Liquidity Services Inc

Review: I purchased 200 dvds described as Return DVDs including: Ice Age, Spiderman, Robin Hood & More - Original MSRP $2,028.00 This auction is part of a global inventory direct from one of the world's largest computer & electronics retailers. Many of the dvds had cases and stickers identifying them as rentals. Basically I received a bunch of used rental movies not returned dvds.SOme of the dvds and cases had names written on them.Desired Settlement: I am open as to how to handle this. I do not believe I should be responsible for the return shipping fees of $56.00.I would like to either get a replacement order with actual returns as advertised or get a full refund and prepaid shipping for the return postage.At the very least I feel a partial refund is in order.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: I placed 3 orders for women's panties, bras to sell on ebay. All 3 orders were to be NEW products. Numerous items are badly stained! I cannot sell these things.

I opened 3 disputes as they instructed me.

I sent some sample pictures on the first dispute and told them the other 2 were in the same condition.

They responded at one point and told me actually a video rather than pictures is better.

This sounds to me like they are making it too difficult for people to return things.

They sent me a return label to send back the first order but are denying my dispute for the other 2 orders. They are in the same stained condition.

All I want to do is return a horrible product and get my money back.Desired Settlement: All I want to do is return the other 2 orders to them and get my money back.

Business

Response:

July 28, 2013

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 buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because two of her disputes were denied.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of three auctions for 1) a lot 120 ladies lingerie and bras, 2) a lot of 156 ladies boyshorts and panties, and 3) a lot of 120 bras and sports bras, all in New condition, purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 5th and 6th, she filed disputes with our Customer Relations Department for all three auctions asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing and not in the condition advertised. She said that many of the items she received had stains and that some were missing straps or missing tags.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim for the first disputed auction and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. However, the other two disputes could not be honored because she never sent supporting evidence for those dispute claims (photos, videos, etc.). The Liquidation.com disputes process is clear and a notice was sent via e-mail to **. [redacted] stating that supporting evidence would need to be sent in order to evaluate her claims. She ignored our instructions.

Furthermore, during our review, **. [redacted] filed chargeback disputes with [redacted] for all three transactions. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. When **. [redacted] registered as a User on Liquidation.com, she agreed to follow the dispute process detailed in our User Agreement. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. Also, as a result of her chargeback our attempt to process a full refund of $155.75 for the first, properly completed, dispute was unsuccessful. Note that we found in her favor where she complied.

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:

Regards,

This email was sent to liquidation on 6/6. All 3 of my orders were from the same company. All of the damage was the same.

I advised them on 6/6 that the pictures and damage applied to ALL 3 orders.

All of the items were listed as NEW. This is FRAUD. These items are not new.

I believe they are trying to pass blame on this matter. The issue in my mind is not that I failed to comply with their dispute process but rather that they are defrauding me as a buyer and selling me defective merchandise and refusing my offer to return it..

________________________________________________________________________________...⇄ />
Email sent to liquidation.com on 6/6l:

This refers to all 3 of my orders.

Auction ID [redacted] Trans ID [redacted]

Auction ID [redacted] Trans ID [redacted]

Auction ID [redacted] Trans ID [redacted]

On 6/6/2013 4:55 PM, Liquidation.com - Disputes wrote:

Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

Hello,

Please provide the transaction ID that this message is in reference to.

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

surplus.

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

http://www.liquidation.com/c/buyer/index.html

:::[redacted]:::

On Thu, 6 Jun, 2013 11:09:10 AM EDT, asked:

I sent it yesterday. I will resend.

This is ridiculous. All I want to do is return to you the BAD

MERCHANDISE you sent me. Please advise a RMA # and I will send it back.

IF NOT, I will be reporting this to the following agencies and filing a

dispute with my credit card company. I do not plan to spend any more

of MY TIME dealing with this BAD MERCHANDISE.

**DC Attorney Generals Office*: (www.oag.dc.gov) Click on the

Consumer Complaint Form link under Services.

**Federal Trade Commission*: (www.ftc.gov) Select the "Consumer

Protection" tab and then the File a Complaint tab.

**Revdex.com*: (www.Revdex.com.org) Under the "FILE A COMPLAINT"

heading, select "Business" and follow the steps to file your complaint.

**National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA)*:

(www.consumeraction.gov/state) They have links to consumer

protection agencies in other states. Just search for your city and

state.

________________________________________________________________________________...⇄ />
I have offered to return the merchandise on several occasions. I still have it. I will return it. I do not want it.

Business

Response:

October 15, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. [redacted]. In her response, **. [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint.

**. [redacted] filed a claim regarding merchandise that she believed had been grossly misrepresented for three auctions purchased via Liquidation.com. Our disputes team found in her favor and provided a full refund for the one auction transaction for which she sent evidence to support her claim. However, she ignored our instructions and did not follow through with her other disputes. Thus, they were not found in her favor.

In her most recent response, **. [redacted] says that she should have been awarded a full refund for all three disputes because all three transactions were brokered with the same seller and that they all had the same problems. She said that she told our disputes team that her evidence was applicable to all three disputes. However, it was made clear to **. [redacted] that these are three separate transactions and thus we needed the actual, separate evidence for each transaction individually. Without specific evidence to each transaction, we could not effectively evaluate **. [redacted]’s claims. Instead of cooperating with our disputes team, she freely ignored our requests.

Our company did not defraud **. [redacted] because Liquidation.com did not own these items for sale. We brokered the transactions between the seller and the buyer. In order to properly review the dispute as a neutral party, we required the buyer’s cooperation which we did not receive. Further, once **. [redacted] violated her User Agreement by filing chargebacks on the transactions, all reviews were ended and her user account was deactivated.

We regret that **. [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

Regards,

Review: I purchased a recertified laptop through [redacted].com this year that came with a warranty from Liquidity Services, Inc. Unfortunately, the laptop has repeatedly exhibited a condition whereby it instantly powers off, without warning, during times when it is running on battery power. This is an intermittent condition; sometimes the laptop will run on battery power for hours without issue.

On September 4, I placed a call to submit a warranty claim for this defect, and the representative at Liquidity Services informed me that my claim would not be honored because my call was placed after the warranty period expired. I believe she said the warranty started on May 19, 2014 and thus expired 19 days before my call. I do not contest that my call occurred after the end of the warranty period, but I explained that the defect exhibited itself during the warranty period. I was informed that this was irrelevant, and the critical point was whether my case had been opened during the period.

The warranty text provided with the product and posted on the [redacted] website seems quite clear on what should be covered: "In the event that the Product exhibits a defect in workmanship within the Warranty period, Liquidity Services, Inc. will facilitate the Warranty services applicable to the Product." The warranty makes no statements about when the Purchaser must contact Liquidity Services. Had they written in the warranty that I must contact them within 90 days, that would have been fair. However, that's not in the warranty. It feels like they are making up a new rule so they don't have to fix the laptop. They wrote the warranty, so you would expect they would know what's in it.

In addition to the fact that the warranty period expired less than three weeks before my call, I have evidence that shows the defect was exhibited during the warranty period -- I normally have several documents open on my laptop, and when it suddenly powers off, temporary backup copies of the documents are left. The timestamps on these backup copies establish that the defect occurred during the warranty period. I suspect this may not be the only method of establishing the defect date was during the warranty period. I provided evidence to Liquidity Services, and they chose not to address it.

I have exchanged emails with Liquidity Services following my initial call, and their position is unchanged.Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity Services to abide by the warranty, which means repairing the laptop.

Business

Response:

October 14, 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 of a laptop under warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.

On May 19, [redacted] purchased a recertified laptop computer via [redacted].com with a 90-Day Warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. The laptop experienced intermittent issues where it would power down when running on battery. On September 4, [redacted] contacted our warranty service personnel to submit a warranty claim. He said that he had evidence that the power problems had occurred during the 90-day period after purchase.

Our warranty personnel denied service to [redacted] because the 90-day warranty period concluded on August 17. Therefore the unit was no longer eligible for repair service under the warranty. When [redacted] questioned his eligibility, he was informed that the 90-day warranty expired 90 days after purchase and that any claim needed to be initiated prior to the expiration. He was then advised to seek local repair for his laptop instead.

We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.

