Liquidity Services Inc

Review: In the process of opening a new retail store I received an email from a seller on liquidation.com advising me that this is where they purchase their inventory from once a month. I called the company they answered all my questions so I opened an account with them but before I could get the store completed we hired a assistant purchaser to assist our corporation Buyer with the stores inventory purchase. Unbeknowing to us the assistant purchaser once she was hired began to bid on items that we later found out that she and her boyfriend were planning to sell for their own profit. But, she didn't know that the purchasing credit card had not yet be activated because the store had no need for supply until the ground work was completed or the fixtures where installed in the store. When I called liquidation back after hearing the message from their rep, I explained what happened with the account and that I needed to close this account. They advised me at first they would take care of it. When I called back a week later I was told they would not close the account until I paid the fees for the orders the young lady tried to make on my card but couldn't because again it was not yet activated with the bank. Now they tell me that this is going to be billed to me and go on my credit report for the store unless I pay $200 in fees for the young lady and her boyfriend incurred while they were trying to steal from my company.Desired Settlement: I would like for the company to remove the fees from my account and give me access to a different account since that one has been compromised.

Business

Response:

August 29, 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 she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of these contracts because she was initially assessed cancelation fees, but we have since settled the matter in her favor.

**. [redacted] said that an employee of her retail store used a credit card without authorization to purchase three auctions on Liquidation.com. However, since the credit card had not yet been activated, the transactions could not be completed and the auction transactions were canceled. The cancelations triggered automatic fees that were then assessed to **. [redacted]’s account.

After being contacted by **. [redacted] regarding the circumstances, it was determined by our Customer Service Department that the fees for all three auction cancelations be waived. **. [redacted]’s account currently has no fees and no restrictions on use.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the waiver of fees.

Regards,

[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I purchased six bluetooth speakers from liquidation.com and five out of the six were as advertised, but the other was not. They were listed in the auction as returns and their policy on return states they do not test the product unless otherwise stated. All six of the speakers have test labels on them which say power and sound which I assume mean that a liquidation.com employee was able to power them on and the sound work. In the auction they had pictures of the products and the labels on the boxes. I take this as being otherwise stated and liquidation.com tested the products they sent me. Since they tested the products all of the products that I bought and were sent to me should have worked but on doesn't charge and therefor will not turn on. I filed a dispute with liquidation.com and I received an email the simply stated they were listed as return and the dispute was closed.Desired Settlement: I would either like a replacement product or a refund for the entire auction I purchased.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: I won an auction that had 6 items listed of the 6 only 3 were delivered and of those 3 received 1 item was completely wrong.

Instead of an American Made Peavey Guitar Amplifier they substituted a chinese made Traynor Bass Amp. They made no effort to recover the other

items that were not shipped nor exchange this amplifier for the correct one. I filed a dispute and they closed it in favor of the seller.Desired Settlement: Partial refund of the resale value of what was never shipped, Return the Traynor Amp and ship the Peavey send a shipping call tag at their expense.

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted]

Date: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted]

To: [email protected]

They have satisfactorily handled this complaint and no further action is required.

Review: We bought a lot from Liquidation.com that included 7 [redacted] Home Theatre Systems advertised as "Refurbished Grade A". 5 of the 7 system were missing transceivers with a total of 10 transceivers missing in total. I disputed the matter and was told it would be researched by Ryan & Cathy. They replied, "Unfortunately, the dispute for transaction [redacted] will remain denied as our warehouse has confirmed full shipment." They were sent pictures on all 5 items together and separately confirming the missing parts.

I would say the following to them if it was worth my time to speak to them again:

"Obviously, you do not have controls and accountability in place in your warehouse to guard against such an outrageous crime against your customers. We received 5 of these items without any transceivers. 10 transceivers in total were missing. That is not an accident. I was told that my dispute would be honored by Ryan & Cathy. It wasn't. They were not surprised that I was having this kind of problem. Interesting.

Additionally, when your investigation concludes with the people who may have taken these transceivers and/or whose job performance is on the line being the voice that establishes that everything was done properly... then you've really got a serious conflict of interest problem. What a joke of an "investigation".

When you put money first in a business you eventually lose customers. When you put customers first the money naturally follows.Desired Settlement: This business has a responsibility to honestly investigate a product issue. They do not seem concerned in the least with the issue that there was a serious discrepancy between what they advertised and what we received. Their own people were not surprised when I raised this issue with them.

