[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I did not file a dispute with [redacted] until after they deactivated my account and left me no alternative Regards, [redacted] ***
Buyer purchased a lot in the Salvage condition, where on the auction listing it clearly notes “Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.” In the photos provided, one clearly shows the TVs on their side providing further indication these units were in the salvage conditionThe following reasons were provided to the buyer as to why their dispute was denied:The support does not validate claimThe support provided does not show any damage to the pallet or packages received(outside of what is considered with this condition type)The auction was properly listed as salvageSalvage units have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality or appearance, and most can only be used for partsIn addition, not all parts and accessories are guaranteed to be includedThe auction description states; "Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition."
May 21, 2015Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of thirty (30) items, including designer & brand bags, purchased via Liquidation.comOn May 4th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing [redacted] said that she had received “one (1) [redacted] bag and the other were all low end brands, there were NO other high end brands”She requested a partial refundOur disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she felt that most of the lot contained “low end brands”The auction description clearly lists “collection of classic and durable designer & brand handbags, the selection will not be in equal proportions”Furthermore, [redacted] received bags in total and Liquidity Services cannot validate her claim based on her opinion of low end brandsAlso, the dispute was denied as there was no support provided within the allotted time to support her claimWe 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 marketplaceRegards, Amanda O Compliance Associate
January 7, 2015Mr [redacted] Revdex.comK 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, Incwas 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 $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 CH***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: it was written boldly that is unlocked, how can you said a phone that may work or not is unlockedHow do they know that is unlocked , I purchased this [redacted] 6, salvage because saw the it written boldly that is unlocked, I fix phone , none of this phone is unlocked , I am standing on what I saw in the advert So provideo me what you post in that advertI will be for for exchange or refund Regards, [redacted]
December 15, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-RE: [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted] In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint [redacted] claimed that the [redacted] home theater systems he purchased via Liquidation.com were missing significant items that prevented several from being operableOur disputes team decided that claim should be denied because it was well past the inspection window for shipment disputesIn his most recent response, [redacted] states that he began the dispute after talking to our customer service personnel who were in full knowledge that his dispute filing would be beyond the inspection windowHe worked with our disputes team and even reopened the dispute for further review before being told that it had been filed too lateHe also took exception to the other reason given for final dismissal, which was that the shipment had been confirmed as complete after consultation with our warehouse [redacted] speculated that the warehouse personnel could have performed the theft and covered it up [redacted] ’s dispute would normally have been denied on entry for being too late; however, our customer service team suggested that this dispute be given special consideration due to the amount of the lossThe disputes team investigated by reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping informationThis check showed that the shipment was complete and readyIt was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A ratingIt had also been reviewed prior to sendingFinally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issuesTherefore, the records were found to be accurate and reliableAlso, a disputes manager reviewed the matter and found it odd that such a large loss was reported so lateThus the dispute was denied, which is within the discretion of our disputes teamRegarding the theft speculation, a coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by [redacted] A review showed that no unusual patterns existed with our handling and any merchandise claims with this specific warehouseWith no evidence of theft by our warehouse personnel, that has been ruled out as an explanationWe regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence providedRegards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
We received a dispute from [redacted] on 8/22/which was denied on 8/31/based on the items condition The items were listed as salvage As shown in the attached section of the auction listing, a notice about the auction listing states: IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working conditionAlso, we did not receive any supporting documentation (photos) regarding the condition of the units [redacted] makes reference
June 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor [redacted] , DC 20005- 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, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] ** [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied ** [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 4,cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn January 29, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listingShe said that she received 3,items of the exact same cosmetic pencil out of the 4,000-item shipmentThis was unacceptable to herAdditionally, she said that many of the items were expired, sample sizes or testers not intended for resale** [redacted] requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ** [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing specifically stated that the shipment would contain “2, [redacted] New! Lip pencils and eye pencils.” This accounts for the 3,cosmetic pencils that the buyer describes in her dispute Further, ** [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transactionChargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for itFor this reason, ** [redacted] ’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated We regret that ** [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