Regards,

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:

Review: We have won an auction from this site on 9/18th of 2013.Because we are a reseller they have asked us the send out documents.We have filled out those documents and sent out in addition to that we have sent out our company papers like certificate of Authority business formations etc.On September 20th we have received an email saying that we have a balance past due.We were waiting for them to remove the taxes from our account they have actually sent us an email saying that we have to pay the amount in full with taxes.On September 22nd we have sent them an email saying that we didn t get any response from them.Not even saying that there is a problem with our reseller certificate.On september 24 th they finally got back to us for the very first time after 6 days.they were asking me where we were sent out that paperworks.But of course while the time is passing we are also calling them to see whats going on and they have no idea whats going on.We have spoken reps [redacted],[redacted],[redacted] they were all telling us different stories.On 24th finally somebody said that we have sent out different paperwork and we have to send it again.I didn t understand how it could be wrong if you guys are sending it to us via email.So any way we made it short and resent it,On 25th we got in touch with them again to see if they have received it.And they have said that its not.But interesting thing is before we receive that email we have spoken to a rep and they said that they have received our paperwork and he said he will put out request to remove the taxes from our invoice.On 26th they have sent us an email threating us with a fine and cancellation of our acct if we do not send out the full amount.So I have called them and spoken to [redacted] again explained her the situation and she said just pay it in full and they would return it to you later.So we have paid bith transactions which we have closed on 9/23.So we have closed those 2 transaction paying them in full with the taxes in full.On September 28th we have received the email we have copied it and pasting it "Our finance department had received your document; unfortunately, they were unable to read all of the information on the document due to the small print. The document has been adjusted to regular measurements and have been forwarded to our finance department with a request to refund the taxes. This request will be completed on Monday 9/30/13. Once it has been completed, you will be notified. " So this was their response we have all the emails that we can provide. So even though 9/30 passed nobody got back to us regarding this matter.So it shows how serious they work for customers right.Their right is more important than customers.because we have been getting emails everyday for the payment.But now they dont even get in touch with unless you do so.Oct 2 nd we have sent them an email asking the status of tax refunds since they didnt complete anything on 9/30.And same day have responded us with following email "We apologize for the delay. Our finance department is working diligently to process refunds as fast as possible. The refund will be processed today. Please allow 2-3 business days to see the credit back to the account. We greatly appreciate your patience." After that we have waited moten 2-3 days and after made calls and got different responses.Any way After 13 days of this email we have received this email.On Oct 15th we have received this email "We have did a careful review of your document. The document is unable to be applied to the account because the document is not filled out correctly. Please print your first and last name at the bottom of the document, sign and date it. Once this has been completed, please email the document back to be applied to the account. " So what would you be doing to look at the 1 page of paper probably filled 1/6 th of it with handwriting.So it took 13 days for you guys to look at it.I am not talking about whole period of time I am just talking about the time frame passed after that last email.OMG really?And the time we spent getting in touch wit them?Writing this email? AND THE MOST AMAZING PART IS we didn t even receive the second transaction which is 26 pallets.Thats another thing another complain.Even for that they don t get back to you.Desired Settlement: Well this is probably our last experience with this company.They have to be honest and care for their customers.We don t even like to call them because their reps are so rude except [redacted].All of them were put you in a situation like you are stupid you have no idea whats going on.If you are running behind your money you have to do samething for other people too.

Business

Response:

January 20, 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 his sales tax had not been refunded for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted].

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of auctions for 1) a truckload of 13,000 [redacted] cellular accessories in Shelf Pulls condition and 2) a truckload of 26,000 [redacted] cellular accessories in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. He says that he sent his resale certificate to avoid paying sales tax to Liquidation.com, as a reseller. He resubmitted his reseller certificate upon the request of our staff.

After logging the certificate in our system, **. [redacted] was refunded sales taxes of $107.75 to his account on October 18, 2013 in connection with transaction ID [redacted] (13,000-item truckload). He was refunded in full for transaction ID [redacted] (26,000-item truckload) because the seller did not ship the truckload to the buyer and thus the transaction was canceled. The full refund of $1605.00 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on October 21, 2013. Since the merchandise was sold directly from the site of the seller, we did not have the items in our possession to send and could not compel the seller to send the truckload.

We apologize to **. [redacted] for the delay in his sales tax refund payment and hope that there is no future issue in this regard.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I won an auction of a salvage lot of cell-phones. Specifically, the seller ship 14 smartphones to me in a large box allowing for phones to bounce around durring transit causing damage to my item. After recieving item I noticed signs of tampering making thephones non-genuine which was not disclosed in auction. Specific handsets sent to me were not the same as was in in the picture of the auction. I had filed a dispute directly with liquidation.com and afterwards with [redacted]. Liquidation.com denied my refund via [redacted] without specific reason in [redacted]. On my first attempt to liquidation.com's customer service I was "stone walled" by the representitive. Specifically, the rep would not respond to my voice while also not dropping the call. I attempt a second call and was advised to view the transaction from online. After tryng to access my account I discovered that liquidatin.com had disabled my account. Liquidation.com disabled my account as a bully tactic advising me that the only way to have my account reinstated would be to drop my dispute with [redacted]. Currently I am locked out of my account while having a second pending transaction unrelated to the transaction described.Desired Settlement: I found my experience with liquidation.com customer service to be completely unacceptable. In addition to having a full refund for the transaction(including cost to reship) I believe liquidation should have their Revdex.com rating lowered a tier. In my oppinion, bullying is not a behavior that is consistant with the best companies of our country.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: Originally I purchased a auction from liquidation.com and when I received the product I didn't receive genuine product. In this specific auction it was listed that there was "[redacted] Elements Crystal" necklaces and earring sets valued up to $122.00. What I received was a fake knock off of [redacted] Elements Crystal sets, totally misrepresented. I actually found these same necklaces sold on a website that sells counterfeit goods. When I filed a dispute with Liquidation.com they denied my claim.

This is what the message said: Dispute denied; The units in claim are covered under the quantity variance of the auction listing. The support provided does not validate the claim of misrepresentation.

This is just an automated response, they told me after a careful and thorough investigation that my claim was denied. I then asked them to explain the process of this investigation which I have received no response back as of yet. In the future if I don't receive some type of refund or compromise of this claim I will send these necklace sets to [redacted] Elements to have them validated of their authenticity and when they come back as counterfeit I will pursue legal action if needed. It would have been fine if I knew before hand that this was counterfeit product so I would not have bid on this in the first place but they listed the product as "[redacted] Elements Crystals" and not made with "[redacted] Elements" and I believe if [redacted] Elements Crystals knew that this company was selling counterfeit product under their name they would pursue legal action as well. These people at Liquidation.com know exactly what they are doing when they list products and I have seen so much negative feedback online from ripoffreport.com and consumerreports.com with the same situations and they continue to run this business deceitfully taking money from hard working people trying to provide for their families.Desired Settlement: I would like to return the auction goods for a refund or the necklace sets in question for some sort of compensation.

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 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, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 1,000 name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 10, 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 [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit items. He requested a full refund.

Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lot. The seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the 50 items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auction. Therefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the seller. Since the disputed items were below the quantity variance threshold, we informed [redacted] that his dispute had been denied.

[redacted] then asked for a more thorough description of our decision. An e-mail was sent to him the same day of his Revdex.com submission providing the relevant details and decision-making process of the disputes team. Then [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthentic. After discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lot. After confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $187.25 was processed to [redacted]’s account on November 18.

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

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,

Review: Auction Auction ID Trans ID Lot Qty Total Amount Date/Time Bought Status

Designer Ladies Clothing by [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]... [redacted] 183.13 USD 2014-09-29 13:23:02 Seller Preparing Shipment

View Invoice

won an auction 9/29/14. have not received even shipping information from the seller. I have sent at least 3 maybe 4 emails to liquidation.com since This monday oct. 6 asking for some sort of response from the seller. All I keep getting is "we have informed the seller..." each time. I was told yesterday that the seller has 4 business days to ship my items. 4 business days would have been friday oct. 3 or even Monday oct. 6 at the latest. It is now almost 3 days past the alloted time the seller has to ship. The above is what it has been saying since I paid for my auction (which was paid immediately after I won)

I was asked yesterday if I wanted to cancel since it has been past 4 days. NO I DO NOT WANT TO CANCEL. I just want my goods delivered.

I feel nothing has been done to resolve this issue and as I say below, "The seller evidently has the stock because there have been SEVERAL auctions since my purchase last week with the SAME TYPE of items" so this should not be an excuse at all. poor communication/service from the seller.

The account manager is Sheldon H[redacted]. He was supposedly notified this morning. still no shipment, tracking number...nothing at all just the same thing told to me in several emails by liquidation.com. My last shipment from a different seller on liquidation.com was received by me in less than 3 business days and tracking uploaded that same day.Desired Settlement: I DO NOT want to cancel my transaction as I need them for my own internet business purposes. I want my goods delivered as I won the auction. The seller evidently has the stock because there have been SEVERAL auctions since my purchase last week with the SAME TYPE of items.

