Mr [redacted] , Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by Mr [redacted] ***In his response, Mr** [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaintIn his most recent response, Mr [redacted] has stated he is requesting Liqudation.com return the [redacted] lens that was mistakenly placed in the shipment with the camera for repair or he be reimbursed for the value of the lensAlso, he has stated Liquidation has already refunded $for the camera Ms [redacted] returned and he has no intention of returning the second camera unit as it is no longer in his possessionIn our initial response, we stated that Liquidation.com would be willing to return the lens to Mr [redacted] and as such, it has been packed and shipped to be sent to Mr [redacted] ***The [redacted] case had showed a full refund on Liquidation.com’s end and that is the reason we stated a full refund was requested in our previous responseHowever, it now appears that only the partial refund was in fact refundedThe lens is in route back to Mr [redacted] and the partial refund has been issuedWe regret that Mr [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordinglyRegards, Amanda O*** Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
March 20th, [redacted] Revdex.comK Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC 20005-3404RE: [redacted] ***, ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the RevDex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the 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 one lot of thirty (30) items, including designer and brand bags (used), purchased via Liquidation.com On February 10th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units [redacted] stated there were purses in the lot; however, these brands were not in the lot [redacted] submitted pictures to support her dispute and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she was missing itemsThe auction manifest clearly states “Designer and Brand bags, Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] ***: A collection of Classic and durable designer & Brand handbagsbags total in lot, highlights include: Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] ***, [redacted] **, [redacted] ***, [redacted] by [redacted] Designer inspired bags, used condition; you will receive items similar to the ones show in the pictures”The auction did not list that all brands would be included.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it For this reason, [redacted] ***’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *H***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
September 11th, 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] purchased an auction lot of toy figurines items in new condition from Liquidation.com and believes that the sizes are not appropriate as they are smaller then what he thought they would be [redacted] said that the items he received do not stand up.In our initial response, we said that the disputes team denied the claim because they determined the auction listing was properly listedNeither the auction listing nor the manifest specified specific sizes/dimensions of the toysAlso, the manifest did not list individual figurines to be received, it only stated the quantityThe auction listing states each lot contains an assorted mix In his most recent response, [redacted] said that he did not receive any [redacted] minifigurines and the toys he received do not stand upIn deciding this matter, our disputes team relied upon the objective measures given in the auction listing We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence providedWe hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our current position Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
August 21, [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 her response, [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint [redacted] filed a claim regarding general merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listingOur disputes team requested support (photos, videos, etc.) for her dispute and after reviewing the support, we concluded that [redacted] ’s claim could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate [redacted] ’s support confirmed that the shipment she received was in the correct condition of Shelf Pulls and that the items she received were similar to those pictured in the auctionIn her initial complaint, [redacted] also noted that the watch she received and the one pictured in the auction were different and differed in MSRP by $50, which was a large part of her $investmentThose MSRP values, however, did not dictate the prices of the items within this auctionThe “per unit price” of this auction was $3.07, accounting for the $winning bidUnder our terms and conditions, we do allow a quantity variance on our Liquidation.com auctions Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in excess of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging from 1-10% per auctionThe quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged itemsHowever, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items With the above calculation, the quantity variance was less than 1%, whereas 3% was allowed by the auctionThis was visible on the auction pageAs per the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com, this variance was permittedFor this reason, we cannot accept [redacted] ’s secondary complaint, which argued on behalf of the MRSP and value of this watchLots are sold in their entirety with consideration for quantity variance so a buyer should not bid for the purpose of receiving an individual itemIf the item had not been shipped at all (a “missing” item) it would have been covered under quantity varianceLikewise, the lesser item is acceptable so long as the lot meets the advertised requirements for 97% of the merchandise We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute because the auction was properly listed Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
September 9, Dear *** [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 the Liquidity Services is in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement regarding the standard 90-day repair warranty [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his customer was told the warranty had expired [redacted] has stated that he has purchased [redacted] and [redacted] items on Liquidation.com that come with a day warranty [redacted] has expressed that he is a reseller and would like the warranty to be extended to start when he sells the product to his clientHe has stated that often the items are not sold to his clients for weeks after he has purchased them from Liquidation.com Per our lot listings pages, we state a limited 90-day warranty is included with some of the electronic items we offerWe also state the items carry a 90-day repair warranty from the date of purchaseAs such, we cannot extend the warranty to begin when the Liquidation.com customer has resold the items to another individualThe warranty period commences on the date of purchase from Liquidation.com, not the date of resale from the Liquidation.com buyer to their client We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordingly Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
November 21, 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 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 the company e-mails he received, but his e-mail was located in a database for another marketplace. 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.