July 28, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for ten [redacted] 4/4G, [redacted] and [redacted] 3G cellphones in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn May 2, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed in the auctionHe said that some of the phones that he had received showed cosmetic damage, that one of the screens was not functional and that the chargers were not the original chargers for the phonesHe requested a full refund for the transaction Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Used merchandise, given on the auction listing as follows: Used assets were previously sold and put into useThey possess noticeable cosmetic defects and blemishes, including but not limited to dents, scratches, and signs of ageSince these assets are usually pulled from a working environment, they rarely come in original packaging and rarely contain any documentation, additional parts, and/or accessoriesThey are minimally tested to meet only the most basic requirements of functionalityUsed assets therefore may not be in optimal working condition and may require additional maintenance and repair We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 24, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer using [redacted] , with the warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her warranty request was denied On December 27, 2013, [redacted] purchased a [redacted] through [redacted] The laptop began to experience display issues so [redacted] contacted our company on March to initiate a claim under the 90-day warrantyShe provided photos of the unit in support of her claim Upon review of the photos, our team discovered that the screen was crackedUnfortunately, the warranty does not cover problems related to physical damage to the laptopIf the damage was present upon arrival, then a shipping claim should have been filed through [redacted] If the damage occurred later, then it would fall outside the responsibility of the warranty We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere 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,name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 listingHe said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit itemsHe requested a full refund Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lotThe seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auctionTherefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the sellerSince 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 decisionAn 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 teamThen [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthenticAfter discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lotAfter confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $was processed to [redacted] ***’s account on November 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
March 23, 2015Mr [redacted] Revdex.comK Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC 20005-3404RE: Mr [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear Mr [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] with the Revdex.com Mr [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Incwas in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] Mr [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.Mr [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of home improvement tools in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com After placing his bid, he conducted some further research on the individual auction items and determined that the retail prices advertised by the seller did not match his findings Mr [redacted] then attempted to contact Liquidation.com to cancel his bid prior to the close of the auction; however, the bid remained in force with no response from customer serviceAs described in the User Agreement that Mr [redacted] agreed to follow when he registered for our website, a bid is a binding offer This was further underlined in the auction advertising which states, “Attention: By bidding, you are entering into a legally binding contract to purchase this lot if you are the winning bidder.” Finally, Mr [redacted] had the opportunity to research the auction items prior to placing his bid He could have modified or withheld his bid if he was uncomfortable with the auction Therefore, customer service had no obligation to remove his legitimate bid from consideration.We regret that Mr [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 CH***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Liquidation.com has not resolved this matter in a way that is acceptable to me as a consumerTheir business practices, as proved by the numerous complaints on the internet, are shadyOther online auction marketplaces would never allow such misleading claims of MSRP by fraudulent sellers I reject Liquidation.com, their response, and business practicesI also will not be intimidated into dropping my dispute with [redacted] Regards, [redacted]
March 4, 2016Dear [redacted] Thank you for the opportunity to respond to [redacted] ’s claim [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID [redacted] which he was bidding onThis auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted] ’s bid of $1,was the last bid on 2-26-when we ended the auction ahead of its scheduled closing time.Except as otherwise stated in our Terms and Conditions, we reserve the right to close early or extend internet auctions at our discretionWe also reserve the right to withdraw any Assets offered for sale up to the time the Assets are removed.In this case, there were extenuating circumstances which required us to withdraw the assets from saleWe 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 marketplacePlease note, we re-listed the same inventory on 3-3-2016, auction ID [redacted] , thus making it available for sale againThis auction is a standard auction and the winning buyer is the highest bidder at the scheduled closing timeAs of the time we are writing this letter, we are pleased to see that [redacted] is bidding on the newly listed auction.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted] ’s claim
