prior to bidding.

Thank you

Business

Response:

November 5, 2013Dear **. [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 a lot of 72 assorted women’s perfumes purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 8, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the items he received were non-authentic, “knock-off’ perfumes of brand names. From the photos accompanying the auction, the buyer could not see the phrase “Version of’ which is clearly printed on the perfume bottle labels.Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the seller had properly described the merchandise in the auction listing. The listing clearly states that these perfumes were [redacted] collection versions of various designer perfume brands. Therefore there was no misrepresentation. The buyer simply failed to read the description.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,

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: I purchased this item and my wife picked it up on May 1st. When I went to inventory it that night, I noticed that the package was short 12 items. After further investigation, I realized that none of the other items present matched the manifest. I called customer service the next day and the lady I spoke with (Marisa) called the Plainfiled warehouse where I picked it up. She told me that Plainfied said they had given me the wrong box (fine, mistakes happen) and that I had to return to the warehouse (195 miles) to return it and pick up the correct one. I called again on May 5th to verify that they would have the correct box ready. The lady (Keisha I think) said that they would have it and I could pick it up.

We arrive at the warehouse today (195 miles) and they say that we are lying and that there is nothing they can do. We leave the original package they gave us with them and leave without getting the correct package.Desired Settlement: Refund my original purchase price. I'm not even asking for gas money for the wasted trip.

Business

Response:

August 22, 2014

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 Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he did not receive the items he purchased.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 [redacted] GPS and [redacted] in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 1, his wife picked up a package from our Plainfield, Indiana warehouse that was thought to include this merchandise. However, when he was inspecting the items at home, [redacted] noticed that the wrong package had been provided to his wife. He contacted our customer service department to discuss the matter and arranged to return the package for the correct merchandise. Then on May 13, he traveled back to our Plainfield, Indiana warehouse to drop off the incorrect package and to pick up the correct package. He was not given the corrected package even though he had confirmed a week earlier that it was ready for pickup. Therefore, [redacted] requested a full refund in his complaint.

[redacted] filed a chargeback dispute on the transaction to reclaim his money. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our website. His action triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account as a result. Chargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for it. However, that is clearly not the case in this instance because [redacted] never received the proper merchandise and even returned the mistakenly provided items to our warehouse.

There appears to have been a missed communication between our customer service personnel and warehouse personnel that caused [redacted] to seek alternate recourse. The transaction record shows that [redacted] contacted customer service, made arrangements to return the mistake package and confirmed that his correct package was ready for pickup. Therefore, [redacted] may have his Liquidation.com user account re-activated if he wishes. He needs to reply to this letter indicating his wish and await further instruction, if any.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and hope that we can settle the matter amicably.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [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,

Business

Response:

From: Cary H[redacted]<[redacted]@liquidityservices.com>Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:18 PMSubject: [redacted] rebuttal response (ID #[redacted])To: "[redacted]@myRevdex.com.org" <[redacted]@myRevdex.com.org>December 15, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], In our previous response, Liquidity Services indicated a willingness to provide a full refund to [redacted] if we could confirm from our warehouse personnel that [redacted] never received the lot he purchased. Unfortunately, we will need some assistance from [redacted] to proceed. Our warehouse review showed no record of receipt of the incorrect lot described by [redacted]. Normally, a returned lot such as this would be relisted for a separate auction event, but there is no corresponding relisting for this lot. That provided a second data point pointing toward a lack of return. Therefore, we will need [redacted] to provide evidence (a warehouse receipt, or intake form from our warehouse, etc.) of his delivery in order to be eligible for a refund. Our warehouse personnel indicated that the package taken by [redacted]’s wife was the correct package, but that the package as described was missing items. First, there is a signed materials release form which means that after the property leaves the warehouse premises, that it is accepted as complete and accurate. Therefore, pickups should be inspected thoroughly prior to removal. Second, the proper action once the items were reviewed by [redacted] would have been to file a dispute claim for missing items. As is, there is not much of a record of dissatisfaction for this transaction. This would not have been the case had a dispute claim been filed. We look forward to reviewing [redacted]’s delivery evidence. Thank you. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: On 6/3/2014, I purchase some [redacted] Phone cases from Liquidation.com with the belief that the items were as pictured. The items description states "Return items", however when I receive my order the items were utter garbage as if the were taken out of dumpsters. The items appears as if they were used for many years and then thrown in the garbage and that is what they sent to me. 99% of the items were broken and dirty and thrown in a bag along with the non broken items. I immediately contacted Liquidation.com and they asked for pictures as proof of my claim. I complied and submitted the pictures of all the damaged items they sent to me in the same box.