[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: The people at Liquidation.com are lying as far as me being suspended for non-payment of auctionsI refused to pay the last two auctions I won because I now knew the merchandise was counterfeitWould you pay for something you knew to be fake? They are telling a half truth which is as good as a lieTo further prove they do not care what kind of fake merchandise is shilled on their site, these phony items are still being sold in spite of my alerting them to the fact that they are all forgeriesI tried to make an amicable settlement with them but they are only intent on showing me how much more money they have to spend when it comes to litigationI have lost what little respect remained in me for themI can prove every single one of my claimsThe only other time they suspended my account was when an auction I had won was not delivered to me so I opened a [redacted] dispute claimThey do not like it when you try to get your money back even when they know you got scammedThey could have settled with me for half of what they receivedThey are dishonest and their response to you further proves their total disregard for customer safety and they have no problem making outright statement to slander my nameThey are not even good liars because I can easily disprove every statement they makeThank you Regards, [redacted]
April 1, 2015Dear [redacted] ,We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with [redacted] ’s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bidsOur records indicate that [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and when [redacted] placed a bid on Government Liquidation’s website[redacted] bid on Lot [redacted] from Event ***, a safeThe event opened on January 21, and closed on January 23, [redacted] placed a bid amount of $on January 22" at 5:p.m(Eastern Time)The high bidder placed a bid amount of $and was awarded the property on January 23rd at 5:p.m(Eastern Time)Supporting documentation has been included along with this response letter.Our records do not indicate that the auction was extended or that any technical issues occurredNevertheless, all auction participants must determine the details of the auction and participate accordingly, Section of the Terms and Conditions relays the bidder’s responsibility if changes do occur to any auction listing:Each bidder is solely responsible for checking the Site or taking such other actions as are appropriate to learn of changes to a Listing, including changes to a closing date or timeWe will not be responsible for notifying any buyer of a change in any ListingThe buyer bears the sole risk of transmitting bids so that such bids are received prior to close of the Online AuctionWe will not accept a bid that is received after an Online Auction is closed.However, as previously mentioned, the auction in which [redacted] placed a bid did not have any changes.Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to further accommodate [redacted] ’s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards, Cary HCorporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 17, [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** [redacted] was unable to complete a bid for a discontinued auction and disagrees with Liquidity Services, Incpolicies concerning the auction’s dismissal ** [redacted] said that he had prepared to bid upon an open auction for a lot of 2013/excess stock of [redacted] lingerieThe auction had less than a day until it was scheduled to close when it was suddenly canceled and relisted under different termsThe closing date was extended three more days and a reserve bid of $70,was noted with a sealed bid format, whereas before there had been no reserve and open competitive bidding** [redacted] believes that canceling and relisting the auction was unethical There was a listing error with the original auction so it was reset to the terms intended by the sellerThe original auction listing had not yet closed and ** [redacted] had not even bid upon itWe have no obligation to let listing errors stand or even to notify our users of those errorsIt was unfortunate that ** [redacted] was not notified of the new auction, and we would like to improve our notifications system in this regard, however rare cases such as this may beHowever, he was able to locate the auction and no harm was done here We regret that ** [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
April 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] 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 cell phone and tablet cases in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 of items advertised, including items from the manifest and more items not listed on the auction manifestThe shipment was so different from the listing that the buyer felt that he may have received the wrong shipment entirelyHe provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ***’s claim and erroneously sent a denial related to another matterAfter being alerted to the error, the review concluded that ***’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 ***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 transactionTherefore, 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 sellerAfter receipt of the return was confirmed, a full refund of $was processed to ***’s account on March We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by ** [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 8, [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 lot of children’s items, from [redacted] , [redacted] , ***, [redacted] and others, in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn January 29, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing** [redacted] said that he only received about clothing items when he had expected and that the remaining items were toys and children’s accessoriesHe said that the toys and accessories were unacceptable and that the clothing received even