January 24, 2016Dear [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that Liquidity Services highly exaggerates the auction descriptions [redacted] states that he has encountered several advertising issues and he is unable to communicate with the seller directly.Per a thorough review of [redacted] ’s transaction disputes, our management team has commented that there are no outstanding refund amounts owed to [redacted] at this timeAlso, the management team has confirmed that each dispute was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Most of [redacted] ’s transaction disputes were closed with a full or partial refund back to [redacted] The other disputes consisted of shipping claims where the item was delivered to [redacted] or covered by the warranty service.As Liquidity Services sells items on behalf of third parties, Liquidity Services customer relations team handles all customer inquiries and disputesWhen a dispute is filed with the customer relations dispute team, the seller is provided with the buyer’s dispute precisely as it is submitted to Liquidity Services, the seller is then asked to provide their response/feedback immediatelyThe Liquidity Services customer relations dispute team responds to the buyer with the seller’s response as to act as an intermediary between the seller and the buyer.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 marketplaceWe would be glad to look in to a specific transaction at [redacted] ’s request if he so desiresWe appreciate the opportunity to address any further concerns and your our cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciatedRegards,Amanda O***Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services
October 7, 2016Dear [redacted] Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID which consisted of units of Housewares - [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] *** The lot was ‘returns’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted] ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 9-23- The total transaction cost after applicable, taxes, shipping charges, and or buyer’s premium was $ The product was delivered to [redacted] on 9-27-2016, and [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] on 9-26-for the amount of $[redacted] ***’s claim is his [redacted] account was charged twice for $216, and that repeated calls to the Customer Service department didn’t yield a satisfactory responseOur Finance department had difficulty locating the double charge because the payment amounts did not match One was for $and the other was for $216.Please note, [redacted] ***’s user account was de-activated because of the chargebackReference Section from the Terms and Conditions: Charge-BacksIf you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretionIf you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damagesOur Finance department confirmed they refunded [redacted] in the amount of $as of today (ref [redacted] transaction ID [redacted] ) [redacted] ***’s user account with Liquidity Services will also be re-activated once we see that the chargeback [redacted] filed with [redacted] has been closed [redacted] can contact us at [email protected] once the case is closed, and request reactivation Sending a screenshot of the closed case would help speed up that process.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted] ***’s claimRegards,Darren M
April 27, 2016Dear Mr [redacted] Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] with the Revdex.com Mr [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of units of Designer Neckties - [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] ***, ***, [redacted] ***, [redacted] The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr [redacted] ’s bid of $was the winning bid on 3-31- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $ The product was delivered to Mr [redacted] on 4-8-2016, and Mr [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 4-8-under the incorrect transaction ID, and then again on 4-16-under the correct transaction ID.Mr [redacted] ’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint differs slightly from the disputes filed with our company regarding the merchandise in transaction ID [redacted] :The claim through the Revdex.com is that the ties is the clothing (ties) were listed as shelf pulls but they were all in salvage condition.The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-8-(under the incorrect transaction ID) stated: “These ties were listed as "returns" Out of ties only had tags, and I believe the other ties are usedA lot of the ties have rips and some are grossly dirty No store would accept a return that is grossly dirtyAlso, some of the name brands listed in the auction are not includedI want a full refund.”The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-16-(under the correct transaction ID) stated: “I initially filed this dispute on April 8, but it appears the wrong transaction ID was noted in the disputeI want to return all these ties and I want a full refund immediatelyProvide me with return postage and I will send the ties back immediatelyThese ties are all used, and some are grossly dirty and damaged If I do not receive a refund I will be contacting consumer affairs and disputing the charge with my credit card due to the fraudulent auction.”The photographic support submitted by Mr [redacted] to Liquidity Services for the claim on 4-8-shows image files of what appears to be the same necktie in each picture image shows a small tear at near the loop on the backside of the tie Please note Mr [redacted] references the ties as being listed in three different conditions: shelf pulls, returns, and used To clarify, the auction was listed using shelf pulls as the condition, and we generalize that Mr [redacted] did not agree with the condition of the merchandise Additionally, the auction indicated the following statement “Lot May Include an Assorted Mix of the Following Ties” followed by a non-inclusive list of brand name ties that could appear in the lot This statement was used to highlight that the seller did not guarantee that all name brands would be included in the lot Effectively, our disputes department denied Mr [redacted] ’s claims for lack of supporting evidence (the photographs do not substantiate a condition outside of shelf pulls) and on the basis that the auction properly advertised merchandise in the shelf pulls condition; Shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never soldThey usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contactIn addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.gfrom a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handlingAccordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Essentially, the ties were likely exposed to appreciable customer handling (people trying them on), and then further handling in the reverse supply chain.Regarding Mr [redacted] ’s claim about receiving broken electronic items, which were listed as new condition (Transaction ID [redacted] ) The merchandise was delivered on Jan 14, 2016, and Mr [redacted] filed a claim on the merchandise on Apr 3, The dispute was denied due to the excessive amount of time that had passed from delivery to filing a claim Section from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to inspect assets on delivery An excerpt from Section of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Claims for Incorrect or Inaccurate Description Where Inspection Not Permitted; Returns ProcessIn limited circumstances, our sellers only permit inspection on buyer's receipt of the Assets after their shipmentFor example, this may occur in a drop-ship arrangement where there is no inspection permitted by the seller and the seller or Liquidity Services coordinate shipping of the Assets directly to the buyerIn such circumstances, buyer must make a claim for any incorrect or inaccurate Listing description of the Assets within three (3) Business Days after delivery of the Assets to buyerThereafter, a buyer's right to make a claim expiresBuyer's right expires regardless of whether buyer actually conducts an inspection of the Assets.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyersWe regret that Mr [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we stand behind the decision to deny these disputes based on the evidence provided and feel the matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We are well outside the window for investigating post-transactional claims, but as a courtesy if Mr [redacted] has additional evidence that he feels would substantiate a claim on the neckties, we will review it Mr [redacted] can submit that information to us using our “Submit a Dispute” process.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address Mr [redacted] ’s claimRegards,Darren M [redacted] SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services
August 27, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] ***, ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] *** [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Incwas in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two (2) refurbished [redacted] computers purchased via Liquidation.comHe said that he discovered that one of the computers had a broken power switch that did not allow it to be turned on or offThe computer came with a 90-day warranty so he called the service number and arranged to send his unit for repairWhen his computer was returned to him, the power switch was still broken and it appeared to [redacted] that nothing had been fixed with the computer at allHe had a frustrating time finding resolution through the customer service personnel and ultimately had his account deactivated According to the transaction detail, [redacted] ***’s Liquidation.com user account was deactivated due to him making threatening remarks to a customer service employeeAdditionally, [redacted] filed a chargeback for the transaction on May 6th, prior to filing his complaint with the Revdex.comChargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our websiteThis action would have triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account had it not already been suspendedChargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for itOnce an account holder violates the chargeback provision, we can no longer pursue a remedy because that individual has ignored our disputes process We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere 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,name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 listingHe said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit itemsHe requested a full refund Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lotThe seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auctionTherefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the sellerSince 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 decisionAn 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 teamThen [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthenticAfter discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lotAfter confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $was processed to [redacted] ***’s account on November 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
July 16, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of Otter boxes for various models of [redacted] and [redacted] Sin Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn June 6, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listingHe said that the cases he received were broken and many of them had cosmetic issues such as scratches or ink marks [redacted] also stated that he would be unable to sell the items he received because of the damageHe requested a full refund on the transaction Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows: Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified locationReasons 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 orderThe majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problemDepending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of useIn 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 handlingThey generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessoriesAccordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary [redacted] H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I did not file a dispute with [redacted] until after they deactivated my account and left me no alternative Regards, [redacted] ***
Buyer purchased a lot in the Salvage condition, where on the auction listing it clearly notes “Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.” In the photos provided, one clearly shows the TVs on their side providing further indication these units were in the salvage conditionThe following reasons were provided to the buyer as to why their dispute was denied:The support does not validate claimThe support provided does not show any damage to the pallet or packages received(outside of what is considered with this condition type)The auction was properly listed as salvageSalvage units have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality or appearance, and most can only be used for partsIn addition, not all parts and accessories are guaranteed to be includedThe auction description states; "Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition."