Here is the amount that I paid for the items:

[redacted]Transaction Detail[redacted]

Transaction ID: [redacted]

Total Auction Amount: 237.33 USD

Buyer's Premium: 11.87 USD

Shipping quote: 40.25 USD

Total Amount Paid: 289.45 USD

A few days later I receive an email that states:

"Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons:

Dispute denied: Items are properly listed as Returns. Per the definition of Returns, as stated on the auction page, "The majority of Returns, however, 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. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing."

All parties must abide by the dispute resolution provided by Liquidation.com as stated in the Terms and Conditions.

The status for this transaction has been moved to "Paying Seller" and the funds will be released to the seller. Should you have questions, please call our Customer Support Department at [redacted]."

So not only did they refuse to accept the items back, they refuse to refund my money for the damaged and utterly broken items.

Today I tried to login to Liquidation.com to view my account to see the transactions and I could not get in. After calling them, they stated that they close my account because I open up a Credit Card despite.

They also told me if I cancel the dispute they would re-open my account. I refuse their illegal offer and that is why I want everyone to know the kind of Company that Liquidation.com is. They are dishonest and does not care about the Customers.Desired Settlement: Base on the amount of money that I spent on the merchandise: $289.45 USD. I would like a FULL 100% replacement. I need liquidation.com to ship me the items that I paid for OR issue me a FULL refund of $289.45

Business

Response:

July 16, 2014

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 a lot of 30 Otter boxes for various models of [redacted] and [redacted] S3 in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 6, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the cases he received were broken and many of them had cosmetic issues such as scratches or ink marks. [redacted] also stated that he would be unable to sell the items he received because of the damage. He requested a full refund on the transaction.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, 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. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

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,

Cary ** H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc..

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

1. The Items received were NOT return items, but Garbage that appears to be pulled from the dumpster, these items were not from users who return an item, BUT it appears that the seller sent me these items that were found elsewhere and sold to unsuspected buyers in the faith they were getting legitimate items in at least acceptable condition. If I had known that the items were not shelf pulls (Returns) I would not have proceeded with the bid after the review of these items. The seller purposely posted tiny images of these said items to mask the REAL condition of the damaged goods.

Review: I have been planning to bid on an auction offered by Liquidation.com and had less than one day to close. I was on the "watch list". The auction was cancelled and restarted with different completely different format and terms. I was removed from the watch list and not notified of the changes. This bait and switch was imposed upon us as we were seriously pulling together resources on an auction which we were willing to place a reasonable and substantial bid on the open auction format. The auction was cancelled and restarted today with no explanation or apology. The close of the auction was extended as well. There is now a reserve price requirement of $70,000 with sealed bidding unlike before. This is very unacceptable auction practices and I feel not only unethical but most likely an illegal form of shilling. [redacted]Desired Settlement: I feel the auction should continue as an open bidding auction with the original bidders reinstated with the former "no reserve" status.

Business

Response:

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. **. [redacted] was unable to complete a bid for a discontinued auction and disagrees with Liquidity Services, Inc. policies concerning the auction’s dismissal.

**. [redacted] said that he had prepared to bid upon an open auction for a lot of 2013/2014 excess stock of [redacted] lingerie. The auction had less than a day until it was scheduled to close when it was suddenly canceled and relisted under different terms. The closing date was extended three more days and a reserve bid of $70,000 was noted with a sealed bid format, whereas before there had been no reserve and open competitive bidding. **. [redacted] believes that canceling and relisting the auction was unethical.

There was a listing error with the original auction so it was reset to the terms intended by the seller. The original auction listing had not yet closed and **. [redacted] had not even bid upon it. We have no obligation to let listing errors stand or even to notify our users of those errors. It was unfortunate that **. [redacted] was not notified of the new auction, and we would like to improve our notifications system in this regard, however rare cases such as this may be. However, he was able to locate the auction and no harm was done here.

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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I purchased products from this website and the products were suppose to be new products. Instead they were some old, smelly broken merchandise. I immediately contacted the company and did a dispute. I was told via email that I won the the dispute and they would provide a return label for the products. This I never received, I have access to my emails worldwide and so does my employees. I finally spoke to a customer service specialist who was rude and told me it was not her place to run behind us to return the products.Desired Settlement: All I needed was the labels to return these products and get a full refund.

Business

Response:

January 27, 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 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 refund has not been successfully issued.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 120 ladies lingerie in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On November 23, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items she received were not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction advertising. **. [redacted] said that her merchandise had defects that convinced her they were Used or Returns condition items rather than New items. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Shipping labels were sent to **. [redacted] on November 29; however, a disconnect regarding the delivery of the shipping labels caused a delay in the return of the items. The confusion regarding the delay resulted in finding that the dispute would be denied. This notice contributed to **. [redacted]’s decision to file a chargeback on the transaction. Thereafter, the merchandise was returned to the seller so a full refund of $197.75 was attempted on January 13, 2014. Unfortunately, the refund failed to process due to the chargeback that **. [redacted] filed on her account for the transaction. Once the chargeback has been removed, the refund payment can be completed.