appeared to be Used or Return merchandiseHe sent photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ** [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that lot was grossly misrepresented and not in the proper conditionThe auction manifest lists that there will be clothing items and accessories so the buyer should not have expected clothing items Further, ** [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction on January 30, prior to our decisionTherefore, we could not continue the investigationChargebacks 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, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 13, Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received a refund for the items he bid on[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Cushions & [redacted] recliner items on Liquidation.com on September 30thOn October 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received did not belong to himOur customer relations department stated they would arrange the pickup with [redacted] and refund [redacted] On October 29th a refund was processed for [redacted] but it was in a pending status, it was released on November 4th and a refund in the amount of $was issued to [redacted] ’s [redacted] accountOne of our customer relations supervisors has contacted [redacted] on November 12th and it was determined that he stated he received a bill in the mail from [redacted] for $95.00, however, this is not for the return of the shipment as it was paid through Liquidation.comOur supervisor has stated that [redacted] has been refunded in full and requested that he send in the bill from [redacted] so that she can figure out what the charge is and get it resolvedWe regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
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 she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because one dispute was denied and she was unhappy with the amount of the partial refund on the other dispute Regarding Transaction ID [redacted] , [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn October 3, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction listing and that she was missing unitsShe said that she was missing a box of shelving for her bookshelf and that several other furniture items were scratched or brokenShe provided supporting photos Regarding Transaction ID [redacted] , [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn October 3, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listingShe said that one of the items, a trashcan, had been received with large dents on each side and that the box was torn Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ’s claims separatelyFor Transaction ID [redacted] , they concluded that it could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows: Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified 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 Further, the auction specifically states in its advertising, “Return furniture may reflect signs of use, wear and damage including cosmetic defects and structural damage including but not limited to bent frames, broken, cracked, stained, damaged or missing pieces and incomplete or partial sets.” This is consistent with the description and photo support provided by [redacted] and suits the condition code purchased Regarding Transaction [redacted] , our disputes team decided to honor the dispute with a partial refund for one unitThe trashcan item was worth 8.07% of the MSRP of the lotTherefore, we calculated 8.07% of the $winning bid, plus the appropriate percentage of shipping and fees, as the partial refundThe amount of $was processed to [redacted] ’s account on October We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that these matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
Hi, Here is the complete information about the site, my cr, and sale numberAlso note that I opened case with that companyThey recently informed me that since I asked my credit card company to get me the refund for disputed amount, they will close my accountMost probably the reason they cant find my record is because they have deleted my account http://www.govliquidation.com/ cr: [redacted] COMPANY NAME: Digitware system SALE NUMBER: [redacted] case number: [redacted] INVOICE NUMBER: [redacted]
[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, they keep attempting to cover up the fact that they featured one watch and sent me an inferior oneTheir desperation is getting very obviousThey know that their actions are simply unethical Regards, [redacted]
November 13, Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received a refund for the items he bid on[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Cushions & [redacted] recliner items on Liquidation.com on September 30thOn October 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received did not belong to himOur customer relations department stated they would arrange the pickup with [redacted] and refund [redacted] .On October 29th a refund was processed for [redacted] but it was in a pending status, it was released on November 4th and a refund in the amount of $was issued to [redacted] ’s [redacted] account.One of our customer relations supervisors has contacted [redacted] on November 12th and it was determined that he stated he received a bill in the mail from [redacted] for $95.00, however, this is not for the return of the shipment as it was paid through Liquidation.comOur supervisor has stated that [redacted] has been refunded in full and requested that he send in the bill from [redacted] so that she can figure out what the charge is and get it resolved.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 marketplaceRegards,Amanda O***Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services