May 21, 2015Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of thirty (30) items, including designer & brand bags, purchased via Liquidation.comOn May 4th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing [redacted] said that she had received “one (1) [redacted] bag and the other were all low end brands, there were NO other high end brands”She requested a partial refundOur disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she felt that most of the lot contained “low end brands”The auction description clearly lists “collection of classic and durable designer & brand handbags, the selection will not be in equal proportions”Furthermore, [redacted] received bags in total and Liquidity Services cannot validate her claim based on her opinion of low end brandsAlso, the dispute was denied as there was no support provided within the allotted time to support her claimWe 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 marketplaceRegards, Amanda O Compliance Associate
January 7, 2015Mr [redacted] Revdex.comK 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, Incwas 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 $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 CH***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: it was written boldly that is unlocked, how can you said a phone that may work or not is unlockedHow do they know that is unlocked , I purchased this [redacted] 6, salvage because saw the it written boldly that is unlocked, I fix phone , none of this phone is unlocked , I am standing on what I saw in the advert So provideo me what you post in that advertI will be for for exchange or refund Regards, [redacted]
December 15, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-RE: [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted] In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint [redacted] claimed that the [redacted] home theater systems he purchased via Liquidation.com were missing significant items that prevented several from being operableOur disputes team decided that claim should be denied because it was well past the inspection window for shipment disputesIn his most recent response, [redacted] states that he began the dispute after talking to our customer service personnel who were in full knowledge that his dispute filing would be beyond the inspection windowHe worked with our disputes team and even reopened the dispute for further review before being told that it had been filed too lateHe also took exception to the other reason given for final dismissal, which was that the shipment had been confirmed as complete after consultation with our warehouse [redacted] speculated that the warehouse personnel could have performed the theft and covered it up [redacted] ’s dispute would normally have been denied on entry for being too late; however, our customer service team suggested that this dispute be given special consideration due to the amount of the lossThe disputes team investigated by reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping informationThis check showed that the shipment was complete and readyIt was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A ratingIt had also been reviewed prior to sendingFinally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issuesTherefore, the records were found to be accurate and reliableAlso, a disputes manager reviewed the matter and found it odd that such a large loss was reported so lateThus the dispute was denied, which is within the discretion of our disputes teamRegarding the theft speculation, a coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by [redacted] A review showed that no unusual patterns existed with our handling and any merchandise claims with this specific warehouseWith no evidence of theft by our warehouse personnel, that has been ruled out as an explanationWe regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence providedRegards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
We received a dispute from [redacted] on 8/22/which was denied on 8/31/based on the items condition The items were listed as salvage As shown in the attached section of the auction listing, a notice about the auction listing states: IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working conditionAlso, we did not receive any supporting documentation (photos) regarding the condition of the units [redacted] makes reference
June 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor [redacted] , DC 20005- 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, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] ** [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied ** [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 4,cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn January 29, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listingShe said that she received 3,items of the exact same cosmetic pencil out of the 4,000-item shipmentThis was unacceptable to herAdditionally, she said that many of the items were expired, sample sizes or testers not intended for resale** [redacted] requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ** [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing specifically stated that the shipment would contain “2, [redacted] New! Lip pencils and eye pencils.” This accounts for the 3,cosmetic pencils that the buyer describes in her dispute Further, ** [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transactionChargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for itFor this reason, ** [redacted] ’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated We regret that ** [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