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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: On 5-31 I won 2274 fifty cal ammo cans on 25 pallets sale [redacted] lot [redacted] from government liquidation.When we went to [redacted] to pick up they would only give us 15 pallets or 1539 At a retail of 15.00 each this is a loss of 11,000.00.Site manager said he worded auction wrong .In 30 years of buying from the government the only two times I had trouble were through government liquidation at this same sit .Please see [redacted] experiance at [redacted] for details. Came back to store and put a claim in 6-13-2013 It has now been 79 days as of 8-25-2013 I check with them severial times a week sometimes dailey always the same thing Managment is reviewing my case I try to make light of this I ask them if they are paying Managment by the hour,or if I die can I leave claim in my will so my grand childern may some day see these cans .Also I have sent 23 emails to Battle creek drmo who is suppose to be over Gl no responce there I also sent a certified packet to the commandant of the Marine Core being an old jarhead I did not want to bother his office but heading towards three month Iam losing my patiance this has been a lot of unnessary agravation. Thank you for allowing me to post this Government surplus is still a persons best bet just be ready for possible problemsDesired Settlement: I want my missing 735 ammo cans or 3.75 each in funds they are putting me off on this for one reason or another nothing could take this long thank you

Business

Response:

December 13, 2013

**. [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 from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

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 indicated that **. [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on sale [redacted], lot [redacted] (Fri May 31 16:59:07) on Government Liquidation’s website.

Government Liquidation performs a service contract for the Department of Defense (DLA Disposition Services). Our shared objectives are to keep surplus and idle inventories moving out of military installations and to provide the maximum return to the US Treasury.

On June 03, 2013, **. [redacted] was issued an invoice for his winning bid on sale [redacted], lot [redacted]. Subsequently, the site records indicate that **. [redacted] personally signed for and removed the property from the site. In accordance with Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions, you are required to sign for all material prior to removing property, and if the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it. Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions are posted below for your reference and understanding.

8:H Either you or your agent will be required to sign for all material in the presence of a GL representative (unless otherwise approved by an authorized GL agent) prior to removing property.

8:I You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it.

In addition, as indicated in the lot description, the lot consisted of approximately 1,539 .50 caliber ammunition cans. The lot description is posted below for your reference and understanding.

Approx. 1,539 .50 Caliber Ammunition cans with water tight lids, Cans are on 25 pallets, Model M2A1. Dimensions are 11x5x7 inches, May be missing some lids, Some rusted, dented or damaged cans, Pallets may require re-stacking, re-banded or re-shrink wrapped prior to shipping, Recommend buyer screen item (s) prior to placing bid, GL will Provide Tail Gate Loading or Buyer may remove individually

All potential buyers were able to view the property and the associated description before and during the auction. The description read, “Recommend buyer screen item (s) prior to placing bid…” **. [redacted] elected not to screen the property. **. [redacted] had another opportunity to verify if the property in question was acceptable at the point of removal. **. [redacted] accepted, signed for and removed the property.

Based upon the aforementioned, Government Liquidation does not consider the claim to be valid. However, Government Liquidation has issued **. [redacted] a courtesy in-house credit of $2,737.67.

We encourage **. [redacted] to contacting our Customer Service Department should he have any additional questions regarding the Terms and Conditions.

We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by GovLiquidation.com; however, we hope that we can arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Bought merchandise advertised as new ladies underwear from liquidation.com but upon delivery some of the underwear were stained and looked old. Others were shelf pulled and also looked old. I filled a complaint to liquidation.com for a resolution including pictures of the defective merchandise. I was told yesterday after waiting for a month that the case cannot be resolved and that I have to keep the 350 old/defective/ shelf pulled ladies underwear that was advertised as brand new items. I tried to go through the chain of command at liquidation but a customer rep called [redacted] at extension [redacted] told me that he is the last manager to make a decision and that he has already made his decision so I cannot talk to anyone else. I asked for his supervisor and he told me that he is deceased.

This complaint is in regards to Dispute Transaction ID [redacted].Desired Settlement: Merchant can also be replace the merchandise as advertised. new items and not shelf pulled items.

Business

Response:

July 20, 2013

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 a lot of 347 mixed ladies lingerie underwear purchased via Liquidation.com. On April 8, 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 the merchandise he received contained some items that were “old and defaced” and consisted of small sizes that would not “even fit a 6-year old girl.” He said that much of the merchandise appeared to be “Used” rather than “New” condition. He provided photos to support his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the photo support he provided did not validate his claim that the lingerie was in a condition other than advertised. The disputes reviewer saw no stains, rips, tears or loose threads in the photos. Also, there was no way to determine the size from the photos of the merchandise. The buyer asked to re-open the dispute and sent additional photos. A secondary examination by customer service management determined that the original denial of claim would stand.

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,

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

These are not ordinary clothing but ladies under wears and how much stains do they expect for consumers to reject it. They are claiming they are new and denying my claim that they are full of stains and look old. Were people trying them on or what. Stains in a ladies underwear can best be seen by looking at it physically and not on photographs. I am willing to pay for shipment to send the merchandise back to the group denying my claim for them to physically examine the merchandise. In today's world of business if you call ladies underwear new, you better know what you are talking about. What I have is nothing but old or shelf pulled under wears with stains. I still have the shipment ready to mail back for examination.

Regards,

Review: sale#[redacted] was won by me thru an online auction for lot#'s [redacted],[redacted] and an arrangement was made to pick the items on the 13th of may in [redacted],ga..at which time I was denied access to paid for property and have filed a claim for a refund on the same day company policy is 15 days and,I can't get a response from customer servicesDesired Settlement: refund

Business

Response:

See Attachment

if you are paying by other method then credit card you are done with them as they will close you dispute without refund, the only way you can do is file a Revdex.com.com complain to have Revdex.com help you for the refund,
the problem I had with them is over 3 months and they don't update my transaction so I cannot file dispute and after 3 months I called them and finally one of the customer service update it and I can file dispute for over 16 transaction that is over 27 pallets of junk has been sitting in my garage for months, after 3 weeks of the open dispute they told me to prepare all 27 pallets of items and wait for ups come pick them up and give me a certain day to wait, l waited no show up and called them again next day and said wait again, again and again finally found out ups don't accept this type of shipment, then they told me to return to the warehouse and tell me wait again, again and again for the warehouse to ok for the return and finally the warehouse doesn't accept the return either and now they try to offer me a very low partial to end this, if they offer partial at the beginning I will properly take it as been with business with them for over 5 year, but now because they told me prepare all unit for return so I have to put all the unit back in the pallets and spend hundreds of dollars for the pallets and the warping material and have all the pallets sitting in my side yard because they can't fit all in my garage for over 27 pallets and waiting for them to pick for over two weeks so all the item been in the sun and went thru rain/shower which can't get any more profit and now they blame on me putting the unit outside and not allow me to return for full refund, they give too many excuse to try to force the buyer keep the garbage for high value. this is not the business they do before, since they close the Sacramento and Fullerton warehouse and replace all the online customer service for low paying job then their service is dropping and is not worth to do business with them any more. stay away for from this company or you will end up dumping garbage for them.

Review: I had spoken to [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and two other customer service reps. They had sent me a shipment of overstock clothing at 300lb instead of the Consumer electronics I had ordered (160Lb) . The package has been sitting at the UPS store since Thursday. I was assured by [redacted] that it would be picked up by UPS freight and returned on Friday. It has not been picked up- even after repeatedly calling them.

[redacted] admitted on the phone to me that they had made a mix up with 4 other shipments that were sent the wrong buyers. She assured me again it would be picked up. It was not, and has not. After seeking help from their customer service phone number for 5 days. I filed a claim to [redacted] for a chargeback. Liquidity Services then restricted access to my account on their website and demanded I drop the claim with [redacted] at once. I

I called [redacted] on Monday and explained to her that I would not drop it unless I received in writing or email confirmation of a shipping label and refund. [redacted] assured me she'd email it to me "in five minutes." She did not email it, nor did anyone pickup the package. I called again on Tuesday asking about the email, she replied by saying "I guess, I forgot." I explained to her that in order for me to drop the claim with [redacted] she would need email me confirmation of a pickup, a shipping label and a refund. She replied by saying "I don't care if you drop the claim or not." Then she hung up on me.Desired Settlement: Refund the amount to my [redacted] account immediately.

Business

Response:

June 25, 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 there was a delay in resolving a wrong shipment issue; however, it has since been resolved.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of four consumer electronics items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 8, he contacted our Customer Service Department to inform them that he had received a shipment of overstock clothing rather than the items he had purchased. He was then told that the incorrect shipment would be picked up for return the next day. When the package was not recalled the next day, he again contacted our customer service personnel for a resolution. However, subsequent phone calls did not yield satisfactory results, and **. [redacted] decided to file a chargeback on the transaction. He refused to release the chargeback without receiving confirmation that the package had been returned and a full refund issued.

An internal investigation of the error determined that four shipments had been mis-routed from our North [redacted] warehouse and that **. [redacted]’s shipment was among them. While our warehouse personnel were working with customer service to determine the best solution to all four shipment errors, **. [redacted] was not given proper communication and proceeded to file a chargeback. However, chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. Ultimately, the package was returned to our warehouse on May 19 and a full refund was processed to the buyer’s account on May 20.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Dispute of Transaction [redacted]: I was sold a lot listed as 40 Pieces of Women Designer Sleepwear. Upon receipt and inspection of items, I noted the following: a. There were only 36 items shipped; b. Some items resembled blouses -- not sleep items; and c. The shipment consisted of 7 nightgowns, 6 PJ sets (1 of which was pre-packaged), 6 PJ bottoms and 18 assorted tops. None of the assorted tops coordinated with the bottoms in terms of designer, color or size.

In the Company's response to my dispute, they contended that, " While the buyer may be able to match some of the units as sets because of color coordination, they are sold as separate pieces in [redacted]'s and are not 2 piece sets." However, unlike shopping at [redacted]'s -- where I would have the option to select a top and a bottom -- I was precluded from making that same selection by the Seller's decision to send me 18 tops, but only 6 bottoms. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the option of making sets, and therefore I am also unable to offer my buyers the same opportunity they would have at [redacted]'s to select a top and a bottom -- not necessarily matching -- to make a set. I am unable to use these items for the purpose for which I purchased them. My customers will not buy a top without the option of a bottom as well. Also, since there were 4 missing pieces -- if we are counting the one marked as a set on the garment tag -- there is more than the 2% variance listed as the Company's policy.

I am hereby requesting a full refund, or the option to have an equal amount of bottoms to tops -- even if they are different colors.

Thank you.

Dispute of Transaction [redacted]: I was sold a lot listed as 40 Pieces of Women Designer Sleepwear. Upon receipt and inspection of items, I noted the following: a. There were only 36 items shipped; b. Some items resembled blouses -- not sleep items; and c. The shipment consisted of 7 nightgowns, 6 PJ sets (1 of which was pre-packaged), 6 PJ bottoms and 18 assorted tops. None of the assorted tops coordinated with the bottoms in terms of designer, color or size.

In your Resolution of my dispute, you based your decision on, " While the buyer may be able to match some of the units as sets because of color coordination, they are sold as separate pieces in [redacted]'s and are not 2 piece sets." Unlike shopping at [redacted]'s -- where I would have the option to select a top and a bottom -- I was precluded from making that same selection by Seller's decision to send me 18 tops, but only 6 bottoms. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the option to make sets and therefore I am unable to offer my buyers the same opportunity they would have at [redacted]'s to select a top and a bottom -- not necessarily matching -- to make a set. I am unable to use these items for the purpose for which I purchased them. My customers will not buy a top without the option of a bottom as well. Also, since there were 4 missing pieces -- if we are counting the one marked as a set on the garment tag -- there is more than the 2% variance.

I am once again requesting a refund, or the option to have an equal amount of bottoms to tops -- even if they are different colors.

Thank you.Desired Settlement: Refund of my full purchase price plus shipping charges, or an equal amount of tops and bottoms so that I may market the items with the option for sets.

Business

Response:

July 21, 2014

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 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 a lot of 40 sleepwear items in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 5, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units and that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that she only received 36 out of 40 items that were advertised in the auction listing. She also said that the merchandise that was shipped did not meet her expectations of pajama sets, and instead were items that were assorted sleepwear pieces and could not be coordinated as is. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. Regarding the missing units, it was determined that the correct count of 40 items would be reached if the buyer distinguished between the individual pieces and the sets, which are shown on the garment tags of each item. Additionally, the auction listing did not indicate that the buyer would receive any sets, so there should not have been an expectation that the buyer would receive sets.

Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] 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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

July 22,

2014

RevDex.com

1411 K

Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington,

DC 20005-3404

RE: Liquidation.com,

ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please be advised

that on June 16, 2014 I filed a complaint with [redacted] regarding this matter.

After hearing from both sides, [redacted] decided in my favor on June 30th. I have

since returned all of the items, and have received a full refund in the amount of

$260.75.

I thank you

for your assistance in this matter, but the dispute has already been resolved.

Regards,

Review: On 9/3/13, for $166.00, I won an auction for multiple boxes of mini nail polish Transaction ID# [redacted] to resale in my store. I received them on 9/10/13. Upon inspection, I noticed the boxes were defective and consisted of scratches and scuff marks. I contacted Liquidation.com on 9/10/13 to inform them of the defects. I was advised that to put the ite** in dispute which I did. I also submitted photos. On 9/25, I was sent an email that the refund would not be honored. In order to reopen the case, I was informed to reply to the email from liquidation.com and resubmit clearer pictures which I did at 11:13am on 9/27. I called to see if the email and pictures were received and was then told by another young lady that the information was not received and to resubmit them to [email protected] which I did on 9/27 at 11:28am while on the phone with the young lady at which time she told me that she received them and it would take 10 days to resolve. I called a week later to inquire and was told by another young lady that it is still in dispute. I told her that I didn't want the person to get paid because I couldn't resell the ite**. She assured me that he would not get paid. I called today (10/22) to inquire and was told by [redacted] (at least that's the name that I was given) that he couldn't find anything that shows it in dispute. I was furious and told him of my adventures in trying to get this handled. He then tracked the young lady down who supposedly handled the dispute and was told by her that she never received anything and advised me to put it in dispute. I was furious because according to her or whoever, they had received it. [redacted] (if that's his name ?) told me to resend by replying to his email from Liquidation.com - Support that I received today 10/22 at 3:48pm. Well I resent the email (replying to his email) with the request to reopen the case along with the pictures at 4:07pm. I called back to confirm receipt and low and behold, I got someone who sound like [redacted] but said his name was Eric..go figure. I got an email confirmation that it was sent/received. Anyway, [redacted] said he couldn't find an email from me...claimed he talked to [redacted] and that [redacted] never received anything. He said that I would have to resubmit a request once again to [email protected] to reopen the case. This is unbelievable, shady and unprofessional. They have no intentions of refunding my money or looking further into the case. Apparently, the young lady on the 27th did not reopen my case.Desired Settlement: I want my refund. They can have the product with the defective (scratched and scuff boxes). I can not sell them in my store.

Business

Response:

January 20, 2014

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 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 and she was unable to reopen the dispute for further consideration.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 216 boxes of mini nail polish in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 10, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she received boxes that were scuffed up and showed wear, indicating that they would more properly fit Shelf Pulls condition merchandise. **. [redacted] said that she could not sell this merchandise in her store and requested a full refund. She provided photos in support of her claim.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her photo support did not support her claim that the merchandise was worn and scuffed. **. [redacted] called to discuss the decision and was advised to reopen the dispute while submitting additional photos for our review. On October 22, she was told that the reopen request had not yet been received and was provided the correct address for her request. The last contact that we had with **. [redacted] was a phone call on October 22 which was concluded after she placed our customer service assistant on hold for over a minute, leading the employee to end the call. There is no indication in the transaction detail that a properly filed reopen request was received thereafter.

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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: (See the pictures attached - which are the ones that I sent to them several times). The response provided is not justified and true. I did not leave the representative on hold for a long time. The representative said they never received the pictures; therefore, I asked the representative (since I was at work) if it would be ok for me to put them on hold for a minute while I step out of my office to get a better cell phone signal to resend the pictures. I was told it would be ok. It was only a minute or two when I stepped back in and the representative had hung up. I immediately called again and was informed that they never received the pictures although my phone showed it was sent (to both addresses that I was advised to send them to).

Review: It is hard to select just one issue from the "nature of your complaint" drop down menu for there have been numerous violations of proper business practices. I have received shipments from liquidation.com on several occasions where the product was dramatically not as described in their product listings and they refuse to do anything about it. I filed disputes but they have very general blanket statements such as "may need repairs", and ignore their other disclosure: "details provided in manifest". When the manifest fails to list major issues with the product they just point to the "may need repairs" blanket statement and expect you to just write off the gross misrepresentation of what they are selling.

I called their DC office and spoke to an [redacted]. I asked him how on what basis I should make my purchase decisions on if I am not told what issues are present with each product I will be receiving. He told me to go off what was in the manifest, but when I mentioned that the manifest did not list all the obvious issues that the laptops I purchased had upon arrival he just shrugged off the issue and told me to speak to the dispute team who had already denied my request for assistance. Next, I asked him if I could speak to a supervisor, and he said no. When prompted as to if he could tell me when to call back to speak to a supervisor he told me he had no idea when they would be in. When asked if I should contact the Revdex.com or my credit card company he put me on hold only to come back on to tell me he could not help me.

If this does not get resolved I will be organizing a class action lawsuit against Liquidation Services, LLC. to set right everyone that has been wronged by this incredibly unsympathetic company.Desired Settlement: I want someone from their company to answer this question: How can buyers safety purchase merchandise from your site / to be compensated for the misrepresented items / compensated for the time and resources I have had to spend to settle this dispute. I want someone with some real authority at that company to contact me via phone and stop hiding behind layers of powerless customer service representatives that lack sympathy and and real knowledge regarding how the company works. Their higher up executives are cowards, and need address these issues, and the issues with their company that continue to hurt small businesses that unfortunately conduct business with Liquidation Servcies, LLC.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: I purchased from them used cell phones and as soon as I received them I found all the accessories are not original and I request to return the cell phones back but they didn't , and I request for 2nd time and no one response I called the company so many timesand they said ok we will work onit put nothing happened after 2months they said it's too late now to return them.

I need your help.

Thank You

Business

Response:

July 28, 2014

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 ten [redacted] 4/4G, [redacted] 9530 and [redacted] 3G cellphones in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 2, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed in the auction. He said that some of the phones that he had received showed cosmetic damage, that one of the screens was not functional and that the chargers were not the original chargers for the phones. He requested a full refund for the transaction.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Used merchandise, given on the auction listing as follows:

Used assets were previously sold and put into use. They possess noticeable cosmetic defects and blemishes, including but not limited to dents, scratches, and signs of age. Since these assets are usually pulled from a working environment, they rarely come in original packaging and rarely contain any documentation, additional parts, and/or accessories. They are minimally tested to meet only the most basic requirements of functionality. Used assets therefore may not be in optimal working condition and may require additional maintenance and repair.

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,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Regards,

I have been try to return the items back but they try to kill and I have a copy of the email I sent it to them asking them I need to return the phone's back.

Review: My company registered with Liquidation and sale used computers. We sold a computer for $650.00. The commission was supposed to be 10% Which is $65.00. Instead, they took $200 from my account. I complained to the Marlon L[redacted] who is my account manager. He told me they made a mistake and that he will correct the mistake on the 18th of September 2014 and I will receive my balance. A week later, I contacted Marlon L[redacted] and he told me that He submitted the mistake to the financial dept. but doesn't know why it was not processed. My other item was sold but I told him I cannot ship this item until I get a proper refund from the previous sale. I contacted them today October 3rd, but the person I spoke to who did not give me his name told me that Marlon L[redacted] is no longer with them and that my account was canceled and he's not sure if I have any balance left and cannot discuss the reason why. I realized it would be very difficult for me to get my money back from this company without a third party involvement. I just need my $135.00 back from this shading company.

Liquidation user name is: bargain-computers115

company name is Bargain Computers

Phone: ###-###-####

I do not have the transaction ID because my account was canceled and I have no access to the informationDesired Settlement: My desire outcome would be a refund of my $135.00

Business

Response:

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 Revdex.com. 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.

Consumer

Response:

Spoke with Mr. [redacted], he said that he has not received his check.

Review: This was an online purchase (auction) for 4000 cosmetic and makeup items. I must mention Liquidation.com did an amazing job misrepresenting items included in this auction. The items were either expired (dried out or faulty), small sizes (mostly travel size or sample size), products which are initially made as TESTERS, or FREE SAMPLES(indicated not for sale on the back of it). On top of the winning bid I had to pay sale taxes, buyer premium, shipping and shipping taxes. (I dont believe we are supposed to pay tax for testers and free gifts!). The auction was set up in a way we could only see some sample pictures of the items included in the lot. There was also a description categorizing the items. The pictures and description both turned out to be fraudulent and unreliable as almost %90 of the items included in the lot were repetitive or of those mentioned above (expired, sample size, testers,). I happened to read some on-line negative reviews about Liquidation.com prior to making my payment and had to call them ahead of time to make sure I was not going through a fraudulent deal. I inclusively noted what my expectation was to their agent (she took it in writing). They never got back to me with any clarifications. I am willing to attach some supporting pictures for Revdex.com to review.Desired Settlement: I am asking for a full refund.

Business

Response:

June 21, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

[redacted], 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 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 a lot of 4,000 cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 29, 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 she received 3,000 items of the exact same cosmetic pencil out of the 4,000-item shipment. This was unacceptable to her. Additionally, she said that many of the items were expired, sample sizes or testers not intended for resale. **. [redacted] requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing specifically stated that the shipment would contain “2,500 [redacted] New! Lip pencils and 500 eye pencils.” This accounts for the 3,000 cosmetic pencils that the buyer describes in her dispute.

Further, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] 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,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: Liquidation .com is not offering any type of resolution for this issue.

Regards,

Review: Purchased product from a Liquidity Services company, GovernmentLiquidation.com. On three occasions we sent a trucking company to the GL facility at our cost. Product was not released to trucking company. We had to pay for the trucking company to show up on each occasion. Upon taking the issue up with GL's customer service department, we were told our only option was to file a "claim" (as defined by their website). The result was almost 6 months without product or money back. GL's response was basically too bad. GL never offered any additional assistance in making sure business went well, and in fact told us that we can spend more money to send in another truck to pick up product (with no promise of actually loading it the fourth time) or to wait out the default period at which time my company will be issued a refund but our account will be canceled and we will be fined over $500.00 dollars. At no point did GL actually offer to help resolve the problem they simply responded that we signed a contract and we can roll the dice or not. They had no preference either way. Additionally, customer service amounts to nothing as the contract reads plainly that any "said" by a GL employee does not count and GL will only be responsible for what a GL employee provides in writing. By this standard no customer service actually exists only a facade of one.

We provided written documentation, e-mails, and call logs to GL supporting our claim that the product was not loaded onto the selected trucking companies assets by the choice of GL employees. All of this was disregarded and GL took the position that we were lying and signed a contract so we were not entitled to a refund. Had the dollar amount been larger we would have sued them and most likely would have won. But as it stands it would cost more to litigate the issue than to just take it on the chin. The way these folks operate and handle customer issues is wrong. They messed up and because the dollar amount was only $2,600.00, plus or minus a dollars, they simply pull up and hide behind a contract. They are cheating people regularly.Desired Settlement: We would like a refund without penalty. If no refund is given then we would like to the Revdex.com act accordingly and lower Liquidity Services Inc. Revdex.com rating.

Business

Response:

September 6, 2013

**. [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 from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

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. **. [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and again when he placed his bids on the property.

Government Liquidation’s records indicate that there was a communication error between the buyer and his shipper. As a result, the shipper did not have the proper paperwork at the time of their removal attempts, causing them to leave the facility without the property. Government Liquidation explained the aforementioned events to the buyer, then offered the buyer the option of picking-up the property or cancelling the sale with liquidated damages (i.e., 25% default fee). **. [redacted] opted to cancel the sale with liquidated damages. As such, a full refund was issued to the his credit card and his account was suspended and assessed a $570.50 default fee.

Sections 9 and 6:E from the Terms and Conditions, which address property removal as well as failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions are posted below for your reference to this matter.

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

6:E In the event you fail to pay the entire purchase price within the time set forth by us or fail to comply with any of these terms and conditions, we will assess as liquidated damages the greater of 25% of the winning bid or thirty (30) dollars. Note: Refunds will not be issued for amounts less than $2.50 nor will invoices be issued for sums less than $2.50.

Although **. [redacted] did not comply with the Terms and Conditions, Government Liquidation will waive the default fee and reactivate the buyer’s account as a one-time courtesy. We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the customer service for his purchase, but we believe we handled this matter by the guidelines of the Government Liquidation marketplace.

Regards,

[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I won a stock of [redacted] cases on this website liquidation.com, and the way the merchandise described when I received them. They were totally wrong as they dedcribed mix colors. I only received a bunch of solid color cases which did not mention about only solid colors. I filled a dispute they denied it because I did not send photos. I called them to know more information because that was the first time I deal with them. The agent told I need to reply that email with pictures, which I did on april 2, 2014. I received an email confirmation that they received it. However, I called them many times and they refuse to give me my money back.Desired Settlement: $145.

Business

Response:

June 21, 2014

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 100 assorted [redacted] 5/5S cases purchased via Liquidation.com. On April 15, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the lot was advertised as having mixed color cases whereas all of the cases received were solid colors only. He requested a full refund with return of the merchandise.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and initially denied his claim because he did not provide any evidence supporting his position. **. [redacted] was unfamiliar with our disputes process and failed to respond to our April 17 e-mail notification that support was needed. Therefore, he was advised by our customer service personnel to request that the dispute be reopened and then to send photos in support of his claim. Review of the reopened claim brought a change in the decision in favor of **. [redacted] that allowed a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Return labels were sent to **. [redacted] and the return was finally confirmed as received by the seller. The full refund amount of $145.25 was processed to the buyer’s account on May 20.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: They refuse to look at this dispute for transaction #[redacted]. I understand they are abiding by the returns category, but my ite** are not in that category that were purchased. I was sent the wrong ite** and they refuse to correct this issue. I have contacted them times and I will continue to try to contact the department and your business until my case or issue is explained and handled correctly. I need to be escalated to a supervisor or superior. The ite** I received are wrong. I was supposed to receive returned ite** but I received salvaged ite**. I did not bid on salvaged ite**.Desired Settlement: I paid $50 for the winning bid and also shipping $185.24 with total cost of $239.24 for Transaction #[redacted] and Id#[redacted]. I want a full refund and for them to come pick up this salvaged merchandise.

Business

Response:

June 25, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Khosravan, 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 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] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she received the wrong shipment of merchandise; however, it has since been resolved in her favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 13 printers by [redacted] and [redacted] in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that she had received the wrong shipment. **. [redacted] said that she was sent hunting equipment rather than the 13 printers that she had purchased.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. A full refund of $239.24 was processed to the **. [redacted]’s account on March 7.

We feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,