Date: Tue, Jul 20:07:+0000ID: [redacted] Auction listing states merchandise is new with tags, which may consist of either manufacturer and distributor tagsThe photos submitted by the buyer clearly shows the merchandise did in fact come with tags attached to the articles of clothing, confirming the auction description of new with tags
I spoke with [redacted] on 3/23/regarding his claim and was able to investigate further and found the following information: The laptop in question was an Acer laptop purchased on 8/5/via our [redacted] platformThese laptops were refurbished by a company called [redacted] and also came with a day repair warranty from the date of purchaseWhile speaking with [redacted] , he indicated that the laptop was still functional and that the performance was slow and he had additional concerns about the hard disk drive utilization I then left [redacted] a voicemail on the afternoon of 3/23/informing him that there wasn’t any further action we could take as the purchase was made, and the day repair window closed, many years ago
[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:They have to be kiddingThis is not about two complaints but about their entire warranty processI have about items, or more, that should have the day warranty and I have not been able to sell them because Liquation.com has tried to change the definition and would not honor the warrantyAgain according to them I have to open and test every item, within the days of my purchase, to see if there is any defect before I sell it This is ridicules My next step is to contact the press and make them aware of what they are trying to doRight now there many buyers of these items from liquation.com that are unaware that the day warranties, they are offering to their customers, are worthlessLets see what the press thinks Regards, [redacted]
[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: I pointed out the damage immediately to the forklift operatorShe advised me to file a claim online through the websiteIf I had been advised properly to file a complaint before departing, I would have Regards, [redacted] ***
Mr [redacted] , Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by Mr [redacted] ***In his response, Mr** [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaintIn his most recent response, Mr [redacted] has stated he is requesting Liqudation.com return the [redacted] lens that was mistakenly placed in the shipment with the camera for repair or he be reimbursed for the value of the lensAlso, he has stated Liquidation has already refunded $for the camera Ms [redacted] returned and he has no intention of returning the second camera unit as it is no longer in his possessionIn our initial response, we stated that Liquidation.com would be willing to return the lens to Mr [redacted] and as such, it has been packed and shipped to be sent to Mr [redacted] ***The [redacted] case had showed a full refund on Liquidation.com’s end and that is the reason we stated a full refund was requested in our previous responseHowever, it now appears that only the partial refund was in fact refundedThe lens is in route back to Mr [redacted] and the partial refund has been issuedWe regret that Mr [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordinglyRegards, Amanda O*** Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
March 20th, [redacted] Revdex.comK Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC 20005-3404RE: [redacted] ***, ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted] ,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the RevDex.com [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the 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 one lot of thirty (30) items, including designer and brand bags (used), purchased via Liquidation.com On February 10th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units [redacted] stated there were purses in the lot; however, these brands were not in the lot [redacted] submitted pictures to support her dispute and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ***’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she was missing itemsThe auction manifest clearly states “Designer and Brand bags, Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] ***: A collection of Classic and durable designer & Brand handbagsbags total in lot, highlights include: Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] ***, [redacted] **, [redacted] ***, [redacted] by [redacted] Designer inspired bags, used condition; you will receive items similar to the ones show in the pictures”The auction did not list that all brands would be included.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it For this reason, [redacted] ***’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *H***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc
September 11th, 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] purchased an auction lot of toy figurines items in new condition from Liquidation.com and believes that the sizes are not appropriate as they are smaller then what he thought they would be [redacted] said that the items he received do not stand up.In our initial response, we said that the disputes team denied the claim because they determined the auction listing was properly listedNeither the auction listing nor the manifest specified specific sizes/dimensions of the toysAlso, the manifest did not list individual figurines to be received, it only stated the quantityThe auction listing states each lot contains an assorted mix In his most recent response, [redacted] said that he did not receive any [redacted] minifigurines and the toys he received do not stand upIn deciding this matter, our disputes team relied upon the objective measures given in the auction listing We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence providedWe hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our current position Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
August 21, [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 her response, [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint [redacted] filed a claim regarding general merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listingOur disputes team requested support (photos, videos, etc.) for her dispute and after reviewing the support, we concluded that [redacted] ’s claim could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate [redacted] ’s support confirmed that the shipment she received was in the correct condition of Shelf Pulls and that the items she received were similar to those pictured in the auctionIn her initial complaint, [redacted] also noted that the watch she received and the one pictured in the auction were different and differed in MSRP by $50, which was a large part of her $investmentThose MSRP values, however, did not dictate the prices of the items within this auctionThe “per unit price” of this auction was $3.07, accounting for the $winning bidUnder our terms and conditions, we do allow a quantity variance on our Liquidation.com auctions Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in excess of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging from 1-10% per auctionThe quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged itemsHowever, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items With the above calculation, the quantity variance was less than 1%, whereas 3% was allowed by the auctionThis was visible on the auction pageAs per the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com, this variance was permittedFor this reason, we cannot accept [redacted] ’s secondary complaint, which argued on behalf of the MRSP and value of this watchLots are sold in their entirety with consideration for quantity variance so a buyer should not bid for the purpose of receiving an individual itemIf the item had not been shipped at all (a “missing” item) it would have been covered under quantity varianceLikewise, the lesser item is acceptable so long as the lot meets the advertised requirements for 97% of the merchandise We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute because the auction was properly listed Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
September 9, Dear *** [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 the Liquidity Services is in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement regarding the standard 90-day repair warranty [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his customer was told the warranty had expired [redacted] has stated that he has purchased [redacted] and [redacted] items on Liquidation.com that come with a day warranty [redacted] has expressed that he is a reseller and would like the warranty to be extended to start when he sells the product to his clientHe has stated that often the items are not sold to his clients for weeks after he has purchased them from Liquidation.com Per our lot listings pages, we state a limited 90-day warranty is included with some of the electronic items we offerWe also state the items carry a 90-day repair warranty from the date of purchaseAs such, we cannot extend the warranty to begin when the Liquidation.com customer has resold the items to another individualThe warranty period commences on the date of purchase from Liquidation.com, not the date of resale from the Liquidation.com buyer to their client We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordingly Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
November 21, 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 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 the company e-mails he received, but his e-mail was located in a database for another marketplace. 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.
[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: The people at Liquidation.com are lying as far as me being suspended for non-payment of auctionsI refused to pay the last two auctions I won because I now knew the merchandise was counterfeitWould you pay for something you knew to be fake? They are telling a half truth which is as good as a lieTo further prove they do not care what kind of fake merchandise is shilled on their site, these phony items are still being sold in spite of my alerting them to the fact that they are all forgeriesI tried to make an amicable settlement with them but they are only intent on showing me how much more money they have to spend when it comes to litigationI have lost what little respect remained in me for themI can prove every single one of my claimsThe only other time they suspended my account was when an auction I had won was not delivered to me so I opened a [redacted] dispute claimThey do not like it when you try to get your money back even when they know you got scammedThey could have settled with me for half of what they receivedThey are dishonest and their response to you further proves their total disregard for customer safety and they have no problem making outright statement to slander my nameThey are not even good liars because I can easily disprove every statement they makeThank you Regards, [redacted]
April 1, 2015Dear [redacted] ,We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with [redacted] ’s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bidsOur records indicate that [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and when [redacted] placed a bid on Government Liquidation’s website[redacted] bid on Lot [redacted] from Event ***, a safeThe event opened on January 21, and closed on January 23, [redacted] placed a bid amount of $on January 22" at 5:p.m(Eastern Time)The high bidder placed a bid amount of $and was awarded the property on January 23rd at 5:p.m(Eastern Time)Supporting documentation has been included along with this response letter.Our records do not indicate that the auction was extended or that any technical issues occurredNevertheless, all auction participants must determine the details of the auction and participate accordingly, Section of the Terms and Conditions relays the bidder’s responsibility if changes do occur to any auction listing:Each bidder is solely responsible for checking the Site or taking such other actions as are appropriate to learn of changes to a Listing, including changes to a closing date or timeWe will not be responsible for notifying any buyer of a change in any ListingThe buyer bears the sole risk of transmitting bids so that such bids are received prior to close of the Online AuctionWe will not accept a bid that is received after an Online Auction is closed.However, as previously mentioned, the auction in which [redacted] placed a bid did not have any changes.Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to further accommodate [redacted] ’s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards, Cary HCorporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 17, [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** [redacted] was unable to complete a bid for a discontinued auction and disagrees with Liquidity Services, Incpolicies concerning the auction’s dismissal ** [redacted] said that he had prepared to bid upon an open auction for a lot of 2013/excess stock of [redacted] lingerieThe auction had less than a day until it was scheduled to close when it was suddenly canceled and relisted under different termsThe closing date was extended three more days and a reserve bid of $70,was noted with a sealed bid format, whereas before there had been no reserve and open competitive bidding** [redacted] believes that canceling and relisting the auction was unethical There was a listing error with the original auction so it was reset to the terms intended by the sellerThe original auction listing had not yet closed and ** [redacted] had not even bid upon itWe have no obligation to let listing errors stand or even to notify our users of those errorsIt was unfortunate that ** [redacted] was not notified of the new auction, and we would like to improve our notifications system in this regard, however rare cases such as this may beHowever, he was able to locate the auction and no harm was done here We regret that ** [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
April 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] 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 cell phone and tablet cases in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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 of items advertised, including items from the manifest and more items not listed on the auction manifestThe shipment was so different from the listing that the buyer felt that he may have received the wrong shipment entirelyHe provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ***’s claim and erroneously sent a denial related to another matterAfter being alerted to the error, the review concluded that ***’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 ***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 transactionTherefore, 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 sellerAfter receipt of the return was confirmed, a full refund of $was processed to ***’s account on March We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by ** [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment Regards, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
May 8, [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 lot of children’s items, from [redacted] , [redacted] , ***, [redacted] and others, in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn January 29, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing** [redacted] said that he only received about clothing items when he had expected and that the remaining items were toys and children’s accessoriesHe said that the toys and accessories were unacceptable and that the clothing received even appeared to be Used or Return merchandiseHe sent photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund Our disputes team reviewed ** [redacted] ’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that lot was grossly misrepresented and not in the proper conditionThe auction manifest lists that there will be clothing items and accessories so the buyer should not have expected clothing items Further, ** [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction on January 30, prior to our decisionTherefore, we could not continue the investigationChargebacks 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, [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
November 13, Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received a refund for the items he bid on[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Cushions & [redacted] recliner items on Liquidation.com on September 30thOn October 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received did not belong to himOur customer relations department stated they would arrange the pickup with [redacted] and refund [redacted] On October 29th a refund was processed for [redacted] but it was in a pending status, it was released on November 4th and a refund in the amount of $was issued to [redacted] ’s [redacted] accountOne of our customer relations supervisors has contacted [redacted] on November 12th and it was determined that he stated he received a bill in the mail from [redacted] for $95.00, however, this is not for the return of the shipment as it was paid through Liquidation.comOur supervisor has stated that [redacted] has been refunded in full and requested that he send in the bill from [redacted] so that she can figure out what the charge is and get it resolvedWe regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Amanda O [redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services
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 she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because one dispute was denied and she was unhappy with the amount of the partial refund on the other dispute Regarding Transaction ID [redacted] , [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn October 3, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction listing and that she was missing unitsShe said that she was missing a box of shelving for her bookshelf and that several other furniture items were scratched or brokenShe provided supporting photos Regarding Transaction ID [redacted] , [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn October 3, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listingShe said that one of the items, a trashcan, had been received with large dents on each side and that the box was torn Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] ’s claims separatelyFor Transaction ID [redacted] , they concluded that it could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows: Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified 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 Further, the auction specifically states in its advertising, “Return furniture may reflect signs of use, wear and damage including cosmetic defects and structural damage including but not limited to bent frames, broken, cracked, stained, damaged or missing pieces and incomplete or partial sets.” This is consistent with the description and photo support provided by [redacted] and suits the condition code purchased Regarding Transaction [redacted] , our disputes team decided to honor the dispute with a partial refund for one unitThe trashcan item was worth 8.07% of the MSRP of the lotTherefore, we calculated 8.07% of the $winning bid, plus the appropriate percentage of shipping and fees, as the partial refundThe amount of $was processed to [redacted] ’s account on October We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that these matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace Regards, Cary *H [redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc
Hi, Here is the complete information about the site, my c
r, and sale numberAlso note that I opened case with that companyThey recently informed me that since I asked my credit card company to get me the refund for disputed amount, they will close my accountMost probably the reason they cant find my record is because they have deleted my account http://www.govliquidation.com/ c
r: [redacted] COMPANY NAME: Digitware system SALE NUMBER: [redacted] case number: [redacted] INVOICE NUMBER: [redacted]
[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, they keep attempting to cover up the fact that they featured one watch and sent me an inferior oneTheir desperation is getting very obviousThey know that their actions are simply unethical Regards, [redacted]
November 13, Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received a refund for the items he bid on[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Cushions & [redacted] recliner items on Liquidation.com on September 30thOn October 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received did not belong to himOur customer relations department stated they would arrange the pickup with [redacted] and refund [redacted] .On October 29th a refund was processed for [redacted] but it was in a pending status, it was released on November 4th and a refund in the amount of $was issued to [redacted] ’s [redacted] account.One of our customer relations supervisors has contacted [redacted] on November 12th and it was determined that he stated he received a bill in the mail from [redacted] for $95.00, however, this is not for the return of the shipment as it was paid through Liquidation.comOur supervisor has stated that [redacted] has been refunded in full and requested that he send in the bill from [redacted] so that she can figure out what the charge is and get it resolved.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 marketplaceRegards,Amanda O***Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services
Date: Tue, Jul 20:07:+0000ID: [redacted] Auction listing states merchandise is new with tags, which may consist of either manufacturer and distributor tagsThe photos submitted by the buyer clearly shows the merchandise did in fact come with tags attached to the articles of clothing, confirming the auction description of new with tags
I spoke with [redacted] on 3/23/regarding his claim and was able to investigate further and found the following information: The laptop in question was an Acer laptop purchased on 8/5/via our [redacted] platformThese laptops were refurbished by a company called [redacted] and also came with a day repair warranty from the date of purchaseWhile speaking with [redacted] , he indicated that the laptop was still functional and that the performance was slow and he had additional concerns about the hard disk drive utilization I then left [redacted] a voicemail on the afternoon of 3/23/informing him that there wasn’t any further action we could take as the purchase was made, and the day repair window closed, many years ago
[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:They have to be kiddingThis is not about two complaints but about their entire warranty processI have about items, or more, that should have the day warranty and I have not been able to sell them because Liquation.com has tried to change the definition and would not honor the warrantyAgain according to them I have to open and test every item, within the days of my purchase, to see if there is any defect before I sell it This is ridicules My next step is to contact the press and make them aware of what they are trying to doRight now there many buyers of these items from liquation.com that are unaware that the day warranties, they are offering to their customers, are worthlessLets see what the press thinks Regards, [redacted]
[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: I pointed out the damage immediately to the forklift operatorShe advised me to file a claim online through the websiteIf I had been advised properly to file a complaint before departing, I would have Regards, [redacted] ***