July 28, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for ten [redacted] 4/4G, [redacted] and [redacted] 3G cellphones in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn May 2, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed in the auctionHe said that some of the phones that he had received showed cosmetic damage, that one of the screens was not functional and that the chargers were not the original chargers for the phonesHe requested a full refund for the transaction Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Used merchandise, given on the auction listing as follows: Used assets were previously sold and put into useThey possess noticeable cosmetic defects and blemishes, including but not limited to dents, scratches, and signs of ageSince these assets are usually pulled from a working environment, they rarely come in original packaging and rarely contain any documentation, additional parts, and/or accessoriesThey are minimally tested to meet only the most basic requirements of functionalityUsed assets therefore may not be in optimal working condition and may require additional maintenance and repair We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 24, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer using [redacted] , with the warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her warranty request was denied On December 27, 2013, [redacted] purchased a [redacted] through [redacted] The laptop began to experience display issues so [redacted] contacted our company on March to initiate a claim under the 90-day warrantyShe provided photos of the unit in support of her claim Upon review of the photos, our team discovered that the screen was crackedUnfortunately, the warranty does not cover problems related to physical damage to the laptopIf the damage was present upon arrival, then a shipping claim should have been filed through [redacted] If the damage occurred later, then it would fall outside the responsibility of the warranty We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere 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,name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 listingHe said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit itemsHe requested a full refund Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lotThe seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auctionTherefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the sellerSince 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 decisionAn 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 teamThen [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthenticAfter discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lotAfter confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $was processed to [redacted] ***’s account on November 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
March 23, 2015Mr [redacted] Revdex.comK Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC 20005-3404RE: Mr [redacted] , ID# [redacted] Dear Mr [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] with the Revdex.com Mr [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Incwas in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] Mr [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.Mr [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of home improvement tools in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com After placing his bid, he conducted some further research on the individual auction items and determined that the retail prices advertised by the seller did not match his findings Mr [redacted] then attempted to contact Liquidation.com to cancel his bid prior to the close of the auction; however, the bid remained in force with no response from customer serviceAs described in the User Agreement that Mr [redacted] agreed to follow when he registered for our website, a bid is a binding offer This was further underlined in the auction advertising which states, “Attention: By bidding, you are entering into a legally binding contract to purchase this lot if you are the winning bidder.” Finally, Mr [redacted] had the opportunity to research the auction items prior to placing his bid He could have modified or withheld his bid if he was uncomfortable with the auction Therefore, customer service had no obligation to remove his legitimate bid from consideration.We regret that Mr [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 CH***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Liquidation.com has not resolved this matter in a way that is acceptable to me as a consumerTheir business practices, as proved by the numerous complaints on the internet, are shadyOther online auction marketplaces would never allow such misleading claims of MSRP by fraudulent sellers I reject Liquidation.com, their response, and business practicesI also will not be intimidated into dropping my dispute with [redacted] Regards, [redacted]
March 4, 2016Dear [redacted] Thank you for the opportunity to respond to [redacted] ’s claim [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID [redacted] which he was bidding onThis auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted] ’s bid of $1,was the last bid on 2-26-when we ended the auction ahead of its scheduled closing time.Except as otherwise stated in our Terms and Conditions, we reserve the right to close early or extend internet auctions at our discretionWe also reserve the right to withdraw any Assets offered for sale up to the time the Assets are removed.In this case, there were extenuating circumstances which required us to withdraw the assets from saleWe 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 marketplacePlease note, we re-listed the same inventory on 3-3-2016, auction ID [redacted] , thus making it available for sale againThis auction is a standard auction and the winning buyer is the highest bidder at the scheduled closing timeAs of the time we are writing this letter, we are pleased to see that [redacted] is bidding on the newly listed auction.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted] ’s claim