Business

Response:

October 15, 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 did not receive the auction items she purchased.

On September 29, [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 300 ladies clothing items in Used and Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. The seller did not ship the merchandise within a four-day period so Liquidity Services contacted [redacted] to ask if she wanted to cancel the transaction or wait for the seller to comply. She indicated that she did not want to cancel and pointed out that the seller had conducted several other auctions of the same merchandise since her auction had ended.

After several attempts by Liquidity Services to get the seller to send the merchandise, [redacted] contacted us on October 10 to ask for a cancelation of the transaction and a full refund. These goods had been scheduled to be shipped directly from the seller location so we did not have possession and could not complete the sale. We cannot compel sellers to ship merchandise, but we do assess a monetary penalty for non-completed auctions. Typically, this penalty is an effective deterrent, but it was not enough for [redacted]’s purchase unfortunately. A full refund of $183.13 was paid to the buyer’s account on October 10 as requested.

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

Regards,

Cary C. 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,

Review: This company serves as a means of connecting buyers with sellers for lots of merchandise. I purchase 4 lots of merchandise (4 separate transactions) and requested a full refund plus return shiping labels due to a particular seller's gross misrepresentation of products as "Beats by Dr. Dre". These products are fake and I would like a return. Among other issues, the seller intentionally did not include the proper sleeve that covers the merchandise in which the box resides. This sleeve typically provides the obvious evidence that the merchandise is fake. Most of the products do not include serial numbers. Now the company is asking me to take photos of each item (keep in mind there are close to 150 items in these lots) plus applicable serial numbers. This is absolutely ridiculous. All I want is a simple refund for misrepresented products.

My transaction IDs for each lot are as follows: [redacted] If I do not receive a full refund and return shipping labels within a reasonable amount of time, I will be filing disputes with my credit card company, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, and filing suit against Liquidity Services IncDesired Settlement: Receive shipping labels to return the grossly misrepresented products for each of the 4 lots and receive a full refund for reach transaction.

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted]

Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington

DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted]

To: [redacted]

The business has resolved my complaint.

Review: I am receiving multiple emails daily that I did not sign up for and even after being removed from emailing list they continue to send these emails to me. I can not get off of their list.Desired Settlement: Get my name removed from mailing list.

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 he had as a recipient of multiple company e-mails that he did not request.

[redacted] said that he received several unwanted e-mails and wanted them to cease. He was not on any of the distribution lists for company e-mails, but his e-mail was in a separate database regarding a customer service matter.

There was an error that caused some of our users to received multiple, unsolicited e-mails in succession. Once we became aware of the problem, we moved quickly to identify the source and correct it so that no further disruption would occur. Additionally, [redacted] has been globally unsubscribed from all of our marketplaces per his request.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with his removal from all distribution lists.

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,

Review: This is the first time I've used liquidation.com. I'm starting a new business reselling and thought this would be a good option. I sourced the items that I wanted, I was only looking for NEW items. I found the auction I wanted and decided to bid. Before bidding I checked the shipping calculator, and it showed $130. I thought it was really high, looking at another auction for 3x the amount of items it was only $40. I accepted the charges, as my max bid I thought I could still make a small profit. I ended up winning, and then at the end the shipping price was 2x what I expected. I called in about this and was assured that it was this expensive because it was being shipped on a palet via UPS freight OVERNIGHT. My sales receipt also said overnight delivery. It shipped on a Monday, however did not arrive until 1 week later. Before it was delivered I called to inquire about why it took 1 week when the overpriced shipping cost was justified as overnight. The rep told me they do not provide any overnight despite being told this at the first time I called and my email confirmation. The rep told me the other rep was lying?! The package was eventually delivered on Monday. The UPS delivery person did not deliver it on a palet like it was told to me, instead he CARRIED a box to my door that could have been shipped via ground! It weighed maybe 10lbs max! If that wasn't bad enough, the box is opened and there is only 10 units!! The auction was for 20 units! If this wasn't bad enough the items are REFURBISHED, and not NEW like the auction stated. I cannot sell these as refurbished as they are worth more than 50% less instead of new. Not to mention half the order is missing! After opening the box the headphones are not even in packages, just in bags, so no [redacted] packaging for these. Its unacceptable! After calling back in they did not apologize and told me to fill out a "dispute form" online. So I have no human interaction about this, and they claim they will respond within 7-10 days. This kind of business practice is shocking and completely unacceptable. I will not be taken for $841!Desired Settlement: I will a FULL refund for all goods and shipping costs. I will send what I received back but liquidation.com must provide a shipping label, I'm not spending a dime out of pocket to send the goods back. I've lost valuable time and money having to deal with this entire mess.

Business

Response:

October 15, 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 he did not receive the items he purchased.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 new [redacted] headphones purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 6, he filed a dispute with our Customer Service Department asserting that his shipment was missing units and that the items received were grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he only received 10 of 20 units purchased. Also, the headphones he received that had been explicitly advertised as New condition were not new but refurbished merchandise. Further, the shipping cost did not correspond to the weight, manner and timing of the delivery. Therefore, [redacted] requested a full refund and provided photo support for his claim.

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. The lot was listed improperly by the seller. Return shipping labels were sent to [redacted] on October 11. We will process the refund to [redacted]’s account once we confirm that the return has been received by the seller.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and will consider the matter closed following the upcoming refund payment.

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. Thank you for the understanding.

Regards,

Review: There are 2 incidents: First incident was a lot of 190 Grade A [redacted] cases. They arrived dirty and not in the condition advertised; they refused to issue an RMA and allow a return. I did not dispute yet, however, I plan on it. Second incident, a lot of 7 Grade A [redacted] minis. They shipped to me with no packing material...and they arrived broken. I reported to my credit card company, to [redacted], and now to you. They will not issue an RMA or a refund. Third, their software malfunctioned and I lost an auction; they refused to investigate (I have all the emails), and when I pushed them to acknowledge their mistake and fix it, they deactivated my account. I believe their customer service and returns are structured to get their merchandise out however they can...some transactions with them have been fine...others have been lies.Desired Settlement: I tried to get resolution and an RMA for the [redacted] cases from them...now I need to work with my credit card company. I submitted photo and written evidence and many phone calls within their contact period...but no resolution. I will now start working with my bank.

I am working with them on the [redacted] mini's...I submitted photo and written evidence and many phone calls within their contact period...but no resolution. Given my past experience, I am working with [redacted] and my bank.

When I told them of their mistakes regarding bidding errors, they deactivated my account and will no longer speak with me.

I want an RMA for the dirty [redacted] cases and the broken [redacted] mini's, and I want to warn other customers of their technology issues and the fact that they don't follow their own policies and have extremely poor customer service. I've filed a complaint with [redacted] regarding internet crime, case ID [redacted].

Business

Response:

May 8, 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; however, he filed his complaint with the Revdex.com prior to discovering that the matter had been resolved in his favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 7 [redacted] Minis in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he received [redacted] Minis which were damaged in transit from the seller due to insufficient packing. He said that the seller only used a little paper on one side of the box and that it was not enough to protect the fragile merchandise. He requested a full refund.

On February 14, prior to receiving notification of our decision, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback on the transaction and his Liquidation.com User account was de-activated. Our disputes team had already reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a full refund would be appropriate upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After **. [redacted] was notified, he returned the items and a full refund of $1,811.45 was processed to his account on March 7.

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:

[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 while the response was correct, that was not the transaction which forced me to contact the Revdex.com. They were forced by [redacted] to provide a full refund for two other orders due to the same challenges in shipping but more their lack of responsiveness to me or to them in rectifying the issue. As they responded, they locked me out of their site, preventing all email communication, and when attempting to contact them via phone, both [redacted] and I were unsuccessful.My complaint stands; when the merchandise that the third party ships to the winner is not what is expected, in my experience there is little chance they will respond as their stated processes advertise. This was shocking as I had purchased previously, however, in those purchases the merchandise was fine. They do not provide customer service to the level of expectation, and as you experienced, getting any sort of reply from this company is difficult when faced with challenges.The public should be warned...[redacted] very rarely makes the decision to refund the buyer's money regardless of whether the merchandise is returned; that is what happened with me because of their practices-they went as far as rejecting the return authorized through [redacted]. Please watch this company and seek out others for the same experience; I will never do business with them again.

Regards,

Review: I have been a customer of Liquidation.com and have had a few successful transactions there. Overall I have been happy with the products and services received by them. However, the auction I won on January 23rd 2014 (transaction id [redacted]) has changed my mind considerably about this company. My package arrived on January 31st 2014 and from the second I opened it, I knew something was wrong. The auction was to contain an assortment of tablet and cell phone cases totalling 476 items. When I actually counted the merchandise I received, it was only 74 items. I promptly wen to their website and filed a dispute claim for the merchandise. I abided by all the rules of their dispute process and uploaded pictures of the items I did receive. I also took a video of the items but was unable to upload it on their website due to the size of the video. I then called their customer support number to let them know that I had video evidence as well but that I had no way of getting it to them as their website would not allow me to upload it. I was told by the customer service rep [redacted] (sp?) that if the dispute department needed the video they would call or email me to ask for it. On February 6th, I received an email back from them stating that my claim had been denied for lack of evidence. Here is the email I received:

"Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

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

Insufficient support provided to validate claim.

Furthermore, shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contact. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g. from a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing. "

This is clearly a form response that they just cut and pasted from somewhere else as my claim had nothing to do with the quality of the items, only the fact that over 400 items were missing. They also denied the claim for lack of evidence when I told them through multiple venues (in the original dispute, through a support call and in email) that I had video evidence but had no way of uploading it to their site do to some limitations on their end. I repeatedly asked for a way to upload the video evidence and still have not been given a way to do so. I again immediately called their customer support line and again [redacted] answered to tell me that there wasn't much I could do and that I could try re-opening the dispute. I did just that. I re-opened the dispute and asked them why I had been denied and they responded with this:

"

Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

Please disregard the previous Dispute Resolution email that was sent to you in error. Please provide a detailed manifest of the missing items within the next 24 hours so that we may continue to investigate your claim.

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

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc."

First of all, they claim the first email was sent in error which I don't believe but they did re-open the case and ask for a full manifest of the items that were missing which I provided in the following email:

"I just went over the auction manifest of the items actually on the manifest, I received:

15 of 70 Generic Cell phone cases

20 of 24 Generic Tablet cases

3 of 6 [redacted] Flip Cover Cases

0 of 4 [redacted] Waterproof cases

0 of 14 [redacted] Phone Hard Case

2 of 2 [redacted]

12 of 16 [redacted] Phone Case

0 of 318 [redacted] Phone Case

0 of 4 Belkin Grip Candy Sheer Case

0 of 2 Kate Spade [redacted] Case

0 of 2 Tory Burch [redacted] Case

0 of 4 [redacted] DualPro [redacted] 5 Case

0 of 4 [redacted] Survivor Extreme-Duty Military Case

That accounts for only 52 items received that were on the manifest.

I also received the following items not even on the manifest:

4 [redacted] Pro Cases

1 [redacted] Case

3 [redacted] Tablet Keyboards

2 [redacted] Charger/Speaker

3 [redacted] Cases

1 [redacted] Cover

1 [redacted] 5 Case

1 [redacted] Case

1 HTC One Case

1 unu Rechargeable battery Case

1 [redacted] Power Case

1 [redacted] 5 Case

1 [redacted] Power Boost

1 [redacted] S2 Car Dock

Which accounts to 22 more items that I received that weren't even on the original manifest. I still believe I was sent the wrong shipment. I also still have the video that I took of all the merchandise but I have had no way of getting it to you. Is there an FTP site I could upload it to?

I also still see that the status on the transaction is "Paying Seller". If the dispute denial email was sent in error earlier, I think you may need to make sure payment isn't released before the dispute is settled.

If there is anything else you need from me please let me know. "

As you can see I fully detailed all the items that were missing and also included items that I received that I shouldn't have as they weren't even manifested. After a few more days of waiting, I received this response from them today:

"Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

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

The Carrier has confirmed the weight of the units shipped is the same weight of units during delivery. You claim has been closed for insufficient support received to validate your claim."

I fail to see how the weight of the package has anything to do with the items inside it. A package with 74 items in it can weigh 62lbs just as much as a package with 476 items could. The fact that the package weighed the same upon delivery only means that the items that shipped in the box are still in the box. It does not prove that the correct (or the right number of) items shipped. They also had no explanation for why I received items in the package that were not manifested in the auction.

Again I contacted their customer support department and again spoke to [redacted] (starting to think she is the only employee) who told me there was nothing that could be done. She was rude to me on the phone, hung up on me a few times and refused to escalate my call to anyone who could help me or even explain to me why my claim keeps getting denied. I have honestly never received worse customer support in my life. The term "the customer is always right" is certainly lost on these people.

At this point I am totally disgusted with this company and sick of wasting my time dealing with this issue. I also believe it is entirely possible that this was an error on [redacted]'s end but since Liquidation.com is the shipper [redacted] will only work with them and Liquidation.com told me they are not willing to file a claim on my behalf.Desired Settlement: I expect that all money from this auction should be returned to me or at the very least I should only pay for what I received (74 items * 1.55ea = $114.70). This is my first avenue to try to resolve this case. If this does not work I will be disputing with [redacted], my bank ([redacted]), [redacted] and if necessary taking this to small claims court. I feel that $850 was pretty much stolen from me and I will not give up until it is returned.

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] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied; however, it has since been resolved in his favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 476 cell phone and tablet cases in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 2, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was missing a large number of units advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he only received 74 of 476 items advertised, including 52 items from the manifest and 22 more items not listed on the auction manifest. The shipment was so different from the listing that the buyer felt that he may have received the wrong shipment entirely. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and erroneously sent a denial related to another matter. After being alerted to the error, the review concluded that **. [redacted]’s dispute could not be honored because the weight of the package sent by the seller matched the weight of the package delivered by the carrier [redacted]. This would indicate that the items sent by the seller reached the buyer; however, soon thereafter, the seller contacted us to inform us that they had in fact made an error in the transaction. Therefore, on February 15, we notified **. [redacted] that the dispute was ruled in his favor and that a full refund would be provided upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After receipt of the return was confirmed, a full refund of $835.13 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on March 4.

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

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I have been dealing with this company purchasing used, refurbed, and salvage electronics during the past two months to the tune of several thousand dollars. Recently I bid & won an auction #[redacted] Transaction #[redacted] for, according to the shipping manifest, 24 tablets and accessories, and the description stated "[redacted] Tablets & Accessories 7" Capacitive Screen 24 Units". The cost with shipping was $670.25. What I received was six (6) tablets, six (6) screen protectors, six (6) memory cards, and six (6) cases. This is much more than they are worth and the bid would not have been placed for this amount if described correctly. I filed a dispute however Liquidity denied it saying the detailed description listed the contents properly. My reason for this complaint is that Liquidity allows this deceptive type of listing. Most other listings prove that the manifest is the most accurate description which is what I use on every auction because many listing are very limited in the detailed description. The seller "[redacted]" has several other listings like this and are very deceptive and Liquidity allows every "piece" being sold to be counted as a "unit". A unit should be the major item not accessories. It is deceptive to say that an auction is selling 24 units at $600 or $25 a piece. Reality is that the tablets were really $100.00 a piece and are unbranded low end items.Desired Settlement: The items are still here in the original shipping box. I want a full refund issued and then I will return ship the items. Also Liquidity needs to change their listing policy regarding "units".

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 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 24 [redacted] tablets and accessories in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 6, 2013, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing 18 units advertised in the auction. He said that he believed he would be receiving 24 tablets, but he only received six tablets and some accessories. He believes that the seller provided a deceptive description to mislead him. Otherwise, he would not have bid as high as he did on the auction. As a result, he has requested a full refund for the transaction.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction advertising accurately identified the content of the auction lot. Under the manifest for the auction the contents were listed as 24 items with the description “tablets and accessories” (emphasis added). The auction advertising said the following:

This auction is for a mixed lot of tablets and accessories.

The lot consists of

6-7” Tablets

6-7” tablet cases

6-2gb tf Cards, and 6-7” tablet protective screen covers

Total of 24 units.

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 placed a bid on their website for consumer electronics that were listed as customer returned items. Nowhere in the listing did it explain that there was any damage to the items I would purchase. When I received them they were damaged. I called their customer service line which is absolutely horrible. I asked to speak to a supervisor several times but I was denied access to one. I am a first time customer and I feel that they should not treat their customers this way. I followed their return policy by submitting pictures with a dispute. They replied a few days later stating that I should have looked at the merchandise when I picked it up and reported any concerns then. I live 2000 miles away. I never went to their location to pick up these items. They were shipped to me. They have no idea how to properly run a business and I want to be fully compensated for the money and effort I've put in to do their job for them.Desired Settlement: I would like the Revdex.com to properly monitor them because they should not be allowed to conduct business nationwide with these horrible basic customer service practices. I want to be refunded for the purchase and shipping costs. They are welcome to provide a shipping label to me to send their garbage back to them.

Business

Response:

November 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 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 11 consumer electronics items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 9, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that two of the 11 items were severely physically damaged: the Panasonic home theater system had a severely bent board as well as several dents and scratches, and the Rocketfish item had bent ports and gashes on the top.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the buyer had arranged his own shipping, thus waiving his right to dispute the condition of the items after they left the warehouse. When **. [redacted] made his purchase, a window displayed explaining, “By opting to arrange your own shipping, you agree that any claims must be made at the time of pick up. Therefore no claims would be accepted after pickup.” This policy is set because we cannot determine when damage occurs to a product once it leaves our premises. However, in consideration of the buyer’s new status to our website a onetime exception was made and a return label was sent to **. [redacted] for the merchandise. Upon return of the merchandise, a full refund of $115.56 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on September 17.

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,

Review: I purchased an auction that was grossly misrepresented and filed a claim with liquidation.com but they will not return my money! I would include the webpage of the auction but Liquidity has blocked me because I started a claim against them through [redacted]. This business is unreal. They steal your money then block you. Luckily before I was banned from their site I sent a link to the the actual auction and the manifest to [redacted]. If you could give me a fax or somewhere to send it I will call [redacted] to ask them to send it to you for proof of the practices of this company. It's absolutely shocking what I was put through! So, I paid $4,725.00 for the auction. It was presented as ( and I have everything in my documents that I can attached to send you...the whole page of the auction) 20 Pallets of high end merchandise. 380 items. The manifest had quantity and prices for everything that added up to $32,000~33,000 (I can attached that to an email also) This was presented as "Returns" Ok so we all know returns can have a little ding here or there, or perhaps a few accessories are missing. I bid according to HIS manifest. First of all there was only 222 items with 158 items MISSING. I should have won the dispute right there. Next, I sent a bunch of still pictures but liquidity sent me an email demanding that I send video's from you tube. Well, I didn't have a clue how to do that and was told I had 24 hours left to do it ( They give you 48 hours from the time you receive your items to submit a dispute) forget the fact that my husband and I had been up for over 24 hours because of what we were put through getting the items. So We spent the next 8 hours going through all this filthy dirty junk and taking video with our camera. I figured out you tube and I sent them approx 20 1~3 minute videos. So...they give themselves 10 BUSINESS day to decide and OF COURSE they took every day of it. I must say that I had no respect for them by then and really expected them to try and rip me off, I just couldn't think of a way they could...but they did with a BS excuse and never addressed the issues of a lot of quantity missing and where the heck were the pallet? So let me explain the nightmare of getting the items.

Fist of all I received an email from Alice Wong logistics planner, Liquidity services inc., t/317~838~8520 x5443. This was explaining the importance of complying with the safety codes when picking up pallets from there warehouses. I was impressed with this because it was so detailed and it sounded like they ran a tight ship.

On April 3rd, 2013 we spoke to ** in [redacted], WA. and set up to pick up our load the morning of April 4, 2013 he indicated that they needed to put them on the pallets and shrink wrap them, I told him that my husband [redacted] had just had a total knee replacement 6 weeks prior he said they would load the pallet. It seemed odd to me that they weren't already on pallets and how could he advertise 20 pallets? He said he had been doing this for a long time and assured me it was 20 pallet. I was very excited to have 20 whole pallets of merchandise to go through and put for sale in my [redacted] store. He said the pallet would be ready by 10 am April 4th, 2013. So we called and rented a 24' truck from [redacted], WA which cost us $186.00 including gas. At approx 5 am April 4th, 2013 we set out from [redacted], [redacted] to [redacted], Washington to pick up our 20 pallet. We caught a train in [redacted], OR at 6:30 am and would arrive in [redacted], Wa approx. by 11:30 am April 4th, 2013. The train ride cost us $88.00. We needed to take a taxi to the truck rental in [redacted], WA. At 12:10 pm we were talking to **, this was the contact person at the warehouse. He gave us an address and we drove there. It was a [redacted] store! We called ** again and he said he wasn't ready for us they were loading the pallets and shrink wrapping them. Well we were stunned to hear a response like that. We sat in the parking lot for about 2 hours and called him again. He was clearly annoyed and said he needed more time, we asked where the warehouse was but he would not tell us. We called him back at 3:30 pm and he hung up on us! I called Liquidity and told the lady of our situation and a supervisor named [redacted] (spelling?) called back. I was frantic because it was getting late and I had left my Insulin and other medications at home not expecting to be gone more than 12 hours. [redacted] gave us the only address they had which turned out to be **'s home.

We were just about to leave the [redacted] parking lot and this van/truck pulls up and asks my husband if he was [redacted] and to follow him. He led us down a residential street and told us to wait there. So we waited and about an hour later he comes back and tells us to back into his driveway. All of a sudden 2 men approx in their 20's start carrying things and loading them in the back of our truck very quickly. We were very confused and my husband said this is not right. My husband and ** started arguing and then ** said "I will give you 100~200 extra things so you will be very happy" So we decided to go along even though we knew this wasn't right. We are in our 50's, very tired, stressed and my husband was in pain. They left again and returned about an hour later and went through the routine of hand loading our truck again. Another hour later and we are on our way home...It's 10:20 pm April 4, 2013 and we have been up for over 17 hours and we know we have at least a 5 1/2 hour drive home (it takes longer because a train doesn't have to stop for traffic or traffic lights). We arrive home approx 4 am April 5, 2013. 2 of our daughter are at our house to unload the merchandise because of medical reasons my husband and I are unable to unload. It didn't take long for me to see the condition of the merchandise. Handles were broken off the vacuums, none of the coffee makers had the glass container to hold the coffee, of the 11 toys that are remote control, there is only 1 battery pack and 2 manual controllers NONE work. 1 of the electric kettles works. NONE of the air mattresses were what was advertised and only 1 would hold air and none were in boxes. Of the micro waves we received NONE worked 2 had dried food splattered all over, there's a rice cooker filled with black moldy rice, of course none of the T.V.s are there. Everything was junk that looked like it came out of a dumpster. Getting back to the vacuums the videos clearly showed the worn out handles, excessive amounts of big black scuffs, missing hoses, broken/cracked area's.

this is what we were suppose to get ( not to mention the "extra 100~200 items we were promised") THIS IS THE ACTUAL AND NO HIGH END STORE WOULD EXCEPT THIS JUNK BACK JUST WATCH THE VIDEOS! WE ARE MISSING 158 ITEMS!!!!

Retail Price Expected Condition Quantity Description

QUANTITY RECEIVED

119.99 RET 30 SHARK PRO MOP 7

27.99 RET 20 MR COFFEE MAKER 18

249.99 RET 20 SHARK NAVIGATOR VACUUM 11

RET 12 PHONES 12

27.99 RET 10 VANITY LIGHTED MIRROR 10

37.99 RET 10 RICE COOKER/FOOD STEAMER 8

169.99 RET 40 AEROBED 29

199.99 RET 5 ELECTROLUX VERSATILITY 5

99.99 RET 10 BIONAIRE HUMIDIFIER 5

RET 5 SAMSUNG HDTV 0

149.99 RET 10 FOODSAVER 8

23.99 RET 10 TAYLOR BODY SCALE 10

47.99 RET 5 OSTER TOASTER OVEN 2

RET 10 MICROWAVES 4

34.99 RET 5 HAMILTON BEACH TOASTER 4

37.99 RET 10 HAMILTON BEACH KETTLE 10

99.99 RET 20 ERGORAPIDO 4

169.99 RET 10 STANLEY WET/DRY VAC 0

43.99 RET 8 RAINFILTER 7

RET 30 ASSORTED TOYS 11

RET 100 ASSORTED MERCHANDISE 57

Truckload of General Merchandise Store Returns - 20 Pallets

This auction is loaded with 20 pallets with store returned products mainly still in original boxes.

The lot consist of:

Home Appliances

Housewares

Electronics & more!

Everything comes from a major retailer that is high in quality

My dispute at liquidity was based on missing items, grossly misrepresented and the horrific experience we had getting the items. I can't believe I went to liquidation.com this morning to look at that auction again and they have deactivated my account further showing what lousy business people they are. My intelligence has been insulted by them and the seller they represent. My time and money has been stolen. My garage space is being taken up by their junk and I am reminded of this sickening situation every time I go into my garage. I believe this is a very serious crime and I intend to seek relief every way I can. If I end up in court I fully intend to sue for punitive damages~right now I'd settle for a simple 100% refund.

I pray that you can get these people tp come to their senses. They can't keep hurting people and stay in business. Please help me.

Thank~you very kindly,

[redacted]Desired Settlement: To receive 100% of $4,725.00 that was stolen from me.

Business

Response:

July 20, 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 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 380 general merchandise items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On April 8, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing and that she was missing 158 of 380 units expected. She said that the items should be classified as “Salvage” condition rather than “Returns” condition, explaining that there were coffee makers without glass carafes, toys without working remote controls or batteries, air mattresses with holes and non-working pumps, dirty and dented microwaves, and several other problems. **. [redacted] posted several [redacted] videos to demonstrate and support her claims. Additionally, **. [redacted] detailed the ordeal undertaken to receive the goods from the seller. She requests a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her support did not validate her claim. The videos showed merchandise that fit the broad definition of Returns, given on our website, 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 apologize for the unprofessional conduct of the seller. These goods were not kept or sent from a Liquidation.com warehouse so we were not involved in the delivery process. However, the lack of responsiveness on the delivery date is unacceptable and has been noted and discussed with the seller.

During our review, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback dispute with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. When **. [redacted] registered as a User on Liquidation.com, she agreed to follow the dispute process detailed in our User Agreement. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.

Regards,

[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

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: YOU would NOT return MY MONEY! [redacted] found in my favor and returned most of my money, but it cost $938.00 for me to return this junk to you via freight. I was an unsuspecting buyer that Liquidity inc. hurt due to financial loss as well as I will not purchase from the internet because of this extremely hurtful incident caused by your company. To add insult to injury Liquidity has allowed this same seller to continue selling on their site the same exact junk!!! Liquidity also blocked me from their site as retaliation. I went on as a guest (can't bid but can view everything for sale) and that dirty dog is selling under a different name. I think it's actually liquidity sponsoring that seller in Washington state because why else would they let him sell again after costing them money? Why not stick up for me the true honest and hurt participant in this transaction unless you're crooks? You people are liars and thieves. I had several issues buying from your site but I ignored the horror story blogs I read on the internet. You people know what that seller advertised with pictures was not what I got because I had to ship his junk to you. Everything and I mean everything was broken, extremely dirty, non-working, and belonged at the dump. I cannot believe you have a good rating at the Revdex.com! You did nothing to ease my pain! [redacted] found in my favor and that's because you blatantly tried to rip me off. You people are the pits. Anyone who took the time to read the blogs on the internet about liquidation.com could see all the complaints of people getting ripped off and once they start a claim, liquidation.com blocks them from their site! Unbelievable...you tried to block me from getting all the pertinent information about my claim but...Too Bad...I already copied, pasted and sent it to myself and saved it all in my own documents. Otherwise I wouldn't have had the proof to show [redacted]. Think of all the people they have blocked from getting their proof. This seller had pictures of what appeared to be returns in the original boxes! He had prices of NEW items. Of course leading any bidders to believe that most or all were due to buyers' remorse. It states "High end products" OMG!!! Too bad a clean organization like Revdex.com is backing up the devil himself.

Revdex.com, this company has truly caused a large number of people emotional and financial pain. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are lying through their teeth trying to gain ground with the Revdex.com. I could NOT afford to take a $5,000 loss, so I fought for the truth to be seen. Liquidation is mad because they met their match. Now months later they have someone type up a fancy letter to smooth things over. That will never happen with me. You clearly ripped me off big time. You can laugh because I'm out another $938.00 to ship this junk to you BUT...I at least got a little laugh shipping all that nasty broken crap to you so you had to dispose of it.

I'm wondering what took you so long to respond to Revdex.com? Hoping I'd die or disappear? How about proving that you are human and refund the $938.00 it cost me to ship this nasty stuff to you? WHAT???? I SURE DIDN'T THINK SO.

Regards,

Business

Response:

October 14, 2013

**. [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 her response, **. [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint.

**. [redacted] filed a claim regarding the quality of the general merchandise she purchased via Liquidation.com. She provided videos of the merchandise that were consistent with the definition of Returns condition merchandise as advertised in the auction listing. Therefore, our disputes team denied her claim.

In her most recent response, **. [redacted] says that our company would not return her money even though [redacted] found in her favor and returned most of her money. She is upset that she spent $938 to ship the merchandise she received to our warehouse. Also, she believes that she was banned from our website in retaliation for her disputes claim.

Our disputes team made its decision because the complaint that the goods were misrepresented was judged to be inaccurate. If the goods fit within the definition of Returns condition merchandise, we could not find in **. [redacted]’s favor for the dispute. If **. [redacted] did not find the quality of the items acceptable, she should not have taken possession of the items, and she should have canceled the sale on the spot. Buyers must consider that Returns condition merchandise encompasses a very wide range of quality due to the return policies of the seller companies. Buyers frequently assume that items will mostly belong in the higher end of that range and are disappointed when they find that their assumptions were unrealistic. Still, the buyer has the opportunity to inspect the merchandise and cancel the transaction if the quality is unacceptable. By taking possession of the items, **. [redacted] effectively gave her blessing to their quality. Once the items left the seller’s possession, then we cannot determine what may have happened to the items after leaving the premises of the seller. Furthermore, our company did not ask for the property to be shipped to our warehouse so the $938 spent by **. [redacted] was an unnecessary election unless it was a requirement of [redacted].

Finally, **. [redacted]’s account was suspended because she violated her User Agreement when filing the chargeback claim with [redacted]—no more, no less.

We regret that **. [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

Regards,

[redacted] Corporate Paralegal

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:

Are you people Ignorant by default? Look at the pictures representing the goods. For heaven's sake give it up! You are not trustworthy business people. I think it's hilarious that your warehouse received the junk back. It was worth the money if it stops you from hurting anyone else. I would bet money you sent it to the dump immediately with all the rotten food and mold on everything. I am a child of the 50's and I honest to God thought I was on "Smile, you're on candid camera"! when I started looking at the junk I got. I have never in my life been so disrespected by an individual or a business before you. I must say you people take first prize.

I have moved on from my pain and loss of money and time. I no longer buy on-line thanks to you folks. I also no longer have the dream of having a business on-line reselling goods. I honestly couldn't sleep at night if I caused anyone the pain you caused me and countless other unsuspecting buyers. If the Revdex.com wants to give you an A for business then they have also lost their credibility. I don't know how you stay in business with the Attorney general and the fair trade commission looking into you. You know...there is a thing about Karma, what goes around comes around. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when yours comes around.

I've had this email for 15 years and I'm not going away. I've owned this house for 20 years and plan on another 20. If there's anything I can do to be a thorn in your side....Please let me know.

Regards,

Review: Failure to repair or replace defective [redacted] Tablet computer

In Jan of this year I purchaced an [redacted] W tablet computer from the emachines redeem web site. As received the computer would not charge or turn on. I contacted [email protected]. They sent me an e-mail with attached labels to sent the machine to an [redacted] repair center in [redacted] TX. I am not a computer person and had problems getting these labels.

When I got the machine back the screen orientation would not follow the orientation of the machine. Worst yet the screen would flip upside down, Again I called LIQUIDITY and was told nothing could be done till they received a report from the [redacted] repair facility in [redacted] TX and this would take 10 days, assuming the carrier pigeon didn't die or get lost (just kidding.) Finally I got more labels and back went the machine.

This time when I got the machine the flip problem was not fixed and in addition I got a message telling me I was using an invalid product key for [redacted] and [redacted] offered to sell me a key for $129. Again I called LIQUIDITY and got the same run around, but finally more labels appeared and back went the Tablet.

When I got the Tablet this time it was just loose in the box, and the back was not even attached. It still did the flip trick but now was set on Administrative running so a screen would come up but no APPS would run. This time when I called LIQUIDITY I got the same 10 day run around, but instead of labels to the repair [redacted] facility in [redacted] I was sent a label to ship the machine directly to [redacted] TX for replacement.

Hearing nothing after two weeks I called LIQUIDITY and was told they would be sending a replacement this week, but to call back to make sure. When I did this I was told they would have to send the machine to [redacted] first, but the representative said she'd call me back and let me know for sure what was happening. I got no call

Bluntly put these guys and [redacted] are a bunch of incompetant crooks. I filing this report mostly to make sure that no else has to go through this mess. I've also filed a complaint with the TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERALS office and everyone else I can think of.

Thaanks for your time reading this storyDesired Settlement: I'll take the cash settlement offered on the emachines redeem web site. I never want to hear from these smucks or [redacted] again, ever!

Business

Response:

August 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 he had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his [redacted] tablet computer. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.

[redacted] purchased an [redacted] tablet with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On January 2, he started a warranty claim because his computer was not able to charge or power on. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on January 31. [redacted] then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was experiencing other problems including the screen flipping upside down. Another repair attempt was made on March 4. The computer was then sent back to [redacted] from the repair facility on March 17. Unfortunately, the computer appeared to be in even worse condition than before. In addition to having the screen flipping problem, the computer was now stuck in an Administrative mode that would not allow applications to run. Further, the computer had been improperly packed and was allowed to shift loosely in the box upon return, with the back not attached. Next, [redacted] was told that a replacement would be appropriate and was instructed to send his computer to another facility and await the replacement. The replacement was not delivered as promised.

According to the transaction detail, there was not a suitable replacement available at our warehouse so an internal order was placed for a proper unit. However, it does not appear that the order had been filled. After bringing this matter to the attention of our warranty service personnel they sent an apology to [redacted] and planned to send him a replacement tablet via overnight shipping.

We regret that [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We ask that [redacted] confirm that he has received a working computer recently. We apologize for the delay in resolving the matter.

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 Monday of this week received a replacement computer. It exhibits the same screen flipping problem thst my other computers had. When I contacted them they claimed there was a screen lock button on the machine. There is not! Two months ago I just wrote this whole situation off and bought a [redacted] tablet. I thank you for your efforts, but I suspect this maybe a generic problem with all these computers and cannot be fixed so I am just writting off the whole affair. Again thank you for your work on my behalf.

Regards,

Review: Failed to return sales tax on 5 different purchases.Desired Settlement: Refund of sales tax on five separate transaction. There Reseller Certificate is completed.

Business

Response:

January 7, 2015Mr. [redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC 20005-3404RE: Ms. [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear Mr. [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. Ms. [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]. Ms. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.Ms. [redacted] was the winning bidder of five auction lots purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that sales taxes had been charged to her and that she contacted our customer service department to receive a refund as she is an exempt reseller. Ms. [redacted] had previously provided her resale certificate to Liquidation.com. Therefore, she believes that she is owed $60.26 among the five transactions for sales taxes.However, the resale certificate that Ms. [redacted] provided was rejected because the address on her submission did not match the address on her Liquidation.com account. She had also not included her Liquidation.com username on the form with the certificate. Therefore, we were unable to verify that the address of the resale certificate belonged to Ms. [redacted].When our customer service personnel attempted to discuss the matter with her and provide instructions for fixing the problem, Ms. [redacted] became loud, argumentative and extremely uncooperative before disconnecting multiple calls herself. She groundlessly accused our company of attempting to “steal her money.” She then filed chargebacks on all five transactions. 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. Without her cooperation, we could not achieve a peaceable resolution to the problem.We regret that Ms. [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 C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I bid on an auction that ended on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 2013, for a lot of "used" clothing...I paid for this auction within a couple of hours of it ending...To start, the shipping process was not explained very well at all...I didn't receive the ite** for 2 weeks...They were not even shipped until the Friday after I ordered them...When I called in to ask the shipping process I was told 1 thing, and when I called back again was told something completely different...The customer service is nothing to be desired when calling in, everyone was extremely short and rude and obviously did not know what they were talking about...When I finally received the shipment I was less than impressed...What were considered "used" ite** I would use as rags...There were huge tears in the clothing, staples, huge stains, no tags to be able to tell what size they were, and visible differences between the front and back of the shirt, meaning the front of the shirt was 3" above the back of the shirt...Their procedure is to file a complaint within 2 business days of getting the shipment, so I did...I explained it in detail what was wrong with the shipment and was told I would receive a response within 10 business days...I heard nothing...They dismissed my dispute and didn't even notify me of doing so or the reason for it...I then called back in to get someone else that told me to reopen the dispute, I told him I was not interested in doing so if I could not be contacted the 1st time and instead decided to file a dispute thru Revdex.com for the next step...I ask him how he felt the ite** should have been described and he agreed with me that it should have definitely been described as a salvage lot and not a used lot...These clothes are for resale for my business and there is no way I would EVER resell these clothes to my customers...To keep these clothes would be a loss for me and I am now over a month of waiting for a response from a business who could obviously care less.Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidation.com to actually look into my complaint as well as their policies. I offered to send in more pictures to show the shipment that I received and all of the issues with it. At this point over a month later, I am now losing money on this and would like for this to be rectified somehow. If I do not get a response from this then I will go through the Attorney Generals Office and file complaints through them. I don't participate in selling or buying ite** not as described.

Business

Response:

January 27, 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 500 children’s clothing items in Used and Shelf Pulls conditions purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 14, 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 the items had several major defects, including large stains, missing tags, unraveling seams, staple insertions, cut fabric and holes. **. [redacted] expressed that she was very disappointed with the quality of the lot and was not willing to resell the items. 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 supporting photos 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.

Additionally, the auction advertising specifically addressed the condition of the items as follows:

You are buying a lot containing used and shelf pull items.

Items may not be in equal proportions.

Not all Shelf Pulls have tags on them.

Used Clothing may contain stains from normal wear.

Our transaction detail indicates that an e-mail was sent to **. [redacted] informing her of the dispute denial on December 20. Her refusal to pursue a secondary review via a reopen request prevented further consideration. These items were not shipped from our warehouse, but directly from the seller so we did not have the opportunity to inspect them prior to shipment to **. [redacted].

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:

1st off, I did not receive ANY emails from this business!! I called multiple times to find out what was going on...I still have all of my emails, spam, and trash from that time and I have nothing from them...Every time I called in to see what was going on, no one could tell me anything and they were extremely rude to me...As for the condition of the merchandise, they consider it used, that is extremely laughable...I am going to attach their terms of conditions:Used - 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.Salvage - Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance, or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.These clothes could definetely fall into the used category, however, they more fall into the category of defective concerning their functionality & appearance...These things are torn, ripped, beyond stained, no tags, staples in them, etc...I WILL NOT sell them under my business name and represent trash which is what was sent to me...I feel bad even donating them...Unlike Liquidation.com and whatever buyer that I got these from, I care to represent my business and what they sent me truley shows that companies like this only care about what lands in their pockets. Just because you don't do your job doesn't give you the right to pass your inability to stand by good business on to your buyer...I hope that this is made available to read to any buyer that does their research on such companies and that they are aware that they are about to waste money on someone who can't stand behind their black and white print...I am now taking a loss on my business of $420, I guess I have some expensive rags to use for the next couple of years!!!

Regards,

Review: THESE EVENT OCCURED IN OCT .2009.HOWEVER I AM STILL FEELING THE EMOTIONAL AND FINANCIAL EFFECTS.I BOUGHT ONLINE FROM THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT LIQUIDATION,ON OCT 8 I PROCEEDED FROM MY [redacted] AL RESIDENCE TO THE PICKUP SITE AT [redacted] LA.UPON ARRIVING AT [redacted] THIS COMPANY AGENT ,[redacted] AND MYSELF AGREED THAT I FIND A LOCAL BUYER TO RESELL ITEM THE TO THUS ELIMINATING REMOVAL PROCESS. [redacted] REFERRED ME TO HER BUYER [redacted]. THE REMAINDER OF THE 8TH SOUGHT BUYERS WITHOUT SUCCESS. ON FRIDAY 9TH AFTER FINALIZING PLANS RENTING TRAILER STORAGE PLACES ETC. I WENT TO SITE FOR REMOVAL WHEN [redacted] INFORMED ME MY ACCOUNT HAD BEEN CLOSED DUE TO MY NOT ANSWERING MY ALABAMA HOME PHONE ALTHOUGH I WAS A DAYS RIDE AWAY AT [redacted]. ON THAT FRIDAY [redacted] CALLED ME WITH A BID BY CELL PHONE WHIH I REJECTED. AGEENT [redacted] WENT ON TO TELL ME THAT THEY WERE CLOSING EARLY FOR A LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND. AT THE TIME I WAS A DOD EMPLOYEE .SINCE RETIRED. I LOADED SIMILIAR ITEMS ON A DAILY BASIS ..THIS WAS AROUND 1PM AND THE LOADING COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETD IN AN HOUR

Consumer

Response:

Thank you for your time and consideration.this company presently ignores me

I have engaged other means of pursuits

Business

Response:

December 13, 2013

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] (Tue Sep 15 16:53:56 2009) 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 September 16, 2009, Government Liquidation issued an invoice to **. [redacted] for his winning bid on sale [redacted], lot [redacted]. The schedule for removal of property was September 23, 2009, through September 30, 2009. In accordance with section 9:A of the Terms and Conditions, a schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale, and if the property is not removed within the specified removal period, it will be deemed abandoned. Section 9:A of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.

9:A 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.

The property associated with sale [redacted], lot [redacted] was not picked-up within the schedule for removal. Therefore, in accordance with Section 9:A of the Terms and Conditions, the property was deemed abandoned, and all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property, $3,207.60, was relinquished.

Despite the aforementioned, Government Liquidation is willing to issue **. [redacted] a courtesy default (i.e., 25% assessed fee), as a goodwill gesture. In this instance, a full refund will be issued via credit card, $3,207.60, and his Government Liquidation account will remain suspended until the default fee, $675.00, is collected via certified funds (i.e., cashier’s check, money order or wire transfer). Payment instructions are an addendum to this letter.

We encourage **. [redacted] to contact our Customer Service Department (###-###-#### – Ask for [redacted]) prior to future auction participation, should have any questions regarding removal.

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: I posted an auction on the website liquidation.com. This was my first auction with this company.

Title: "50 Designer Handbags, Purses, Totes"

Auction ID [redacted]

The description was not my original description but was changed by the company to read as follows:

"Included in this wholesale lot are 50 new arrival gorgeous fashion designer handbags/purses/totes.

All are brand new with tags and wrapped individually.

There are various style and color combinations included in this auction.

They are made from quality hardware, faux leather materials.

Most have exterior pockets/zippers as well as interior pockets/zippers."

The pictures posted included a pictures of each style represented in the lot.

Never at any time was my intent to be deceitful as to the items the buyer would receive.

After the buyer received the auction [redacted] filed a 'dispute' with liquidation.com claiming that they thought they were receiving 50 handbags and there were only 16 handbags and the rest were assorted other items including coin purses. (There were no coin purses in this auction)

I received this email from the company:

"Dear [redacted],

Liquidation.com has received a dispute claim from the buyer for transaction [redacted] (auction [redacted]). Until this dispute is resolved, a temporary hold has been placed on the funds from this transaction.

No further action is required at this time on your part. We will review the dispute to determine it's validity and notify you of the details if we do not deny the dispute upon first review. You will be provided two business days to provide a counter response or offer a resolution.

Thank you,

Liquidation.com Customer Support"

I then sent a copy to my contact person from liquidation and here was here email to me:

"These two links are for pictures that are in this auction:

https://www.liquidation.com/shared/auction/images/photos/[redacted].jpg

https://www.liquidation.com/shared/auction/images/photos/[redacted].jpg

Both of these pictures match the buyer’s support, therefore the buyer received the items that were pictured. The auction very clearly says “There are various style and color combinations included in this auction.” The auction did not say all items would be large handbags, and the auction did not list a style breakdown. The buyer should not have assumed that they would get 50 large designer looking handbags, that is the buyer’s fault, not the sellers. Please deny this dispute and code it as buyers remorse. "

A few days later I received an email saying I had lost the dispute.

I then received a letter in the mail stating the items were being returned and I would have to pay a fee to the company plus the shipping charges to and from the buyer.

My complaints are as follows:

1. If the description was not adequate then that should have been caught when the company CHANGED the wording of the description from what I originally sent them.

2. The buyer received all of the items pictured. There were no sneaky items sent that were not in the pictures

3. Never once was I asked to dispute or state my position in this situation.

4. Listed in the title of the auction are the words: Handbags, Purses and Totes. The buyer should not have assumed there were only Handbags according to the title of the auction and the pictures posted. The description also states that, but the description was the words of liquidation.com and not me.

My last email to liquidation was:

"A dispute is usually a 2 sided thing and is debated. I was never given the chance to 'dispute'. The title of this auction was Handbags/Totes and Purses. There were NO coin purses. The various styles were all pictured. I was in no way trying to deceive anyone. This was my first auction and maybe it should not have been listed without further direction and advice from your company as to the pictures, descriptions, etc...

This is REALLY not setting well with me. I know that me not doing business with your company doesn't matter, but I am going to report this to Revdex.com and I will not be doing business with your company again. Sorry [redacted]! Nothing personal. Just a shady practice when something like a 'dispute' takes place and one side is not allowed to rebuttal."

Here is the return email I received: " Totally understand how you feel, trust me you’re preaching to the choir on this one. I only manage sellers. That means I don’t agree with 99% of the things buyers say. You’ve seen my tips and instructions on your auction listings firsthand – I want to do everything possible to avoid these disputes. Unfortunately buyers don’t have account managers the way sellers do, so they’re not nearly as educated.

My advice to you is to just take it with a grain of salt. Don’t spend any time focusing on it. The Disputes Department Continue looks at all of the information and tries to make the best decision possible – they’re not in DC with me, I’ve never met any of them face to face (and I’m not exactly nice to them because of decisions just like this one so they don’t like me). For the most part they do a very fair job on their resolutions.

Trust me, your doing business with us does matter. Our entire company was built on private seller accounts and the department I am a part of. Let me know if there’s anything I can do on my end to help convince you to stay selling.Desired Settlement: I would like liquidation to take responsibility for this mistake they have made.

I do not want to be responsible for the shipping charges either way or the 'fee'.

The pictures were correct as stated by myself and a representative of this company.

The description may have not been complete to their satisfaction but it was edited and changed by liquidation.com.

I do not know the amount of the shipping charges or the fee. This was not disclosed to me.

Business

Response:

July 28, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns she had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly resolved a buyer dispute.

**. [redacted] sold a lot of 50 designer handbags, purses and totes on Liquidation.com on May 24. The buyer then filed a dispute on the auction stating that the merchandise had been grossly misrepresented by the seller. The buyer said that the shipment received consisted of 16 handbags, 20 “coin purses” and was filled out by totes. The buyer believed that all items would be full-sized. **. [redacted] believes that the buyer should not have won the dispute. She also does not want to pay the transaction cancelation fee or the return shipping costs.

In reviewing the claim, our disputes team determined that the auction listing was not sufficiently descriptive to acknowledge the large quantity of smaller items (40% of the lot). Liquidation.com serves as a neutral arbiter of disputes between buyers and sellers in its marketplace. **. [redacted] says that some of the auction language was changed, but if her original language did not indicate the large number of smaller items then the description changes are not relevant to the dispute registered by the buyer.

We feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace and consider the decision to be accurate given the evidence.

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:

In the original description it has "There are various style and color combinations included in this auction." Also ALL items were pictured including every handbag with individual pictures, every tote with individual pictures of what was included in this auction. There were NO "coin purses", regardless of what the buyer and Liquidation.com say.

In the original email regarding the dispute I was told that when the decision was made I would have 48 hours to dispute this complaint. That never occurred. The next email said the decision was made and final.

If I had been given the chance to dispute they would have realized:

1. ALL items were pictured.

2. There were NO "coin purses".

3. There were smaller, high quality purses but they measure in size 8" x 6" with a shoulder strap and are no where near a "coin purse".

4. There was nothing even closely that resembled a "coin purse".

This was buyers remorse. After purchasing they realized they had not read the description nor looked at ALL the pictures and made up this story of "coin purses" to win this dispute. Since the dispute was closed before I could explain my side of the story and Liquidation.com assumed that if the buyer said there were "coin purses" then there must have been "coin purses", Revdex.com was my only way of getting my side of the dispute heard.

Regards,

Business

Response:

October 15, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. [redacted]. In her response, **. [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint.

**. [redacted] filed a claim regarding the decision to cancel one of her auctions as a seller on Liquidation.com. She said that the wording of her auction listing was changed and that the buyer was inaccurate when characterizing some of her product as coin purses. Our disputes team decided in favor of the buyer and offered a full refund upon return of the merchandise.

In her most recent response, **. [redacted] says that our company would not allow her to present her side of the dispute. She also maintains that there were no coin purses. However, **. [redacted] was contacted for her response to the dispute and provided her side of the dispute via e-mail on June 5. The final decision of our disputes team was made on June 8. Our personnel could not have provided a more accurate description because we had no access to the items for sale, as they were sold directly from **. [redacted]’s location. In the view of our disputes team, the description was not sufficient for the 40 percent load of smaller items, including coin purses. Apart from maintaining a successful marketplace, there is no advantage to our company to cancel transactions so there is a well-defined standard for taking such action. Unfortunately for **. [redacted], this transaction was judged to meet that standard.

We regret that **. [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

Regards,