Business

Response:

November 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] 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 12 refurbished [redacted] home theater systems purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 31, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that five of his [redacted] items were missing transceivers—two from each box, for a total of 10. These refurbished systems were advertised as Grade A retail ready so [redacted] expected fully functioning units with all parts necessary for use. He provided photos in support of his claim. Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the dispute was filed well past the two-day inspection period allowed on Liquidation.com transactions. The delivery of this shipment was scheduled on September 18, but the dispute on the shipment was not filed until over a month later, on October 31. The inspection period begins after receipt and allows for buyers to review their merchandise and raise any issues prior to the release of funds to the sellers. Once funds are released to the sellers, they cannot be recalled and buyer refunds are no longer available. Also, it would be difficult to represent a buyer’s claims as accurate to a seller so far after the receipt of the merchandise. The two-day inspection period is included in the User Agreement which [redacted] agreed to follow when registering for Liquidation.com. The inspection period is also advertised in each of our online auctions, including the one subject to dispute 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, 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: I called to tell them about the issue and they asked me to file a dispute knowing it was past the 48 hour time period. They indicated I was not the only Buyer having these problems. If that is not the case then why did they "investigate" the dispute.

Review: I ordered an auction on liquidation.com. Where it stated I would be getting "DVD Movie Closeout Lot 120 New Sealed Mixed Blockbusters". There is a variance of 2% listed on the auction. The pictures shown on the auction do not match the items I received. I filed a dispute with liquidation.com in order to return the items and get my money back. I received none of the stated blockbuster movies on the auction and also received a pornographic DVD "[redacted] Women of [redacted] that was not stated in the auction, including a music CD that was not part of the auction and deducted from the total DVD's that I was supposed to receive. I asked to return the items for a full refund and was denied this option. The site does not state anywhere I could find that there is a return policy.Desired Settlement: I would like them to state a return policy on every listing, so that a buyer knows that they might not get what they paid for and will not be able to return the item.

Business

Response:

May 17, 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 lot of 120 mixed DVD movies purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 5, 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. [redacted] said that he was not satisfied with the selection of DVDs he received. He said that there were no “blockbusters” in the shipment, as advertised and shown in the photos accompanying the auction listing. There was also a music CD which was not wanted and not advertised as part of the lot.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the DVD movies were grossly misrepresented. The seller sent the shipment in accordance with the unit count, after the missing Helter Skelter and Poster Boy movies are counted under the auction’s 2 percent variance. A partial refund of $0.83 was offered for the one music CD as that was not advertised, but [redacted] was not interested.

Regarding our return policy, it is listed in Section 7.1 of the User Agreement that [redacted] agreed to accept upon registering with Liquidation.com. Additionally, after receiving [redacted]’s instruction to close his account, we de-activated his Liquidation.com user account in accordance with his wishes.

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: I agree that my claim was denied by liquidation.com. The portion that was left out by the business, is that the item was listed as a lot of blockbuster movies. There was not a single blockbuster movie in the lot. The lot consisted of budget movies only. I was told that I could dispute the claim. When I tried to dispute the claim, I received an email back stating that the decision is final and that liquidation.com will not look at it again. I called liquidation.com customer service and they stated yes you can reopen the claim which is an untrue statement. This was a gross misrepresentation of the product offered and the product received.

Regards,

Review: I've had several problems with this company and most recently I purchased several items from them on Jan 5 2014. The following day the transaction had been cancelled by the merchant.

8 days later I noticed my credit card billing statement with a $900+ charge still on the account. I checked the account online and $900+ is definitely still there.

I have notified them of this with no response from the company.Desired Settlement: I want a full refund

Business

Response:

February 4, 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 Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because the transaction was canceled but not refunded. However, the refund has been provided in the time since his complaint filing.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of four (4) HP laptops in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. The transaction was canceled because **. [redacted] was ineligible to bid on our website due to outstanding fees.

A full refund of $936.09 was processed to the **. [redacted]’s account on January 14.

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.

Review: I provided the reason and several pictures on 3 different orders I received, that the majority of the product I received was either defective, missing, or misrepresented and nothing was done about. I called customer service to try to explain and the customer service act as if they didn't even care.Desired Settlement: Partial Refund for Damage Goods. I will ship back the damaged goods for proof

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 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 200 assorted consumer electronics accessories in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 9, 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. He said that 75 of the 200 units in his shipment should have been identified as Salvage condition merchandise.

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,

[redacted] Corporate Paralegal

Review: I purchased an Acer Notebook from Liquidity Services through [redacted]. On exactly the 3 month mark, the screen went bad. I have had numerous communications with the customer support. Sent them everything they requested and now they turn around and say they are not going to honor the warranty claim. My son paid for this Notebook with his own money and now has a non working item.Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity contacted and told to honor the request for repair and/or replacement.

Thank you

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted] family <[redacted]>

Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Subject: complaint #[redacted]

To: [email protected]

I am contacting you to let you know that my complaint has been resolved satisfactorily.

Thank you for your assistance and happy holidays,

Review:
Government Liquidation sells surplus equipment for the United States Government. It is a massive undertaking. They run several sales each day, selling thousands of lots of surplus equipment at sites all over the country and in U.S. Territories. With so much volume, they are bound to make mistakes.
In my case, Government Liquidation made a representation that each lot I bid on had a collapsible 10,000 gallon water tank in the crate. I successfully bid on 3 lots and went to Oklahoma City (900 miles, one way) to pick them up. When the GL forklift operator brought out the 3 crates, one was disintegrating, one was intact and open, and one was nailed and bolted shut. After inspecting the first two, I asked the operator if he had a way to open the third crate. He did not. I had ordinary hand tools, but they were not enough to open the crate, so I relied on Government Liquidation's description and photos. You guessed it, big mistake.
When I got home and CUT the bolts holding the lid on the third crate, there was nothing more than an oversized ground cloth inside, and not a 10,000 collapsible tank. I contacted Government Liquidation and was told to file a claim. I wrote a detailed explanation and provided invoice copies and pictures of what I had received instead of the represented tank. I had to file the claim 4 times, and call, before they finally acknowledged receipt. After waiting about a week, my claim was summarily dismissed, citing the fact that I had signed for the lots. That is true. And I signed believing in their description and photos, not being able to open their sealed container.
Do I think the crate was bolted shut to intentionally keep me from viewing the contents? No. I do believe it was an honest mistake, coupled with employees too lazy to unbolt the crate and photograph the actual contents. They instead substituted photos of another tank under this lot number, thereby misrepresenting the actual contents and what I paid for. This was easy to prove to them as it is shown on their own website, and I provided pictures of what was actually in the crate, something I could only have gotten from them by mistake.
Government Liquidation is a big company, doing business with thousands of members of the public and the United States Government. I expected better of them. Perhaps I've grown too comfortable dealing online with reputable companies like Amazon and even EBay, who recognize that customer service involves more than waiting a week and then denying the claim, with no questions asked.
Additionally, crummy customer service by a government contractor like Government Liquidation deprives the government and the taxpayer of the opportunity to recover maximum revenue from surplus. By driving potential bidders, such as myself, out of the bidding pool, GL not only lowers their own income from the 10% buyers premium, but also the government's recoverable revenue by ten times that amount. The successful bid raised by $100 by an interested party nets GL $10 more, but the U.S. Government $100 more. Conversely, once Government Liquidation has driven bidders out of the pool through their poor service, their bottom line will drop slightly, but the Government's by 10 times that amount. It's a good thing nobody likely cares about that.
So, if you do chose to do business with Government Liquidation, be warned. They hide behind their disclaimers, they misrepresent their merchandise, and they do not stand behind what they tell you. After reading other horror stories about Government Liquidation on this website I feel fortunate that I lost "only" $350, or so, before learning my lesson to stay away.

Review: I purchased a lot of 40 wallets on Liquidation.com but when I received the products, the wallets were not nearly in the condition as shown in the listing and pictures. There were about 8 actual wallets, the rest were picture holders which go inside of a wallet and bulky credit card holder which are clearly not wallets. When I filed a complaint regarding the misrepresentation of the items on the website I received an email 4 days later stating that my complaint was denied because seller properly stated the conditions on the website, which is not true. I tried to call Liquidation.com and let them know about the scam and that I did not receive 40 actual wallets. The customer service agent told me that since the vendor gave me 40 items that are parts of wallets and the vendors listed it correctly and there's nothing they can do to rectify this issue.Desired Settlement: I would love to receive 40 regular wallets or my money back

Business

Response:

May 17, 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 40 men’s wallets in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 27, 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 he only received eight (8) actual wallets in the form expected, and that the remaining items were only the inside parts of wallets, including picture holders and a credit card holder. **. [redacted] also said that some of the wallets were torn, missing labels and appeared to be Used. 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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc...

Review: I purchased some used cell phones for the purpose of selling on [redacted]. I received the cell phones and found that they were not functional. They have wear from being in use but one will not even power on and will not charge at all and the [redacted] (the highest value of the lot) will not even work on basic levels. It will not connect to wifi. This is defective and I attempted to proceed with the company to send them back for a refund and they declined. I just am looking to get my money back at this point. I think that if someone sells something as used, not salvaged, it should be at least on the basic working condition. I am very disappointed in my dealings with Liquidation.com on this matter. I will think twice before doing any business with them in the future.Desired Settlement: I would like to get my money back and I will happily send the phones back to them.

Business

Response:

January 27, 2014

**. [redacted]

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 8 cell phones in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 8, 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 some of the phones she received would more properly fit Salvage condition merchandise. **. [redacted] said that one phone would not charge and another would not power on. Also, the [redacted] she received was unable to connect to Wi-Fi. She provided photos and videos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her supporting photos and videos did not show that the merchandise was in a condition other than advertised. The defects described fall within the acceptable range for Used condition merchandise, advertised as:

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 hardly ever contain any documentation or any 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 can 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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I am a 55 year old male, 100% disabled and living on Social Security. My wife has a little business selling goods on the internet. I saw a bunch of listings on Liquidation.com for sports memorabalia. Autographed 8x10 photos and some footballs as well. All were described as genuine with Certificates of Authenticity. I had almost 2000.00 saved and I managed to win 10 auctions. They were advertised as having 2 Thurman Munson autographed 8x10s with COAs, Mickey Mantle, Joe Montana and I could go on and on. Any way when the boxes came and I got a good look at the so-called Mantle signature I laughed out loud . It was ludicrous. I sent 13 pieces of this so called memorabilia out to [redacted] in [redacted],CA. The top authenticator in the country. They charged me 540.00 to tell me every single signature was forged and every single COA was counterfeit. I could not believe it. I was a long time Liquidation.com customer so I figured they would do the right thing. Boy was I wrong. I filed ten disputes and made a few calls to them. Every person I got on the phone was ruder than the next. They told me to send them some sample of the phony merchandise. So I spend another 26.00 on postage and send them the 13 pieces plus some 8x10s that were clear forgeries as well as the letters from [redacted]. Now they just got that merchandise today, July 18th, and they already sent me 10 emails denying every single dispute after "careful consideration". So I am now broke and out 2400.00 to them and another 540.00 to find out for sure that I got scammed. To further prove Liquidation.com's absolute apathy toward what I told them, the phony memorabilia is still being sold on their site. Do you need further proof that they just do not care if their customers get ripped off? This is not the first time I got ripped off by them either. the last time I filed a [redacted] dispute against them and they blocked my account so I could not get at my information. I expect they will do the same now so I have made copies of everything first. I would have accepted even a partial refund from them but they were not about to give up a single dime. I know they figure since they have all the money that I will just allow them to steamroll right over me. I intend to be the David that stands up to this Goliath. Caveat emptor friends. Especially when dealing with Liquidation.com. Thomas F WittekDesired Settlement: I just want my money back plus the 540.00 I had to pay for authenticating fake items for a total of 2,900.00

Business

Response:

August 1, 2014

Mr. David Dennis

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: Mr. Thomas F. Wittek, 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 IDs 4415882, 4414695, [redacted] and other related transactions. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his dispute was initially denied. However, his request to reopen the claim is still being processed by our disputes team.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of auctions for football memorabilia, signed sports collectibles, and other collectibles in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] believed that the autographed goods that he had purchased were not authentic as well as the certificates of authenticity and sent them to an authenticator to verify his claim. He requested a full refund for the purchase and the fees paid to the authenticator, for a total of $2,900.00.

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 signatures and certificates of authenticity were not valid. [redacted] responded to the disputes team and requested to reopen the dispute. He has disputed not only these transactions, but several other transactions previously as a Liquidation.com user. [redacted]’s account has been disabled on multiple occasions for failure to pay the seller and for credit card chargebacks, which violate the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com.

The dispute is still under consideration, as [redacted] has resubmitted his evidence for his case on July 25, 2014.

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: The people at Liquidation.com are lying as far as me being suspended for non-payment of auctions. I refused to pay the last two auctions I won because I now knew the merchandise was counterfeit. Would you pay for something you knew to be fake? They are telling a half truth which is as good as a lie. To further prove they do not care what kind of fake merchandise is shilled on their site, these phony items are still being sold in spite of my alerting them to the fact that they are all forgeries. I tried to make an amicable settlement with them but they are only intent on showing me how much more money they have to spend when it comes to litigation. I have lost what little respect remained in me for them. I can prove every single one of my claims. The only other time they suspended my account was when an auction I had won was not delivered to me so I opened a [redacted] dispute claim. They do not like it when you try to get your money back even when they know you got scammed. They could have settled with me for half of what they received. They are dishonest and their response to you further proves their total disregard for customer safety and they have no problem making outright false statement to slander my name. They are not even good liars because I can easily disprove every false statement they make. Thank you.

Regards,

Business

Response:

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.

Review: Pallet of TV's were advertised as salvage units for parts or to be repaired. They did not state the actual condition grade or that the screens were all broken. The pictures provided did not show the tv screens, only the back of one and a box with the model of one of the units. Since they are the judge, jury etc., they obviously ruled against my complaint.Desired Settlement: Either pick up merchandise and refund full amount paid including shipping, or refund the shipping or merchandise price and I keep the units.

Business

Response:

April 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 lot of five (5) LED TVs in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 7, 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 televisions he received all arrived with cracked screens; however, the manifest descriptions provided no reference to cracked screens. There were also no photos of the screens provided by the seller in the listing, only the back and sides of the televisions. He sent photos in support of his claim and requested either a full refund or a partial refund representing a discount for the damage.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the televisions were in a condition other than advertised. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:

IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE. Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for parts. These assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.

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: Last year I purchased a refurbished [redacted] A100 tablet at [redacted] online store. The 90 day warranty has long expired. The unit has stopped charging. I replaced the wall charger, reset and cleared everything of tablet. Called customer care at Corporate office only to be told that there is nothing they can do. I called the [redacted] online [redacted] store at [redacted] and person hung up. After many tries calling back I gave up. I called the Company which holds the warranty [redacted]. Lady was nice but could not help. I did some research on line. I goggled:[redacted] a100 tablet is not charging. It directed me to this [redacted]Apparently there are quite a few unhappy [redacted] customers with same problem. Forwarded the web site to Secondipity. I received a phone call and email from Customer Support Lead

Liquidity Services, Inc. (LQDT)

PHN: ###-###-####

EML: [redacted]

SKYPE: [redacted]

The email I received is:

Thank you for contacting me about the matter again.

I did speak to management about the matter. They advised that we can’t address the issue of the item that you purchased. But we could offer a discount on a future purchase in case you wanted to replace the item. It doesn’t have to be the same modeled unit. It could be a laptop.

Please let me know.

After extensive research with knowledgeable people I was advised that the [redacted] Iconia Tab A100 Tablet's "AC DC Power Jack Plug Socket Cable Harness needs to be replaced". Apparently the part itself is not expensive but the labor is. I was also told that this is most likely a manufacturer default for wish was the cause of the refurbishing.

No one wants to take responsibility.Desired Settlement: With so many complaints the company should do a recall and a complete refund.

Business

Response:

September 5, 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 she had as a buyer using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. [redacted] believes that our company was in breach of this contract because she could get no assistance for her product failure.

On June 11, 2012, **. [redacted] purchased a refurbished [redacted] A100 tablet through [redacted]’s [redacted] store. After some time, the unit became inoperable because it would no longer charge. At that time, the buyer contacted our customer service department on July 14, 2013 to request assistance.

The tablet carried a 90-day warranty, which had expired on September 9, 2012, several months prior to **. [redacted]’s request. There was a problem with this line of tablets which is why they had to be refurbished.

This was a manufacturing issue, and we are not the manufacturer. There was nothing that we could do beyond the warranty period, but we did offer a discount on a replacement item.

We regret that **. [redacted] is now dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with our contractual obligations and even provided a discount beyond any requirements of us to improve the buyer’s experience.

Regards,

[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:

From: <[redacted]>

Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

The refurbishing company admits that this is a manufacture default. That is why unit was refurbished in first place. Apparently refurbishing did not resolve the issue because there are too many consumers with same issue. What is next step?

Thank you.[redacted]

Regards,

Review: We purchased 3 jackets on this site that were sold as BRAND NEW. When we recieved the jackets, we opened the package and found them to have the word SAMPLE on the jackets. We filed a complaint. We then received the ok to return the jackets. In the email it stated that if we did not return the items to a [redacted] drop off in 5 business days, it may be null and void. We sent an email because it was outside the 5 days and said that we were returning the items and that if there was an issue, they needed to let us know. The email we received Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

Thank you, we look forward to doing business with you again. Please feel free to contact us if you have any more questions/concerns.

Thank you again for using Liquidation.com, your source for business surplus.

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc.

Phone: ###-###-#### [redacted]

We have a copy of all correspondence in regards to this matter.

We are now being told that we will receive a refund for the 147 but will pay a 200 unauthorized return fee. This is not right nor is it ethical. We are requesting that the 200 fee be waived since nothing was said in the emails about this. We would have kept the items and tried to get our money back another way instead of this way.Desired Settlement: The 200 fee waived.

Business

Response:

May 17, 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 he disagreed with our company’s canceled transaction policy; however, it has since been settled in his favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three (3) new Oakley jackets purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 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 two of the three jackets were stamped in red as “SAMPLE.” He stated that he would not have bid at all, had this been disclosed. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’ claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. He was notified on January 25 that he had five (5) days to put the merchandise in the mail or the refund offer would become null and void. Then on February 27, our company received an e-mail from **. [redacted] that he had just discovered our earlier correspondence regarding the refund return and that he had just sent the items. By that time, the refund offer had long expired, so upon receipt the buyer was provided a full refund of $145.25 to his account, but he was also assessed a $200 transaction cancelation fee for sending an unauthorized return. Later, the cancelation fee was waived as a one-time courtesy to **. [redacted].

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

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I purchased merchandise through the online auction website, and was told by the pick-up site that I could repackage the merchandise so my own freight company could ship the merchandise back to my hometown. I purchased an airline ticket, rented a car, stayed at a hotel, and drove to the pick-up site to repackage and ship the purchased merchandise.

Upon arriving, I was told that I could not repackage the merchandise and use my own freight company. The representative told me I could not open the boxes with the merchandise in it, but had to go through one of their select freight companies. Since I was stuck in a situation that I had no options, I was forced to use their freight company.

When the merchandise arrived, a large amount of the merchandise was missing at which time I notified Liquidity Services Inc. They just sent a notification that they cannot honor the request to refund the money for the merchandise. They state that buyer or the buyer's agent was responsible for verifying the property purchased. The problem with that was I was never given the opportunity to do that but was told I could not open the property.

This whole process has been very unprofessional and somewhat of a bait and switch in order to sell merchandise that is not as stated. Also, the communication that wasted about $1,500 for me to travel to Oklahoma is very unprofessional and wrong.Desired Settlement: I desire a full refund of the purchased merchandise.

Business

Response:

March 28, 2014Dear **. [redacted],We appreciate the opportunity to address **. [redacted]’s claim.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 the property in question.According to Government Liquidation site personnel located in Oklahoma City, OK, **. [redacted] was not given authorization to repackage the property (Invoice #[redacted]) associated with **. [redacted]’s claim. Customers repacking is not in line with the Terms and Conditions. Section 8:B of the Terms and Conditions indicates that customers must make arrangements for purchased property.8:B Please note that GL does not package items prior to pickup. Buyers need to make arrangements for packing of purchased items with a packing and shipping store, or other suitable vendor.In addition, site personnel indicated that **. [redacted] arrived at the Oklahoma City, OK warehouse without an appointment. Government Liquidation has thousands of customers retrieving property from our warehouses. Appointments are necessary to accomplish the removal process in a safe, orderly and efficient manner. The property **. [redacted] purchased required a removal appointment as indicated on the property information page, which was made available to **. [redacted] before the auction started, during the auction and after the auction close. A copy of the property’s information page has been included with this response.Please note that Government Liquidation customers are allowed to use any shipper of their choosing. Shipping is not a part of Government Liquation’s business. Government Liquidation does not receive payment from any shippers. The Oklahoma City, OK site personnel provided shipper information to **. [redacted] to assist him. **. [redacted] authorized [redacted] ([redacted]). a nationwide shipping company to ship his property. A copy of the authorization and removal documentation has been included with this response.After **. [redacted] received the property, **. [redacted] filed a claim. **. [redacted] indicated that he was missing items from his purchase. **. [redacted]’s designated shipper signed for and removed the property from the Oklahoma City location. **. [redacted] did not supply any additional information to validate his claim.**. [redacted] initiated a chargeback in the amount of $1,442.48. Government Liquidation’s accounting records indicate that on January 28, 2014, a refund settlement was issued to **. [redacted]’s credit card in the amount of $1,442.48.Again, we wish to thank you for the chance to address **. [redacted]’s claim.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:This business continues to be dishonest with the handling of this complaint. First lie is the statement that I didn't have an appointment. I can send proof of appointment if needed. The other lies were already explained in the initial complaint: being told I could repackage and use my own freight company (otherwise I wouldn't have travelled all the way to Oklahoma), not given permission to view and accept the merchandise (which I at that time could have seen missing merchandise), etc.

Review: Below is the exact email I sent to this company concerning a auction purchase I made on the morning of 9-21-2013. You will see all is self explanatory.

This morning I purchased a bracelet from your site. ID 6706207, transaction # [redacted]. I believe this seller was deceptive in describing their product. Below is their description of the Bracelet.

Description:

9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet

(notice BOLD HEADING and large print)

aster jewelers designed your bracelet with:

16 pieces of GENUINE Sapphires.

16 pieces of GENUINE single cut diamonds,

0.18 carat Tw.

11.62 grams of sterling silver layered with 18K gold. (Small print hidden in middle)

The length is 7 1/2 inches.

The width is 1/4 inches or 6mm.

This lovely bracelet comes in a free jewelry gift box!

Everyone is a winner!!!

Great jewelry investment gold is going up! (How much gold is in the layering to justify this statement GOLD HAS BEEN GOING DOWN.

Copy of invoice:

Retail Price Quantity Description

1415.00 1 Sapphire & Diamond Bracelet

No mention of Gold Layering !

In addition to this below is a copy of Primary Summary page .

Payment Summary: Auction ID [redacted]/Transaction ID [redacted] We will send you an email notification as soon as your payment is processed and your order is ready to ship. In the meantime, you can check the transaction status.

Seller: [redacted] Payment Summary:

c/o Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted]

Washington, DC [redacted]

Fax: [redacted] Payment Due Date: 09/21/2013

Transaction ID: [redacted]

Payment due upon receipt of payment summary.

Sold To: A&G Sales

Attn: [redacted]

United States of America Ship To: [redacted]

United States of America

Units Description Price Per Lot Total Amount

1 9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet $300.00

$300.00

Shipping & Logistics $40.25

Buyer's Premium $15.00

Sales Tax

$24.87

Grand Total $380.12

Again no mentioning of Gold layering.

Throughout, layering is mentioned only once but deceptive descriptions suggest all 18k gold.

Solution sought is cancellation of transaction, no attempt to charge card of record and suspension of privileges for the seller.

Thank you [redacted], [redacted]

Upon getting nowhere with their dispute resolutions dept and getting a bunch of double talk about my needing to submit proof of their deceptive and possible fraudulent ad I lost it and sent them an expletive filled email which , I mad add, was eloquently and professionally handled by them. I then entered a dispute with my bank. I also asked Liquidation.com for instructions to return the bracelet and they said sorry but I am stuck with it.Desired Settlement: As I have a dispute in process with my bank the solution I would accept is for Liquidation.com you comply with my banks inquiry and agree the transaction should be and will be cancelled and to allow me to return their bracelet I haven't even opened the shipping box. I have on file all my correspondence with Liquidation.com. Any additional information needed can and will be sent to the Revdex.com upon request. Thank you [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

**. [redacted] called to say he had not been contacted about the complaint since filing except for request for information from him. He has attempted to discontinue advertising e-mails but they continue to come, despite unsubscribing twice.

Business

Response:

November 6, 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 sapphire and diamond bracelet purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 24, 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 he was misled by the seller regarding his purchase because the seller used large, bold print to announce “9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet” and normal print to provide details including “11.62 grams of sterling silver layered with 18K gold.” **. [redacted] provided no photos in support of his claim because he never opened the box, according to his correspondence.Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the buyer provided no support for his claim that the bracelet was grossly misrepresented. This was clearly a case of buyer’s remorse which is not an acceptable reason to cancel a transaction. The information provided by the seller in the auction listing was accurate.**. [redacted] then filed a chargeback with his bank for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it (which constitutes theft). 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,

Review: Bought a Saffire Gem through liquidationthe item was described as a NEW excellent cushion cut untreated saffire gem, upon recieving the item it had a crack running through the whole saffire I called to describe the matter and they stated a 48 hour clock is ticking for you to send a decent enough picture to support claim or we decline your dispute .. wow still shocked when I read that, anyway I sent pictures in of the damage only to come back saying the mailbox is full already of disputes and cant take my request at this time, multiple emails and mutiple phone calls with no resolveDesired Settlement: a full refund shipping as well misrepresentation of product as well as a written apology because I pay for an item in good faith only to learn I have 48 hours to prove I am not a liar.

An A+ rating by the Revdex.com for this company is a clerical error or your not reading the repetitious reviews concerning the same matter written by numerous clients , Your core values you have set give me and all the consumers the impression that an A+ rating by the Revdex.com is solid ground , I punctuate by saying a refund is not a is not a characteristic of Honor or impeccable business ethics if that business continues to burn clients year after year with the same issues as before .

Business

Response:

February 4, 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 an untreated sapphire gemstone in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 17, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. He said that the gemstone he received has a crack running all the way through it. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the photos sent matched the photos provided in the auction listing regarding the condition of the merchandise. Both the photos sent by **. [redacted] and those in the auction advertising clearly show the crack in the gemstone. Therefore, there was no effort to mislead potential bidders by the 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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I purchased an auction lot (Transaction ID [redacted]) of 'returns' condition DVD players. They shipped via UPS Ground, arriving 8/15/2013 in a large box. The players had no protection on the box bottom below the loose jumbled players, or on any sides. They were all in the bottom of the box with a wad of Kraft paper on top. The box was also crushed due to its weight (46lbs) and the absence of any substance or strength above the crammed players. The players were subjected to significant slamming during shipping. They have rattles inside and now should be characterized as 'salvage'.

I opened a dispute 8/15/2013 with Liquidity Services (Liquidation.com) and it was closed 8/21/13. My claim was rejected since these were 'returns' condition, and 'returns' condition can be broken/used, etc. Also, there was insufficient evidence in the photos I submitted. I was never called, or emailed for additional details or information. The absence of protection of any kind in the shipping packaging was never addressed. Damaged caused during shipping was never addressed.

I emailed Liquidity Services 8/21/13, stating not to close the dispute and gave my reasons, that my original issue with packaging was not addressed, that there is a obligation of the seller/shipping entity to properly package my merchandise, and that this did not happen.

I escalated a Paypal claim on 8/22/13.

On 8/26/13 I attempted to log in to my Liquidation.com account. It would not allow me and I could not reset my password. I emailed Liquidation.com, and was notified my account was terminated for breach of contact. I never received an email notifying me of this. I also have several open transactions. After several email correspondences 8/26/13, I have been requested to cancel the charge-back request with [redacted], before I can submit evidence to 'back up your claim for damaged goods. Support that can be submitted with your dispute that assist the Disputes department would be pictures, video and you can also compare your manifest of items received in the package to that of the manifest online' . As is evident, I cannot do this since during the email correspondences today, there is still a lack of understanding that my issue is with the lack of packaging protection, not with the advertized condition.

This is for a total of $200. Since it seems neither Liquidity Services, nor the seller is responsible for packaging the merchandise, just for pre-shipped condition. I am immensely thankful I did not purchase 20 new Dell laptops for $10,000 and have them arrive in a box with zero protection, with resultant rattles and damage. It would have been tough cookies for me.Desired Settlement: Common sense policy changes:

- read dispute claims and not send boiler plate responses to disputes. Do not be Great Benefit from The Rainmaker.

- contact buyers for more information on claims if it seems evidence is lacking.

- contact account owners before terminating accounts, email them when you do so as well

- have dispute staff and customer service staff provide names in correspondences.

And for me, a refund and reopen my account.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: You need to look and stop this people from conducting business and taking people's money. I was send two shipments which I paid close to $1000 and all the stuff was utterly damaged and broken,

I send pictures and all the information as requested just to be send an email today that they have closed the case and all that I have received is mine,

[redacted]Desired Settlement: I need someone to get in touch with me regarding this issue as this is the second time I trusted them and is the second time I was send garbage again,. I thought they had improved and took my chances just to be taken again.

Business

Response:

November 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 sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because one dispute was denied and she was unhappy with the amount of the partial refund on the other dispute.

Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 10 furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 3, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction listing and that she was missing units. She said that she was missing a box of shelving for her bookshelf and that several other furniture items were scratched or broken. She provided supporting photos.

Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 27 furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 3, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that one of the items, a trashcan, had been received with large dents on each side and that the box was torn.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claims separately. For Transaction ID [redacted], they concluded that it could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within 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.

Further, the auction specifically states in its advertising, “Return furniture may reflect signs of use, wear and damage including cosmetic defects and structural damage including but not limited to bent frames, broken, cracked, stained, damaged or missing pieces and incomplete or partial sets.” This is consistent with the description and photo support provided by [redacted] and suits the condition code purchased.

Regarding Transaction [redacted], our disputes team decided to honor the dispute with a partial refund for one unit. The trashcan item was worth 8.07% of the MSRP of the lot. Therefore, we calculated 8.07% of the $240.00 winning bid, plus the appropriate percentage of shipping and fees, as the partial refund. The amount of $20.93 was processed to [redacted]’s account on October 13.

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 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,