January 24, 2016Dear [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that Liquidity Services highly exaggerates the auction descriptions [redacted] states that he has encountered several advertising issues and he is unable to communicate with the seller directly.Per a thorough review of [redacted] ’s transaction disputes, our management team has commented that there are no outstanding refund amounts owed to [redacted] at this timeAlso, the management team has confirmed that each dispute was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Most of [redacted] ’s transaction disputes were closed with a full or partial refund back to [redacted] The other disputes consisted of shipping claims where the item was delivered to [redacted] or covered by the warranty service.As Liquidity Services sells items on behalf of third parties, Liquidity Services customer relations team handles all customer inquiries and disputesWhen a dispute is filed with the customer relations dispute team, the seller is provided with the buyer’s dispute precisely as it is submitted to Liquidity Services, the seller is then asked to provide their response/feedback immediatelyThe Liquidity Services customer relations dispute team responds to the buyer with the seller’s response as to act as an intermediary between the seller and the buyer.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 marketplaceWe would be glad to look in to a specific transaction at [redacted] ’s request if he so desiresWe appreciate the opportunity to address any further concerns and your our cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciatedRegards,Amanda O***Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services
October 7, 2016Dear [redacted] Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID which consisted of units of Housewares - [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] *** The lot was ‘returns’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted] ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 9-23- The total transaction cost after applicable, taxes, shipping charges, and or buyer’s premium was $ The product was delivered to [redacted] on 9-27-2016, and [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] on 9-26-for the amount of $[redacted] ***’s claim is his [redacted] account was charged twice for $216, and that repeated calls to the Customer Service department didn’t yield a satisfactory responseOur Finance department had difficulty locating the double charge because the payment amounts did not match One was for $and the other was for $216.Please note, [redacted] ***’s user account was de-activated because of the chargebackReference Section from the Terms and Conditions: Charge-BacksIf you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretionIf you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damagesOur Finance department confirmed they refunded [redacted] in the amount of $as of today (ref [redacted] transaction ID [redacted] ) [redacted] ***’s user account with Liquidity Services will also be re-activated once we see that the chargeback [redacted] filed with [redacted] has been closed [redacted] can contact us at [email protected] once the case is closed, and request reactivation Sending a screenshot of the closed case would help speed up that process.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted] ***’s claimRegards,Darren M
April 27, 2016Dear Mr [redacted] Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] with the Revdex.com Mr [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of units of Designer Neckties - [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] ***, ***, [redacted] ***, [redacted] The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr [redacted] ’s bid of $was the winning bid on 3-31- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $ The product was delivered to Mr [redacted] on 4-8-2016, and Mr [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 4-8-under the incorrect transaction ID, and then again on 4-16-under the correct transaction ID.Mr [redacted] ’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint differs slightly from the disputes filed with our company regarding the merchandise in transaction ID [redacted] :The claim through the Revdex.com is that the ties is the clothing (ties) were listed as shelf pulls but they were all in salvage condition.The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-8-(under the incorrect transaction ID) stated: “These ties were listed as "returns" Out of ties only had tags, and I believe the other ties are usedA lot of the ties have rips and some are grossly dirty No store would accept a return that is grossly dirtyAlso, some of the name brands listed in the auction are not includedI want a full refund.”The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-16-(under the correct transaction ID) stated: “I initially filed this dispute on April 8, but it appears the wrong transaction ID was noted in the disputeI want to return all these ties and I want a full refund immediatelyProvide me with return postage and I will send the ties back immediatelyThese ties are all used, and some are grossly dirty and damaged If I do not receive a refund I will be contacting consumer affairs and disputing the charge with my credit card due to the fraudulent auction.”The photographic support submitted by Mr [redacted] to Liquidity Services for the claim on 4-8-shows image files of what appears to be the same necktie in each picture image shows a small tear at near the loop on the backside of the tie Please note Mr [redacted] references the ties as being listed in three different conditions: shelf pulls, returns, and used To clarify, the auction was listed using shelf pulls as the condition, and we generalize that Mr [redacted] did not agree with the condition of the merchandise Additionally, the auction indicated the following statement “Lot May Include an Assorted Mix of the Following Ties” followed by a non-inclusive list of brand name ties that could appear in the lot This statement was used to highlight that the seller did not guarantee that all name brands would be included in the lot Effectively, our disputes department denied Mr [redacted] ’s claims for lack of supporting evidence (the photographs do not substantiate a condition outside of shelf pulls) and on the basis that the auction properly advertised merchandise in the shelf pulls condition; Shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never soldThey usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contactIn addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.gfrom a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handlingAccordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Essentially, the ties were likely exposed to appreciable customer handling (people trying them on), and then further handling in the reverse supply chain.Regarding Mr [redacted] ’s claim about receiving broken electronic items, which were listed as new condition (Transaction ID [redacted] ) The merchandise was delivered on Jan 14, 2016, and Mr [redacted] filed a claim on the merchandise on Apr 3, The dispute was denied due to the excessive amount of time that had passed from delivery to filing a claim Section from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to inspect assets on delivery An excerpt from Section of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Claims for Incorrect or Inaccurate Description Where Inspection Not Permitted; Returns ProcessIn limited circumstances, our sellers only permit inspection on buyer's receipt of the Assets after their shipmentFor example, this may occur in a drop-ship arrangement where there is no inspection permitted by the seller and the seller or Liquidity Services coordinate shipping of the Assets directly to the buyerIn such circumstances, buyer must make a claim for any incorrect or inaccurate Listing description of the Assets within three (3) Business Days after delivery of the Assets to buyerThereafter, a buyer's right to make a claim expiresBuyer's right expires regardless of whether buyer actually conducts an inspection of the Assets.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyersWe regret that Mr [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we stand behind the decision to deny these disputes based on the evidence provided and feel the matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We are well outside the window for investigating post-transactional claims, but as a courtesy if Mr [redacted] has additional evidence that he feels would substantiate a claim on the neckties, we will review it Mr [redacted] can submit that information to us using our “Submit a Dispute” process.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address Mr [redacted] ’s claimRegards,Darren M [redacted] SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services
August 27, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] ***, ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] *** [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Incwas in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two (2) refurbished [redacted] computers purchased via Liquidation.comHe said that he discovered that one of the computers had a broken power switch that did not allow it to be turned on or offThe computer came with a 90-day warranty so he called the service number and arranged to send his unit for repairWhen his computer was returned to him, the power switch was still broken and it appeared to [redacted] that nothing had been fixed with the computer at allHe had a frustrating time finding resolution through the customer service personnel and ultimately had his account deactivated According to the transaction detail, [redacted] ***’s Liquidation.com user account was deactivated due to him making threatening remarks to a customer service employeeAdditionally, [redacted] filed a chargeback for the transaction on May 6th, prior to filing his complaint with the Revdex.comChargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our websiteThis action would have triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account had it not already been suspendedChargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for itOnce an account holder violates the chargeback provision, we can no longer pursue a remedy because that individual has ignored our disputes process We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 21, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- 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, Incwere 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,name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 listingHe said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit itemsHe requested a full refund Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lotThe seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auctionTherefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the sellerSince 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 decisionAn 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 teamThen [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthenticAfter discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lotAfter confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $was processed to [redacted] ***’s account on November 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
July 16, [redacted] Revdex.com K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- RE: [redacted] ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] , Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of Otter boxes for various models of [redacted] and [redacted] Sin Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn June 6, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listingHe said that the cases he received were broken and many of them had cosmetic issues such as scratches or ink marks [redacted] also stated that he would be unable to sell the items he received because of the damageHe requested a full refund on the transaction Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows: Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified locationReasons 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 orderThe majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problemDepending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of useIn 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 handlingThey generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessoriesAccordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary [redacted] H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc