BBB Accredited Business since

Liquidity Services Inc

Find a Location

Phone: (202) 558-6200 Fax: (202) 467-4056 View Additional Phone Numbers 1920 L St NW Fl 6, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.liquidation.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Liquidity Services Inc meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Find a Location


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Liquidity Services Inc include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 184 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

184 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 40 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 67
Billing/Collection Issues 11
Delivery Issues 13
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 8
Problems with Product/Service 85
Total Closed Complaints 184

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

6 Customer Reviews on Liquidity Services Inc
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 6
Total Customer Reviews 6

Additional Information

BBB file opened: January 01, 2001 Business started: 01/01/2000 Business incorporated 11/01/1999 in DE
Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. William P Angrick III, CEO/Chairman
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. William P Angrick III, CEO/Chairman
Business Category

Internet Auction Service

Alternate Business Names
Liquidation.com Inc
Additional Information

According to information provided by the firm, it sells a mix of new, used and refurbished items of varying quality, which comes directly from the sellers. The company has a Dispute Resolution process to deal with buyer/seller disagreements. Customers are required to read and agree to the Terms and Conditions statements of the firm prior to entering registration; these terms are applied to all transaction interactions.

Industry Tips
ONLINE AUCTIONS

Additional Locations

  • 1920 L St NW Fl 6

    Washington, DC 20036 (202) 558-6200

  • 405 Glenn Dr
    Ste 10

    Sterling, VA 20164

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    15051 N Kierland Blvd Ste 300

    Scottsdale, AZ 85254

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    15051 N Kierland Blvd Fl 3

    Scottsdale, AZ 85254

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

5/20/2016 Problems with Product/Service
5/13/2016 Problems with Product/Service
4/1/2016 Problems with Product/Service
3/28/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues
3/9/2016 Problems with Product/Service
3/8/2016 Problems with Product/Service
2/28/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues
2/19/2016 Problems with Product/Service
2/9/2016 Problems with Product/Service
2/7/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues
2/2/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues
1/31/2016 Problems with Product/Service
12/21/2015 Problems with Product/Service
11/28/2015 Problems with Product/Service
11/27/2015 Problems with Product/Service
11/17/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues
10/30/2015 Problems with Product/Service
10/27/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues
10/11/2015 Problems with Product/Service
9/25/2015 Problems with Product/Service
9/5/2015 Problems with Product/Service
9/2/2015 Problems with Product/Service
9/1/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues
8/28/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues
8/21/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues
8/20/2015 Problems with Product/Service
8/20/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues
8/9/2015 Problems with Product/Service
8/8/2015 Problems with Product/Service
8/3/2015 Problems with Product/Service
7/20/2015 Problems with Product/Service
7/7/2015 Problems with Product/Service
7/6/2015 Problems with Product/Service
7/6/2015 Problems with Product/Service
6/22/2015 Problems with Product/Service
6/22/2015 Problems with Product/Service
6/6/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have won 9 auctions on liquidations.com. I always do a lot of research before bidding to determine the value and resale value. 4 of the 9 were falsely advertised and merchandized shown and described was not at all what was delivered. I have made multiple attempts to resolve with through their dispute process and have had no resolution. They won't even give me a phone number to discuss. Their customer service operations indicate they can't discuss disputes and the disputes area will only email and with multiple back and forth they have not resolved one single claim.1) tran id *******- paid $1055.30- included 30 designer handbags. not one single handbag sent matched with the pictures that were provided on the auction page. the handbags sent were of much lesser resale value then the items pictured. I question the authenticity of some bags sent. jewelry sent was a joke and was something a dollar store might have sold but it was a designer department store shelf pull. jewelry was of no resale value2)tran id *******- paid $177.69-no where in the description or manifest did it indicate that the sleepwear was ripped, soiled and were mismatches of 2 pc sets without the matching pc. 3)tran id *******- 60 new handbags. not one single handbag matched the pictures show and was of much lesser quality and design features. the bags received look like something my kids would make in home ec class. There is egregious differences in bags received vs. bags shown.4)tran id *******- included 11 handbags. Not one was the same as was shown. this was the same seller as #1 above so clearly they have a practice of misleading and false advertising. I won't buy from that seller again.

Desired Settlement: 1) tran id *******- I want a refund so that my purchase price matches the other action I purchased from this seller with very similar manifest. refund would = $6422)tran id *******- I concede and will donate the merchandise and take the loss3) tran id *******-50% refund= $804)tran id ******* nothing- seller should be required to change their practices of advertising one thing and sending another. resale value is comparable but false advertising practice is deplorable.

Business Response: April 13, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ******** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs *******, *******, ******* and *******.  *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because her disputes were denied.

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 122 handbags and clothing accessories in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 22, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags and other items she received did not match the auction photos and that the items received were much lesser quality than pictured, particularly the jewelry.  *** ******* requested a partial refund of $642.00 to offset the expected value against the actual value of the merchandise shipped.

Our disputes team reviewed her claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the seller had provided the merchandise described in the auction listing.  The photos accompanying the auction were for illustrative purposes only.  The seller provided detailed documentation validating the authenticity of the merchandise sent to *** *******.  *** ******* asked to discuss the dispute by phone, but she did not file a reopen request.

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 40 women’s designer sleepwear items in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 25, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing and grossly misrepresented.  She said that she received one item with a significant stain and another with a tear in the fabric.  Among the items received, *** ******* suggested that she would only be able to sell a small percentage because the items had not come in matching sets, but were largely mismatched.  She said that the merchandise seemed to be Returns rather than Shelf Pulls condition sleepwear.

Our disputes team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  The support provided showed items similar to those described in the listing.  Further, there was no indication in the listing that any of the items would be matching sets.  The two stained and torn items were disturbed as a result of handling as described in our Shelf Pulls definition on the auction:

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

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 60 assorted handbags in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On March 1, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags that she received did not look at all like the handbags pictured in the auction photos.  She added that the handbags received were low-quality with little variation, which differed substantially from her expectations.

Our disputes team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  *** ******* received 60 assorted handbags as promised.  There were no statements made in the auction advertising that failed to be met.  Again, the auction photos were generic and used for illustrative purposes only and were not photos of the actual items to be shipped.

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 88 handbags and clothing accessories in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On March 1, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  She said that the handbags received did not resemble the photos accompanying the auction listing.  She asked that we contact the seller and hold the seller to a higher quality standard.

Our dispute team reviewed the claim and decided that it could not be honored because the auction was properly listed.  Again, the listing statements matched the items received.  *** *******’s expectations were based on the auction photos which were generic and not intended to show the actual merchandise to be shipped.

Our disputes team considers each dispute received on a discrete basis solely on the evidence and support provided.  Our marketplace provides a platform for buyers and sellers to meet to conduct auctions of merchandise.  In these cases, each seller provided the merchandise that was described in the auction wording with no false statements.  Therefore, it would have been improper for our dispute team to overturn the transactions.  If the buyer support had shown an auction statement to be false, then the dispute would have resulted in a refund.

We regret that *** ******* 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****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc. 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:
If the manifest does not include specific detailed description of items then what would a buyer use to identify what they are bidding on and the value associated with the merchandise. In all cases the manifest that were posted did not include detailed product description and no where in the auction page that is up front and visible to the bidder does it say the pictures do not represent actual merchandise or even the same make, model and brand of merchandise. What is it a bidder would use to know what they are bidding on if not a detailed manifest and pictures. Clearly something is wrong when you bid on a lot and everything you get is different then represented. So clearly according to them I could show pictures of a banana. Tell you in a manifest that you are getting fruit and send you a cherry. I could see 1 or 2 things being different but to have the majority and full lots of items that are dramatically different and of much less value. That is just wrong and dishonest. 


Regards,

******** *******








Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

They continue to take no responsibility for auction postings, descriptions and photos that did not accurately or truthfully represent the merchandise in which there is clear evidence to prove so. I have watched what the sellers are posting and they do have volume and interest my enough they do take to toake sure the photos are different for each auction however the pictures in all cases did not match the merchandise within the auction. It's time to take accountability for hate and switch practices and in no way should they be pointing back to something I did wrong. I reviewed hundreds of photos, reviewed manifest, researched values and bid accordingly. No where on any of the pictures or on the auction listing in plain view does it say pictures are May orat not reflect actual merchandise. It doesn't even make sense that a seller would go through the work of providing so any pictures if they don't match the merchandise. Liquidation. Com had an obligation to buyers to resolve and ensure ethical selling practices and this has been grossly violated in this situation. They just keep saying I should have done something differently which is just ignoring their obligation all together. I did everything I should have as a buyer and this is NOT my fault and do not want to hear that type of response again. If they cannot resolve then I will ask my attorney to get involved. Prove to me that the listings were NOT grossly misrepresented with bait and switch with some solid evidence vs lip service pointing back to me. They have done absolutely nothing to provide incidence that this was not the case. 
Regards,

******** *******








Business Response:

May 22, 2015

Dear *** ******,
Liquidation.com is in receipt of the most recent response submitted by *** ******** *******. In her response, *** ******* states that she remains dissatisfied with the replies provided by our company to her initial complaint.

*** ******* continues to maintain that the auction listings of some sellers on Liquidation.com do not properly represent the items available for auction bidding. She also says that the auctions both caused her to bid upon items which she may not have bid upon and to overbid on some other auctions.

We have maintained that we lack grounds to overturn completed auctions where the sellers have met the obligations stated in their auction advertising. In her most recent response, *** ******* has focused upon the number of auction photos provided as a confusing metric. She says that sellers who post that many photos of merchandise for illustrative purposes are misleading potential auction bidders.

With this in mind, we would like to review this seller practice with the idea that we may update our policies to disallow it, if it is deemed reasonably misleading. While a potential policy change would not have a direct effect upon *** *******’s transactions, since those auctions were correct under the current policies, our disputes team would be open to provide further consideration. This is not a guarantee that a previous decision would be overturned, but it would be an important consideration in favor of *** *******'s position.

We respectfully ask for additional time to give proper consideration to *** *******’s most recent request to review the number of illustrative photos attached to auction listings. We will provide an update within 10 days after *** *******’s acknowledgment.

Regards,

Cary H

Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services


6/1/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I want to start off by stating that I have purchased dozens of lots from Liquidation.com over the past 8 years or so, and I have never filed a single dispute. However, this past week I purchased 4 separate lots of "refurbished" cell phones that were advertised as ******* ****** **** ** * ******** - 16GB - Unlocked. Both the auction descriptions and photos indicated that these cell phones were authentic ******* ****** **** 2 smartphones. It turns out that every single one of these smartphones were Chinese fakes / knock-offs / counterfeits. I spent a total of $2,203.25 for these phones. I demand that I be able to return these phones for a full refund (including return shipping costs, buyer's premium, etc.) immediately. Allowing sellers to sell fake / counterfeit goods on Liquidation.com destroys the integrity and reputation of your entire company. I certainly hope that you make things right and issue me a refund for these counterfeit phones very promptly. Thank You, **** ***** UserID: ******* ###-###-####

Desired Settlement: I demand that I be able to return these phones for a full refund (including return shipping costs, buyer's premium, etc.) immediately. Allowing sellers to sell fake / counterfeit goods on Liquidation.com destroys the integrity and reputation of your entire company. I certainly hope that you make things right and issue me a refund for these counterfeit phones very promptly. Thank You, **** ***** UserID: ******* ###-###-####

Business Response:

May 21, 2015

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns he 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 *******, ******* and *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract due to advertising discrepancies.

*** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for three (3) lots of items, including ******* ****** **** ** smartphones, purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 9th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was “grossly misrepresented” stating the phones were “Chinese fakes/ knock-offs/ Counterfeits”. *** ***** said that he had expected to receive authentic ******* ****** **** smartphones and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *****’ claim and concluded that the buyer would receive a full refund upon return delivery for all three transactions. The disputes team has issued UPSG labels to the buyer to return the merchandise. We have also informed *** ***** that the refund can take up to 10 business days to be credited back.

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

Regards,

Amanda O.

Compliance Associate

6/1/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a lot of 30 used designer purses from them on 04/28/15. The title to the auction was "Designer & Brand Bags *****, **** **, ****** & ******, ****** *****". I received 29 "*******" brand purses and 1 ***** bag. I felt like this was highly misrepresented so I filed a complaint on 05/06/15, which was the day I received it. On 05/11/15 they finally got back with me only to say upon their investigation there was no support to validate my claim. What investigation was there? This was the first time they contact me. They gave me a phone number to call which go to some telemarketing company. I realize this is a small amount of money but it's the principle. I don't want this "junk". I want my money back and they can have the purses.

Business Response:

May 21, 2015

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **** **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **** ***** 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 *******. **** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

**** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of thirty (30) items, including designer & brand bags, purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 4th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. **** ***** said that she had received “one (1) ***** bag and the other 29 were all low end brands, there were NO other high end brands”. She requested a partial refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **** *****’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, **** ***** received 30 bags in total and Liquidity Services cannot validate her claim based on her opinion of low end brands. Also, the dispute was denied as there was no support provided within the allotted time to support her claim.

We regret that **** ***** 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

Compliance Associate

6/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased an auction which contained some very high end women's fashion accessories. The pictures that accompanied the auction showed all of the product authenticity papers. The presence of those papers drove the auction price up. The MSRP was advertised at over $11000. We paid $1500. When we received the packages the authenticating papers for the most expensive piece was not with the packaging. The lose of that paper reduces the value of that piece by over $1000. We requested to return the whole unit or arrange a partial refund. Both were denied. We were told we had not provided proof the papers were missing. I spoke to customer service and asked how I was supposed to take a picture of something that wasn't there. They simply said, "sorry, I can't help you".

Desired Settlement: We are looking for a partial refund of $200 and for Liquidity Services to take responsibility for the sellers they represent.

Business Response:

May 21st, 2015

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** **** was the winning bidder of an auction for one (1) lot of items, including designer handbags & jewelry, purchased via Liquidation.com. On April 29th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing the authenticity card advertised by the seller in the auction listing. *** **** said that he had expected to receive the authenticity card for the Prada handbag, but that he had not received the authenticity card. He stated “this was the most expensive bag in the lot and one of the only reasons we were willing to bid that amount. We will lose approximately $700 due to the failure to pack ALL of the items we paid for”. He requested that the entire lot be returned at the seller’s expense, return only the Prada bag (at buyer’s expense) for $700 to be refunded to him, or we keep the bag and the seller issues a $500 refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ****’s claim and confirmed with the seller that the authenticity card was packed with the Prada bag and did not validate his claim that he was missing the card. The seller was able to provide sufficient support documentation to validate full shipment of all items due for this transaction, including authenticity card. The seller stated the claimed missing authenticity card was shipped inside the purse and there was no support documentation received to validate the need for a shipping claim concerning damage or tampering of the package(s) during the shipment process. The seller of this lot is a reputable and punctual client of Liquidation.com and we have no previous complaints for lack/loss of other authenticity cards.

We regret that *** **** 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

Compliance Associate

4/27/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint:

I purchased a lot from Liquidity Services Inc that was grossly misrepresented and contains items that arrived damaged. Very disappointed with this purchase. They refused to provide a refund. Below are some of the issues.

1. Damaged Items - Almost all the jewelry items are broken (pieces coming out). The parts of these items are broken. The packaging is very poor and this may have caused the items to break. This was not mentioned in the listing. Therefore, the auction was not properly listed.

2. No product labels - Most handbags don't even have a product or brand label. How can they have a retail price of over $100 when they don't even have a company label. Can you name one store that sells $159 handbag that doesn't even have a name tag to identify company name, material type, size, etc. I can check with a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that this will not be considered authenticate. See additional pictures attached of the handbags.

3. Improper information on auction listing - The manifest lists the retail price of $24,426.06 for the lot. This is clearly very inflated. Grossly inflated retail prices listed for most items. Can the seller prove any retail shop in the US that has sold the exact same items, like the $195 jewelry items for the actual retail price? These are cheap Chinese imported products that are not name brand and don't appear to be of the value that was listed. Therefore, the pricing in the manifest is very deceiving.

Another example of deceiving item description - 'Shiny Ladies Shoes' (60 pieces) that make up the bulk of the lot by weight - Why was the company name for these shoes not listed in the manifest, it is clearly there on the item box? Mixing a handful of name brands with majority of 'Junk' (based on condition and value) is truly improper. It is totally unfair for me to pay for stuff that is broken, used, inauthentic or improperly represented in the listing. I really like the liquidation.com service and have had mostly positive experience in the past transactions. I truly feel like a victim of fraud. I hope you guys will do the right thing and be fair to me and give me refund. Thank you.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund in the amount of $1,959.47. This is the amount that I paid.

Business Response: March 30th, 2015

Mr. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  Mr. ****** *******, ID# ********

Dear Mr. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. ****** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  Mr. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  Mr. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

Mr. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of handbags, jewelry and accessories purchased via Liquidation.com.  On October 30th, 2014 he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition listed and misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  Mr. ******* said that the items he received appeared to be fake imitations, non-branded, packed poorly, used, broken, no price tags, and no labels. He also stated the item descriptions were deceiving and the retail price listed was inflated.

Our disputes team reviewed Mr. *******’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim. The auction manifest clearly lists each of the items and the brand name if it is a branded item. The lot summary lists the condition of items as shelf pulls and states “this auction features” indicating that not all items are brand name. We did not state all items included in the lot were brand name items. Certificates of Authenticity pictures were posted for buyer assurance. Regarding packaging, the auction listing does not state items are in original packaging and the pictures provided by the buyer with his claim show shelf pull items in excellent condition, no sign of broken pieces or broken items. Buyers are responsible for performing due diligence before bidding on an auction by reviewing pictures, item manifest and lot summary.

Further, Mr. ******* 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, Mr. *******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that Mr. ******* 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****
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services, Inc

Business Response: April 24, 2015

Mr. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  Mr. ****** *******, ID# ********

Dear Mr. ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by Mr. ****** *******.  In his response, Mr. ******* states that he remains dissatisfied with the replies provided by our company to his initial complaint. 

Mr. ******* states that the Liquidation.com dispute team has ruled incorrectly in considering his claim and has provided photos to demonstrate his position.  He also says that “the listing did not indicate that this is a lot of inauthentic and damaged merchandise”. Finally, he stated that he understands the items have been exposed to customer contact but there is no mention of the word damage in the provided definition for shelf pulls merchandise.

Our dispute department has communicated with Mr. ******* regarding his denied dispute and re-opened the case upon his dissatisfaction. Our disputes department then escalated the case to the supervising agent for review. The supervising agent communicated to Mr. ******* that his support photos were received and indicated that the photos were representative of shelf pulls condition merchandise as listed on our website.

After our supervising agent’s response was sent to Mr. *******, he sent another letter stating that he was dissatisfied with our decision and requested that his case be escalated higher. Our disputes department explained to Mr. ******* that his case was already reopened and submitted for an escalation review whereby the final resolution was explained. Mr. ******* was also informed that the transaction had been closed as a result.

At this time, Mr. ******* has filed a chargeback dispute with Paypal and unfortunately a decision regarding the outcome of this transaction is now no longer being judged by Liquidity Services. Therefore, there is nothing more that we can do at this time.

We regret that Mr. ******* remains dissatisfied with our response, but we hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our disputes process and current position.

Regards,
Amanda O****
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

I do not wish to pay for damaged items.  It is unfair that a customer has to pay for damaged merchandise when no where in the item description this was stated.  Sufficient proof of damage was provided.  Liquidation.com did not dispute the validity of the damage when I reported the issue directly to them.  Therefore, I should be refunded the FULL amount that I paid.  Thank you.

Regards,

****** *******








4/24/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My first purchase with liquidation.com was a rather large purchase of which i am satisfied with however when i called in to purchase the item i had talked to the sales lady before hand and she assured me that if i did not have my tax exemption form ready before i make the purchase then liquidation.com would just refund the tax amount which is no big deal she said. I have called and talked to 5 different sales agents from liquidation.com handing in about three different times my tax exemption forms in an effort to be reimbursed for the large tax fee my company had to absorb. The problem is that it has been a few months and they still have yet to reimburse my tax fee all the while i am abiding by the law and withholding sales tax for every item i selling.

Desired Settlement: I would like to have my credit card refunded to my company for the tax amount that is owed to us in the amount of $433.44 Thank You

Business Response: April 10, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** **** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a refund for withheld taxes; however, his reseller certificate has since been applied to the transaction.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 464 mixed customer returns purchased via Liquidation.com.  He was pleased with his purchase; however, he did not receive a refund on his sales taxes paid on the transaction.  *** ****** said that he had been reassured by a Liquidation.com employee that his reseller certificate could be applied retroactively after it was filed since he had indicated his eligibility to the company.

After reviewing *** ******’s complaint and contacting the appropriate internal parties, we have decided to process a refund for the $433.44 tax payment to *** ******’s account.  Please allow time for the payment to be processed and entered into the account.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by *** ****** and appreciate his cooperation and patience in settling the matter in his favor.


Regards,
Cary *. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

4/17/2015 Problems with Product/Service
4/17/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had bid on a pallet of tools and the products were tools under the condition of returns. Which states "Returns:  Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing." No where here does it state an item would be visibly broken. Items that are listed as salvage condition clearly state "Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance, or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts. Which the item on the pallets are. Its a ********* m28 1/-2inch impact kit. The end is very obviously broken off. The manager at the cranbury location tels me thst they dont look inside but the marked the item condition under the manifest as "missing accesories" which it was missing a battery so in order to mark it as missing accesories they would have had to open it and in turn see the items co diotion was that of salvage not return as descriped in the product classification. Not another item which is a very expensive electromagnetic drill press was in the same condition and we were forced by management to take it all auctions state by "bidding on this auction, you acknowledge that you have read and understand the condition of this merchandise provided in the Asset Information Section of this listing." Which I understand as returns as cosmetic, functionality, color or packaging issues and salvage to be defective for reasons concerning functionality Which these items were. I also do not know how your management is trained to handle things as they avoid dealing with issues and walk away when questioned leave costumers with complaints to sit for houelrs waiting.

Desired Settlement: We would like our money refunded on the two broken items and request that your management learns your policies before jamming it down my throat that returns mean broken and not salvage. I would prefer to do this via phone or in person.

Business Response:
April 3, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ******* ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ****** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he was unhappy with the condition of his purchase; however, we have since awarded a partial refund.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of four (4) tools, including a drill and wrench kit, in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 26, a dispute was entered on his behalf with our Customer Relations Department for one broken item not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  When *** ****** arrived at our Cranbury, New Jersey warehouse on February 23rd to pick up his order, he noticed during his inspection that the end was broken off of the ********* M28 ½-inch cordless impact wrench kit.  He was told that he would have to take the lot regardless and enter the claim, that the bid he placed was a binding contract.  *** ****** said that the damaged wrench kit was Salvage condition and not Returns condition and requested a refund.  He also said that our personnel should have known the condition of the items since the manifest listed some detail regarding accessories, but that detail was provided by the seller.

Our disputes team reviewed the matter and authorized of a partial refund to *** ****** covering the one damaged item out of the lot of four (4).  On February 26, a partial refund of $108.00 was processed to *** ******’s account.

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

Regards,
Cary *. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

4/13/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Sir, or Ma'am, Good Morning, I am writing in regards to a dispute of the sale listed. Event ID: ***** Lot Number: *** I had been watching a Safe that was listed. The Lot was listed to open 21 and close the 22nd of January. I had bid at the last 20 or so minutes of the auction to try and win it. I was notified the next day of me being outbid. Which is listed on the second email. I called the service line and spoke directly to an phone receptionist Michael. He informed me that there was nothing he could do and refused me to speak with a supervisor. He insisted that I send him the email first before he would let me speak with one. This went on for a little more than an hour. Finally he said I will get one and then 30 minutes later he answered the phone and said he couldn't find his supervisor she had left for the day. I said then find me her supervisor and let me speak with them. I recanted his statement and said She came back in. and forwarded me to Jacinta. I explained the circumstances again and she informed me the same as he had that they had the right to extend the auction as they felt. She informed me that no auctions in their care were listed less than three days. I replied that the item listed was a two day auction and I had seen many auctions relisted and continued on auction past their auction dates. I asked where in the company's policy did this action be allowed to proceed? She said she wouldn't send that information to me unless I sent her the two emails that attached here. The links that are listed in them were active now the first link is a dead link which had the actual close date of 22 on it. I have no reason to waste my time on this auction item if the advertisement was true to what was said. At no time in my initializing for this account did it list that auctions could be subject to extensions if necessary. I asked to speak with her supervisor after we had this lengthy non productive discussion for another hour. She refused. I informed her I would send the information I had and report it as well. Bid Confirmation:21JAN15 Dear *****, This email has been sent in confirmation of your bid for the following lot: Event ID: ***** Lot Number: *** Bid Amount: $507.00 If you have questions about this or any other transactions, please contact our Customer Service Representatives at the phone number listed below. Or you can monitor the status of all your transactions online through the Account Manager Tool at ************************************************. Thank you for using govliquidation.com. Sincerely, Government Liquidation, LLC Info@govliquidation.com http://www.govliquidation.com ************ Direct/International ************ Fax bid_confirmation.tmpl$Revision$ Bid Confirmation 23JAN15 Dear *****, We thought you might want to know that your bid of 507.00, placed on 01/22/2015 05:39PM, was outbid. Event ID: ***** Lot Number: *** This lot is still open and you still have a chance to purchase this merchandise! You can increase your bid by directing your browser to the following URL: http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/*************** We have other similar items in our inventory. Click link below to view! http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/************************************** *************** If you have any questions regarding this or any other lots, please contact one of our customer service representatives via email at info@govliquidation.com or by phone at ###-###-####. Thank you for using Government Liquidation. Sincerely, Government Liquidation ###-###-#### fax ###-###-#### info@govliquidation.com *********************

Desired Settlement: I demand a document of why this auction was extended and document of where in the policy this is allowed and what the circumstances are supporting this decision. I ask why Michael would refuse and lie to me about his supervisor on being allowed to speak with her. I ask why Jacinta would not allow me to speak to her supervisor for assistance in this matter. I ask why Jacinta would not send me the paper work on why the auction was extended. And lied to me on auctions only being three days on every initial start. I want to know why I being the winner of the auction was fraudulently mislead.

Business Response:

April 1, 2015

Dear *** ******,
We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with ***** ********’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 bids. Our records indicate that ***** ******** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and when *** ******** placed a bid on Government Liquidation’s website.

*** ******** bid on Lot *** from Event *****, a safe. The event opened on January 21, 2015 and closed on January 23, 2015. *** ******** placed a bid amount of $507.00 on January 22" at 5:39 p.m. (Eastern Time). The high bidder placed a bid amount of $829.00 and was awarded the property on January 23rd at 5:05 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 occurred. Nevertheless, all auction participants must determine the details of the auction and participate accordingly, Section 6 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 time. We will not be responsible for notifying any buyer of a change in any Listing. The buyer bears the sole risk of transmitting bids so that such bids are received prior to close of the Online Auction. We will not accept a bid that is received after an Online Auction is closed.

However, as previously mentioned, the auction in which *** ******** placed a bid did not have any changes.

Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to further accommodate ***** ********’s request.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.

Regards,

Cary H. 

Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

4/7/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I placed a bid on a lot of wholesale metal and rhinestone bracelets. I paid in full and the bracelets arrived. None of the bracelets were anything like the bracelets pictured. All bracelets were either beaded or plastic. I disputed the auction with the company. The company denied my dispute and stated that the bracelets were close enough to the description. I then disputed the claim with my payment company. I was advised that if I were to do so, I would never be able to use that form of payment again. I did so and PayPal found in my favor and refunded my money. I shipped the bracelets back to the company. After this, this company has cancelled my account and refused to allow me to use their wholesales services by declining my request for an additional account. I had 10 + other previous successful transactions. I am dissatisfied with this outcome and feel their actions are punitive.

Desired Settlement: This matter should be reviewed by upper management. I don't think it was handled properly because my claim wasn't given any consideration. I had multiple other successful transactions. This was not taken into consideration either. I would like my account reinstated and the ability to partake in other auctions.

Business Response: March 26, 2015

*** ***** ****** ****** ******** ****** **** * ******* *** **** ***** *********** **  ********** ***  *** ******** ******* *** ******** **** *** *******

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 200 new bracelets, including bangles, cuffs, and more purchased via Liquidation.com.  On August 15 2014, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  *** ****** said that she “only received one item that was remotely similar to the photos. All others are cheap beaded bracelets and plastic bangles. The photos show beautiful metal and rhinestone bangles, cuffs, and bracelets”.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’* claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that the lot was misrepresented.  The auction manifest clearly states “styles include bangle, cuff and more, assorted colors and sizes, you will receive units similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, her claim was denied. 

Further, *** ****** 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, *** ******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that *** ****** 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****
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services, Inc

4/7/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchase and received 2 boxes of clothing items from this company. I found 2 items in one box that had mold on them, and smelled strongly of mold. I found 2 items in the second box that had mold and mold odor. Due to the items that had mold on them the entire boxes had mold odor ruining the other clothes items. These items where for resale, none of these items can be sold with mold or mold odor on them. When I contacted the company I included pictures of the effected items and asked for a return and refund. This is the reply I received from them; After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: Dispute Denied: The 3 units in claim are covered under the quantity variance of the auction listing. Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund including shipping for all the items.

Business Response: April 3, 2015
*** ***** ****** ****** ******** ****** **** * ******* *** **** ***** *********** **  ********** ***  *** ******* ******* *** ******** **** *** *******

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ****** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because her dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in her favor.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 160 women’s sports bras in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On January 28, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  *** ****** said that she received two boxes of bras and that each box contained at least one moldy bra which then gave a moldy odor to the rest of the merchandise in each box.  She entered a claim for three (3) moldy bras and said that she could not sell the others either.  She requested a full refund for her purchase.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the three (3) bras in the claim were less than the 3 percent Quantity Variance advertised in the auction for this lot.  The 3 percent Quantity Variance allows for up to 4 of the 160 items to be missing or not in the expected condition.  Then the buyer asked for further consideration, indicating that mold spores on the remaining bras meant that they could not be legally resold.  A reopen dispute claim was created, and upon further review, a full refund was granted upon return of the merchandise to the seller.

The refund was unable to be processed, however, because *** ****** had already filed a chargeback claim before our reopen dispute had concluded.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, *** ******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. 

The merchandise was returned and a full refund was confirmed on April 1.

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

Regards,
Cary C. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

******* ******

4/7/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I won a wholesale box of cell phone cases and paid and trying to have it picked up but ive called emailed and tried to chat no response

Desired Settlement: I want you to pay my shipping this has been a bad experience i hope not to have another one like this

Business Response: April 3, 2015

*** ***** ****** ****** ******** ****** **** * ******* *** **** ***** *********** **  ********** ***  *** ******* ******** *** ******** **** *** *******

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because he was unable to receive the items he purchased.

*** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 80 cell phone cases in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  He was unable to arrange for pickup of the items from our ********* *** ****** warehouse despite multiple attempts to contact our customer service personnel.

The transaction detail shows that pickup instructions were sent via e-mail to *** ******* on January 9.  No response from *** ******* is indicated.  Then on January 27, a notice was sent via e-mail to *** ******* requesting him to schedule pickup of his purchase within 24 hours or the transaction would be canceled.  Finally, the transaction was canceled on January 30 and *** ******* was refunded in full.

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


Regards,
Cary C. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

******* *******

4/6/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: They advertise a auction with Womens Plus Size Jeans Lucky, Levi's, Charter Club, Style & Co. The majority of the jeans were Style & Co (should of been listed 1st not last then) The auction stated 28 jeans and I only got 22. the high end ones are missing (lucky - levi - etc)

Desired Settlement: I have no need for ONLY style & Co jeans

Business Response: April 3, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
**** * ******* *** **** ***** *********** **  **********
RE:  *** ***** ******* ID# ********

Dear *** *******

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ****** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she became impatient with the dispute process; however, the matter has since been resolved in her favor.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 28 women’s plus-size jeans from Lucky, Levis, Charter Club and Style & Co. in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On January 12, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** ****** said that she only received 22 of 28 pairs of jeans.  She also complained that nearly all of the jeans were Style & Co. brand instead of a more mixed distribution.  Also, she mentioned that the box may have been opened/disturbed in transit.  She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Due to *** ******** statements regarding the potentially disturbed packaging, a shipping claim was filed with *** on her behalf on January 19.  Our disputes team reviewed *** ******** claim and concluded that a partial refund for the six (6) pairs of missing jeans would be appropriate due to the shipping claim.  The refund was unable to be processed, however, because *** ****** had already filed a chargeback claim.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, *** ******** Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

Our disputes team completed its full review of the claim and determined that a full refund would be awarded to *** ****** upon return of the merchandise to the seller.  Return shipping labels were provided and the return was confirmed.

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

Regards,
Cary C. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


THEY did NOTHING to resolve this matter.  I had to take matters into my own hand and contact my credit card co to handle this for me.  liquidation.com is a scam co that did NOT mix up the jeans and shorted me, instead did a bait and switch.  They should be dealt with so other consumers are not frauded out of their money as I ALMOST was.


F- to this company.

Regards,

***** ******







4/4/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have purchase a lot of 250 units of bracelets with mentioned condition as NEW on Liquidation.com, transaction *******, Auction ID ******* Following is the description of Item they have placed on the portal Item condition: New 250 Units of Assort Women Fashion Bracelets - Retail Ready This lot include the assort fashion bracelets. These individual fashion bracelets retail value from $9.99 - $49.99 The photos are just some if the item we might have in this lot. This is a MIX Lot of Bracelets. Items Included: 250 Unit of Assort style Mix of Bracelets Many Styles, Great For Resale. They have placed the photographs showing some of charm bracelets and others in the items and they are really have retail value above $10, you can access the photos at http://www.liquidation.com/****************************** The consignment I received, it does not have any item shown in the photos, It has more than 15% Units either broken or not in the condition to use, and all unit are of inferior quality and retail value, As I file dispute, they have restrict my all access to their system. Now I cannot see the transaction detail, invoice or product related any history. They force me to drop/ cancel the dispute filed and than only they will resume my access to my transactions. They have not taken any action against Seller, Seller is still active and selling the goods on their portal. I have communication with them and they are in denial mode, no refund, no replacement, nothing. On the contrary I received the mail that my dispute is disallowed and they are releasing the payment to the seller. Pl. do help, They don’t have any buyer protection concern, I can provide photos of actual units as and when ask by You, Thanks, ******

Business Response: March 23, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ****** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 250 assorted women’s fashion bracelets purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 10, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that 45 of the 250 units were not included in the shipment.  He also said that although the bracelets were advertised with values between $9.99 and $49.99 he discovered that the manufacturer’s brand had no product in the higher price range.  Additionally, *** ******* believed the value of the bracelets to be less than $1.00 each.  He provided photos in support of his claim.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *******’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the photo evidence was insufficient to support the claim.  The disputes team requested additional information and photos since the photos received did not cover the entire claim but only a single item.  However, the request for more support was ignored, and the claim was denied.  When *** ******* expressed his displeasure with the decision, he was told that he could submit a reopen claim request along with more robust support.  No reopen request was filed.  Without the cooperation of *** *******, the claim remained denied.

We regret that *** ******* 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 Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc..

4/4/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The online auction site sells computers/laptops and parts beside other products . They use same statement for all laptop auction, which says "25 (apprx) Laptop Computers including but not limited to ****, *******, ***, ******, ******, and **. Units are tested to power up to the system BIOS and may not be otherwise complete. Hard Drives have been removed, and caddies and batteries may be missing. Power cords are not included. Mfg/Model listing spreadsheet is attached. Pictures are a representation of the lot. Items are located in Tucson, AZ at a commercial warehouse. Items are boxed and packing and shipping is buyer s responsibility. Buyer will have 10 business days for removal once invoice is paid. Mutilation is not required as condition of sale. (1) plt apprx (1) box." Reading this statement, one can conclude that the laptops are fully functioning and boot to bios. I purchased five lots, half of them turned out to be non functional. Beside the above mentioned missing part (hard disk drive, battery, caddie, charger", they were also found to be missing "processor, memory, speaker, and wifi". Those laptops with missing processor/memory etc had deep scratches to extent that they can not be salvaged. A laptop that is missing processor and ram can not be described as "it turns on" "or it boots to bios". A laptop that is stripped down to just keyboard and screen is not laptop anymore. I raised the same to the site claim team, but there response was "All auctions are As-Is, it says in the fine print of auction detail". If you read auction statement, then the lot I got doesnt match the description.

Desired Settlement: Two lots out of five are the bad one's. I asked for refund for those two lots.

Business Response: April 3, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ***** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

We have been unable to recover any transaction records relating to the complaint filed by *** ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  There are five (5) usernames with the last name ******* registered on Liquidation.com and none of them have a single transaction completed.  In order to respond to the complaint, we will need to retrieve additional information from *** *******.

Please ask **. ******* to provide the name of the website where she made her purchase, and any of the following that she can include:  her registered Username, the Transaction ID number, the Auction ID number, the date of the transactions, etc.

After we have the information we need to proceed, we would be happy to respond to *** *******’s complaint.  Thank you.

Regards,
Cary *. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response:

Hi,
Here is the complete information about the site, my customer number, and sale number. Also note that I opened case with that company. They recently informed me that since I asked my credit card company to get me the refund for disputed amount, they will close my account. Most probably the reason they cant find my record is because they have deleted my account. 

http://www.govliquidation.com/

CUSTOMER NUMBER: ********
COMPANY NAME:  Digitware system
SALE NUMBER:   ****
case number: ********
INVOICE NUMBER:   ******


4/3/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bid for 20 cameras from the seller(Liquidity Services Inc.). Upon receiving them, I realized they were very old fashion and the market value they quoted in the manifest was extremely below the current Value of the item, and some of the cameras were missing some essential accessories. The seller also refused to disclose the The model of the cameras. The winning bid was $791.00 Shipping & Logistics $40.25 Buyer's Premium $39.55 Grand Total $870.80 The list below are the item and how the seller presented it to potential buyers. Retail Price Quantity Description $2000 1 ***** PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL CAMERA IINCLUDING BODY,LENS 18-55MM CHARGER AND ORIGINALBOX $1700 1 **** PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING BODY,BATTERY,CHARGER AND ORIGINAL BOX 1200 1 **** 20.1MP HD 35X ZOOM INCLUDING CAMERA ,BATTERIES ,USB AND ORIGINALBOX 899 1 ******* 14.0MP HD 3D 18X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ONLY 799 1 GE 14.4MP HD 26X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ONLY 699 1 ***** 14.1JD DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ,BATTERY.CHARGER 599 1 **** 14.0MP HD 10X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ,BATTERY,CHARGER,STRAP AND ORIGINAL BOX 599 1 **** 14.1MP HD DIGITAL CAMERAQ INCLUDING CAMERA ,BATTERY,CHARGER AND USB 499 1 **** 16MP HD 12X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA,BATTERY,CHARGER,AND ORIGINAL BOX 599 1 ********* 12.0MP HD 10X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ONLY 699 1 ***** 7.1MP HD 12X ZOOM 599 1 ******* 16MP HD 12.5X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA,BATTERY,CHARGER 499 1 ******* 7.2MP DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA TV CABLE MANUAL AND ORIGINAL BOX 599 1 ***** 6.1MP 10X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERAUSB,TV CABLE AND ORIGINAL BOX 499 1 ******* 6.0MP 3X ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA ,USB,STRAP AND ORIGINAL BOX 219 1 **** 14.0MP DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA,STRAP AND USB 199 1 ******* DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA STRAP AND USB 199 1 ******* DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA USB AND STRAP 199 1 ******* DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA STRAP AND USB 199 1 ******* DIGITAL CAMERA INCLUDING CAMERA STRAP USB

Desired Settlement: The business must disclose the details of all products offered for sale. I want my money refunded to me.

Business Response: March 20, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ******* *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she is unhappy with the quality of her merchandise.

*** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 refurbished digital cameras and accessories purchased via Liquidation.com.  She is displeased with the condition of some of the lot and disagrees with the values advertised by the seller.  However, *** ******* did not file a dispute on the transaction within the 48-hour inspection period following delivery of the merchandise.  She has requested replacement items in her complaint letter to the Better Business Bureau.

The funds for this transaction were released to the seller after the 48-hour window passed with no dispute filing received.  The Terms and Conditions for purchases are clear that the inspection period for dispute claims is 48 hours.  Since the funds had been released to the seller, they could not be recovered even if the dispute filing was allowed outside the window.  As a neutral arbiter, it would also be unfair to ignore the Terms and Conditions to favor one party’s claim over another.

We regret that *** ******* 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 Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

4/3/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: It appears we are missing many items from out auction lot manifest.On a closer inspection of our order it appears that we are far short of certain items from the manifest. It is true that I did sign for the 13 pallets at the warehouse, and that I did so on "good faith" and did not take the time to break down 13 pallets and inventory "500 items" at the warehouse.I am beginning to think we really got cheated on our order! On closer inspection of our order, we are short many shelving units, and other items listed in the manifest.After taking a more thorough inventory of the shelve units specifically, we have found missing inventory in the amount (just shelves I am speaking of) in amount of $4,132.86 (31 shelving units missing) from our lot. In addition we are missing a large trash can Toter 96 gal $121.61 missing. We only got 1 of 2 of those. Also, we are missing "colonial wood burning outdoor fireplace 258300 valued at $150.15.This list is not exhaustive, but does list the items of larger value, and those we have noted thus far - day 2 of our possession of the lot.

Desired Settlement: We would like the items sold to us in the manifest.

Business Response: *** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** **** ********, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ******** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.

*** ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for 13 pallets of Home Depot seasonal product in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 1, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that once the pallets were opened that they were missing shelving valued over $4,000 and that many other items that had been listed on the manifest accompanying the auction listing were absent.  Also, some of the items that were included seemed to be Salvage condition rather than Returns condition.  *** ******** indicated that 37 items were missing from among the 500 items in the sale and that many of those were higher value items.  He requested a replacement of the items missing from the manifest.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and initially denied it because *** ******** had taken possession of the items from our Las Vegas warehouse and signed a materials release form approving the sale.  As detailed in the pickup confirmation/instructions sent to *** ********, by signing the materials release form *** ******** waived his right to a dispute on the transaction after removal of the property from the warehouse.  This is company policy because we cannot fairly evaluate the condition of a lot after it leaves our possession, as items could be damaged or removed in transit.

When *** ******** filed his dispute, he was properly denied by sound company policy; however, given the logistical difficulties of inspecting such a large load (13 pallets) on site, the buyer was encouraged to file a reopen request for a re-examination of his claim.  It was then determined that a partial refund of 25% of his purchase price would be issued.  A partial refund of $553.14 was processed to *** ******** on January 16.

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


Regards,
Cary *. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

3/31/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On January 27, 2015 I won auction I.D. #*******, Transaction I.D. # ******* on Liquidation.com which stated that certain handbags would be included. The exact language is "highlights include COACH ****** * ****** SIGNATURE ****** ***** **** ** *** ***** *** **** * ** ***** * **** ************* ***** ******** ****** by ****** ****** (This was copied and pasted directly from Liquidation's website into this form.) However, these brand were not in the lot when it arrived: ****** * ******, ****** *****, **** **, *** ***** ***, Emile M., Hobo International, and ******. I filed a dispute which was denied for the following reason: “Dispute denied: Auction is properly listed. The auction clearly states you are to receive more than the listed brands, but does not specify what the additional brands are. Also, the photos you provided show many of the items pictured at auction.” I sent an email stating my disagreement with the decision and also sent a letter to the Liquidation.com headquarters in Washington, DC dated February 20, 2015 which stated, "The fact that I received brands that were not advertised in the lot is irrelevant. The brands that the seller said would be included were not included." I have yet to hear back regarding my letter. I have wasted a lot of time fighting this and I would now like a full refund.

Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund of $231.20 which includes the cost of the lot, shipping, and the buyer's premium.

Business Response: March 20th, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ****** *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ***** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ***** 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. *** ***** stated there were 30 purses in the lot; however, these brands were not in the lot. *** ***** submitted pictures to support her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *****’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she was missing items. The auction manifest clearly states “Designer and Brand bags, Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, ****** *****: A collection of Classic and durable designer & Brand handbags. 30 bags total in lot, highlights include: Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, ****** *****, **** **, *** ***** ***, **** * **** ***** ** **** ************** ***** ********* ****** by ****** ******. 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, *** ***** 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, *** *****’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that *** ***** 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 Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

3/24/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bid on a auction that was misleading. it gave a product manifest that listed 13 items, UPC codes and retail prices. The auction was valued at over $2,000 for the 13 items. After looking / calling and verifying all 13 UPC codes, not one of the items we're valued at the specific price that the auction, manifest described. The pricing was inflated almost doubled, of today's prices. I tried contacting the auction, was hung up on. Emails sent, never replied back from auction. I tried to cancel my bid on auction, was denied and unable to end auction. I still have not received any reply to any email I sent or when calling. Only a email instructing me to pay.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be released from my obligation to pay winning bid auction amount, due to misrepresentation of auction goods / pricing listed. * it did not state suggested retail, it clearly showed pricing for each of the 13 items. Which is not true prices. Not 1 of the 13 items, have been correctly / truthfully priced. I want to be released from my obligation to pay for this auction. Due to misleading item pricing listed in the auction.

Business Response: March 23, 2015

Mr. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  Mr. ***** *******, ID# ********

Dear Mr. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  Mr. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  Mr. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.

Mr. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 13 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. ******* 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 service.
 
As described in the User Agreement that Mr. ******* 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. ******* 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. ******* was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.


Regards,
Cary C. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

 

The company removed my responsibility of paying for this auction, no money owed. HOWEVER, I feel that not only did, does and is... this company aware of the business pratices, auctions misleadings, sellers mislead with ads. I will NOT ever use the business again for these reasons, the sellers are allowed to mislead customers, advertise auctions in a way that is not truthful. For these reasons alone, I will not do business with this website / company. They claim to have no knowledge of wrong doings? It is there website, auction, customers, sellers, advertisers. It is the job / responsibility of the company / business to know what their sellers / advertisers are doing on thier website / business. I understand I should of done MY homework before bidding, I understand that part. But I was mislead into believing the sellers description of items we're factual prices. Which I discovered were false, false advertising, inflated pricing and numerous other ads also reflected this practice. I tried contacting customer service, no reply, finally called, was hung up on. Last attempt was contacting BBB and only then... then did the company / business respond back to me. Explaining how they were sorry, that the final bid, the bid I won... would be reversed / cancelled. I would owe no money. It litterally took the BBB responding to this company to get a reply / action started to releave me of this obligation. DUE to misleading advertising. So don't try to again, mislead others in your reply to this. YOUR company allowed / allows sellers to mislead people in their advertising / ads. The truth is you were going to charge me for a auction that was INFLATED PRICING to lure me as many other customers also have been taken advantage of. YOU allow sellers to place misleading ads, then you go after the bidders / buyers if they don't pay, only because they have discovered the false / misleading ad. You ignore customer complaints, refuse to show FEEDBACK or customer complaints, because your company is shady! Truth is, you would of charged my credit card, had I not reported this to my bank and the BBB. Had I not repoerted your company to the BBB. Had I not stood up to you and your business practices, I would of been taken advantage of. I fought back, I even tried to resolve this between your business and myself. So don't paint a pretty picture, your company is just what I stated, SHADY!

Page after page of complaints online reflect this about your company, numerous complaints. AND now myself included, your company should be sued and shut down. Your not capable of running a straight up legit business. I can only reflect my personal experience. And that is as mentioned above, no respectable business would ignore, hang up or not even repsond in a email until days after the problem. Or after the BBB goes after you to resolve a problem. SAD... glad I'm aware now of your business practices. I will NOT ever click on your website again. Do the right thing, screen your sellers, proof read their ads, lay blame on the people responsible... but your company is right along side of this. Almost all your auction ads show ballon inflated prices. Causing customers to think, they are getting a great deal. *( Mind you, for most items advertised as returns / broken, etc. NOT NEW ) I could buy every item - that was advertised in the auction I was bidding on and won, at cheaper prices NEW from the store. Brand new and cheaper... YES, yes, i failed to look / search first. But once I found out that the seller mislead me, advertised false pricing, I was extremely upset, called, emailed and recieved no response about this... BAD BUSINESS practices... BAD


Regards,

***** *******








3/11/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We have been purchasing from this company for some time, it turns out that the buyers have no guaranty for the products being bought, if a seller lists an item as returned goods even the items are defective or salvage there is no way to get refunded, basically the seller and Liquidity services are guaranteed with their money but the buyers are in great risk to loss on this, there has to be some option that if a seller receives goods in a matter other then what the seller listed it to get a fair review and hearing, not just say your dispute is declined based on what the seller writes or says, a lot of these goods do not even get inspected by the auction site Basically this service is pro seller and the auctioneer In my case i have 2 purchases that are salvaged goods but sold as returned goods and i have a total loss on this, and the company refuses to refund me i would like my $$$ back please

Desired Settlement: Refund me and deduct from seller and i send back the goods

Business Response: January 6, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** **** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ****** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******.  *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.

Regarding transaction ID *******, *** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 180 urbeats and powerbeats headphones in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On November 27, he filed a dispute with our Customer Service Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  He also said that he was missing 20 items of merchandise.  Of the items he received, *** ****** said that none of them were sent in their original packaging and that most of them had torn wires.  *** ****** provided photo support for his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the items had been properly represented as Returns by the seller.  The units were noted as “Untested” in the auction listing, indicating that they had not been inspected for operation.  These headphones were simply customer returns.  Further, Returns merchandise is allowed to be sent without original packaging as referenced in the below definition of Returns that was available on the auction listing (bold emphasis):

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

Regarding transaction ID *******, *** ****** won a Liquidation.com auction for a lot of 16 external hard drives in Returns condition.  On December 1, he filed a claim with our Customer Service Department asserting that his merchandise had been grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing and was not in the condition advertised.  He said that the photos in the auction did not show the actual items sent and that the items received were used, salvaged, and dirty.  *** ****** provided photo support for his claim. 

Our disputes team also denied *** ******’s claim on this transaction.  The merchandise described fell within the broad parameters for condition of customer returns merchandise.  As companies are less restrictive with customer returns, they can exhibit a measurable degree of abuse in some cases.  This merchandise lot appears to have rested closer to the lower end of the range than the higher end of the range; however, the items were still properly identified.  The photos provided for the auction were illustrative of the brand and type of merchandise offered.

We regret that *** ****** 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****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc. 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because: there is a difference between untested to salvage, untested means some should be working or not in great shape, to receive all not working or broken units is not called returned, seller used this so they can get away with disputes, buyers are not protected in this business, better protection for buyers has to be in place 


Regards,

**** ******








2/5/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Failed to return sales tax on 5 different purchases.

Desired Settlement: Refund of sales tax on five separate transaction. There Reseller Certificate is completed.

Business Response: January 7, 2015

Mr. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  Ms. ***** **** *******, ID# ********

Dear Mr. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Ms. ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau.  Ms. ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******** ******** ******** ******* *** *******.  Ms. ******* believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.

Ms. ******* 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. ******* had previously provided her resale certificate to Liquidation.com.  Therefore, she believes that she is owed $60.26 among the five transactions for sales taxes.

However, the resale certificate that Ms. ******* 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. *******.

When our customer service personnel attempted to discuss the matter with her and provide instructions for fixing the problem, Ms. ******* 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. *******’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. ******* was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.


Regards,
Cary C. H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


Liquidation.com never notifyed me of erorr in completing there re-sale certificate.  I called Liquidation.com  approximately two weeks after sales were completed and was informed of errors.  I immediately made corrections and faxed over to Liquidity Services.  Liquidation.Com still refused to refund my sales tax  because I have pissed them off and they don't want to process my refund and stated two spaces were put in my user name that don't belong there.  At this point I became demanding of my refund their customer service representative  hung up the phone on me. Being demanding or loud and argumentative as Mr. ***** ****** referred too, however, Mr. ****** did not directly speak to me at anytime.   Getting angry at a customer, because you don't like their voice level or tone Is no legal reason to keep a customer sales taxes that does not legally belong to you.   Having possession of any item  you do not have  legal right too is theft.  

"Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, Ms. *******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated."


 I only filed charge backs for the sales taxes that is legally owed to me.    I have a legal rights to the merchandise because I paid for the merchandise.  


Having a policy stating I cannot file a claim (chargebacks) about your company because customer has possession of merchandise without paying for it.  As, of the date and time of this letter, I have not received or been notified of  any refunds for merchandise or sales taxes. 

How could I have merchandise without paying for it and Liquidation.com has my sales tax?

My account was deactivated because Liquidtion.com is angry about my complaints to BBB, ****** and The Federal Trade Commision reqarding their business policies and practices.  



Regards,

***** *******








2/5/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My company registered with Liquidation and sale used computers. We sold a computer for $650.00. The commission was supposed to be 10% Which is $65.00. Instead, they took $200 from my account. I complained to the Marlon L***** who is my account manager. He told me they made a mistake and that he will correct the mistake on the 18th of September 2014 and I will receive my balance. A week later, i contacted Marlon L***** and he told me that He submitted the mistake to the financial dept. but doesn't know why it was not processed. My other item was sold but I told him I cannot ship this item until I get a proper refund from the previous sale. I contacted them today October 3rd, but the person I spoke to who did not give me his name told me that Marlon L***** is no longer with them and that my account was canceled and he's not sure if I have any balance left and cannot discuss the reason why. I realized it would be very difficult for me to get my money back from this company without a third party involvement. I just need my $135.00 back from this shading company. Liquidation user name is: bargain-computers115 company name is Bargain Computers Phone: ###-###-#### I do not have the transaction ID because my account was canceled and I have no access to the information

Desired Settlement: My desire outcome would be a refund of my $135.00

Business Response:

October 15, 2014

 

Mr. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: Mr. ****** *******, ID# ********

 

Dear Mr. Dennis,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. ****** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. Mr. ******* described concerns he had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid him for a completed auction; however, the issue has since been resolved with the proper payment.

 

On September 2, Mr. ******* sold an auction for a refurbished ******* laptop computer on Liquidation.com. He said that Liquidity Services miscalculated the commission that they collect, charging him $200.00 (the canceled auction default penalty) instead of the standard 10 percent fee, $65 in this instance. Mr. ******* contacted his account manager to correct the problem and a request for a correction was submitted. However, over a week later the matter was still not resolved and Mr. ******* found that his account manager was no longer with Liquidity Services. Therefore, Mr. ******* became concerned that no one would follow up on his request for the $135.00 he was owed.

 

On September 19, a credit of $135.00, the difference between the error amount ($200.00) and the correct commission ($65.00) was processed to Mr. *******’s account.

 

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by Mr. ******* and appreciate his cooperation in settling this matter. We consider the matter closed with the $135.00 payment.

 

Regards,

Cary C. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: Spoke with Mr. *******, he said that he has not received his check. 

2/5/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Excerpt From Final Email Sent on Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM: "We just received the ********** after the second warranty service and nothing has been done to it, no repairs at all and I am at a loss of how this could be the case for a second time. Before the first warranty service the ********** was in pristine shape without a scratch and worked fine except for unexpectedly shutting down sometimes which is why is was sent back for the first warranty repair service. But after receiving the computer after the first warranty service where it was carelessly packed by Warranty Support without padding it had a lot of cosmetic damage and would not turn on at all. Now I just received the ********** after a second warranty service and again it was shipped from Warranty Support and was still carelessly packed and it still does not turn on, the screen has blotches over it worse than after receiving it from the first warranty service and it now has even more scratches and cosmetic damage. Throughout this whole process I have been extremely proactive in following up and wanting to know what exactly was wrong with the ********** from the first warranty service through this second warranty service and I have not been informed what was wrong and what repairs have been done to fix the **********. It seems almost cavalier the way this warranty support is being handled with a blatant disregard for doing what is right under warranty from the first warranty service through this second warranty service and I am at a loss on how best to work through this with Warranty Support. To this end, I am also sending this email to the Liquidity Services, Inc Management Team which I hope will successfully elevate this issue where I am also attaching previous attachments as well as the pictures I just took to again illustrate this problem. Can someone who wants to successfully work through this issue with me please contact me at your earliest convenience so that this issue can be made right or else I will be lodging a complaint with the California, Attorney General, Better Business Bureau, Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection, 7 On Your Side, Liquidity Services, Inc Board of Directors, and other resources including social media to assist me in correcting this issue."

Desired Settlement: Replacement of ********** per excerpted final email sent on Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM: "Before the first warranty service the ********** was in pristine shape without a scratch and worked fine except for unexpectedly shutting down sometimes which is why is was sent back for the first warranty repair service. But after receiving the computer after the first warranty service where it was carelessly packed by Warranty Support without padding it had a lot of cosmetic damage and would not turn on at all. Now I just received the ********** after a second warranty service and again it was shipped from Warranty Support and was still carelessly packed and it still does not turn on, the screen has blotches over it worse than after receiving it from the first warranty service and it now has even more scratches and cosmetic damage."

Business Response:

August 27, 2014

 

Mr. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: Mr. **** *******, ID# ********

 

Dear Mr. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. **** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. Mr. ******* described concerns he had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his ********** laptop computer. Mr. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.

 

Mr. ******* purchased a ********** laptop computer on December 10, 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On March 4, he started a warranty claim because his computer was unexpectedly shutting down occasionally. Otherwise the laptop was in good condition and fine working order. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on March 26. However, the laptop was improperly packed which caused cosmetic damage and likely contributed to the new problem where the laptop would not power on. Mr. ******* then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on June 21. The computer was then sent back to Mr. ******* from the repair facility on July 2. Unfortunately, the computer once again packed improperly and showed further cosmetic damage and now had physical blotches on the screen. Further, there appeared to be no repairs done to the laptop from its most recent service period. In sum, the laptop computer returned each time in worse condition than it had been previously due to the carelessness of the warranty personnel.

 

We regret that Mr. ******* had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. Our role is to facilitate the delivery of units under warranty to the repair intake facility, but Liquidity Services does not have direct possession of them afterward. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution. We apologize for the delay.

 

 

Regards,

Cary C. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

According to the Liquidity Services, Inc. Corporate Paralegal Business Response they are taking complete responsibility for breaking the ********** and for not performing any warranty service too, but what are they doing to make this right for the customer's loss of $139.73 for the ********** Liquidity Services, Inc. broke.

In effect Liquidity Services, Inc. is saying we broke it and did not fix it and that is all we are going to do and the customer is out $139.73 due to Liquidity Services, Inc. negligence, but Liquidity Services, Inc. thinks that is fine since Liquidity Services, Inc. admitted to the negligence which is not right and does nothing for the customer.

Liquidity Services, Inc. is responsible for making this complaint right and for a second time I am requesting a complete refund of $139.73 for the purchase price of this ********** since again Liquidity Services, Inc. not only broke the **********, but Liquidity Services, Inc. are in Breach of Warranty Contract for not doing any warranty service too.

Regards,

John

1/31/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased 1 lot (20 pallets ) of 768 pcs desktop computers (tested to **** working) from *** ******** *** (thru their website Govliquidation.com). They sent me wrong pallets and wrong computers. Computers that I received did not match with serial numbers on the computer list they provided on an excel file with the auction. They accepted return and sent me a full refund check (that I didnt receive it yet). I paid 600 USD to have these shipped from their Arizona location to Paramount CA. I requested a reimbursement for shipping fee I paid since they sent me wrong lot and accepted return for refund. I sent tons of emails they finally agreed to reimburse only 200 USD.

Desired Settlement: I need my full refund including shipping fees I paid for this returned lot. It was their mistake to ship wrong lot and they are responsible for all my costs associated with this transaction. I want refund of purchase: 30910 USD I want refund of shipping fee I paid: 600 USD I want compensation to cover my costs; 1-To test these equipment to figure out I received correct items: 680 USD (labor to test) 2- Forklift used to return this item for 2 hours: 160 USD 3- Customer rep spent his time to communicate with them and return this: (5 hours) 115 USD Total of 32465 USD

Business Response:

January 19, 2015

Dear *** ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with *** ******’ auction participation.
On November 13, 2014 Government Liquidation determined that *** ******’ property claim was valid. Government Liquidation allowed for the return of the property for a full invoice refund. Subsequently, Government Liquidation advised *** ****** of the claim resolution and instructed him that our agent would retrieve the property.

Sale **** * lot **** was returned to our site and verified on November 19, 2014. *** ****** was notified of his pending refund in the amount of $30,910.00 on November 25, 2014. This refund was fully executed and completed for *** ****** on December 1, 2014, check #****.

After the full lot invoice refund was completed, *** ****** requested additional shipping expenses in the amount of $600.00. Government Liquidation requested receipts from *** ****** relating to his additional expenses, which *** ****** provided. After careful consideration Government Liquidation approved a $200.00 refund for *** ******' expenses. This was due to detention fees that Government Liquidation incurred at the site level pertaining to lot 7766. These detention fees were directly associated with timeframe issues for the return of the property caused by *** ******’ cooperation efforts. *** ****** was notified regarding the $200.00 refund on December 18, 2014. This refund was fully executed and completed for *** ****** on December 29, 2014, check #****.

Subsequently, *** ****** disputed Government Liquidation’s resolution related to his original shipping charges. *** ******’ claim was elevated. Government Liquidation approved the additional $400.00 refund for *** ******. *** ****** was notified regarding this refund on January 15, 2015 via e-mail. The $400.00 refund is currently in process at this time.

Government Liquidation has approved full refunds for both the original refund amount for lot **** and the $600.00 in shipping charges ($31,510,00), which are associated with the receipts *** ****** has provided.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.

Regards,

Cary H. 

Corporate Paralegal

1/21/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Regarding to Transaction ID *******, the company or the seller had misrepresented a product. "New Lot Of(200pc) 8 pin ios 7 Usb Cable For ****** 5, 5C, 5S, 5G, **** **** ***** 5 **** **** 7 **** mini, High Retail Value Over $2000.00 " words such as 8-pin, ****, ****** 5, 5C, 5S, 5G, ****, **** *****, **** ****, **** mini refers to ***** brand. This creates a misconception that the product is from *****. Not only this but It falsely uses *****'s retail packaging box and pictures to represent the product. It also says high retail value but that is just ridiculous unless it's an ***** Lightning to USB Cable. Furthermore, in the picture, the cables are shown with neat packaging and clear plastic to package the cable. However, What I received was messy, stickered chords. and for *******, the retial value is overpriced, it is not ***** Smart Cover as it was stated, there is no brand, no retail packaging, and no UPC number. There are numerous supports and facts to show that the description grossly misrepresented products. Additionaly, Liquidation.com is not able to stand behind products they sell. They are not able to provide any information regarding to product, not warranty, not support, no guarantee not certificate to prove genuinely of products. Liquidation.com is not able to describe to me why my disputes are denied and are not generous to accept return. There are many review sites that show Liqudation.com has a very bad customer service and not meet the standard to be accredited by BBB.org

Business Response:

October 16, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* **, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. *** ** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.

Regarding transaction ID *******, *** ** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 200 new USB cables for ******s purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 18, he filed a dispute with our Customer Service Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he expected nicely packaged ***** products, but instead he received generic products with unacceptable packaging. He was also concerned about the safety of future potential buyers because these were not brand name products. *** ** provided photo support for his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** **’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the items had been properly represented by the seller. The photo support showed that *** ** received USB cables and that he received the proper number of cables. Further, the auction advertising specifically identified the merchandise brand as “Generic.”

Regarding transaction ID *******, *** ** won a Liquidation.com auction for a lot of 250 new smart phone covers for ****** 5. On September 17, he filed a claim with our Customer Service Department asserting that his merchandise had been grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he again expected ***** product but that he received covers with no identification numbers or barcodes which arrived in plastic bags instead of suitable packaging for resale. Our disputes team denied the claim because *** ** failed to provide photo or video support. He was instructed to reopen the claim with support for further consideration, but no additional information has been received to date.

We regret that *** ** 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****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

Thank you for your response.

However, there are still few things that are not clear and not right.
For the dispute of ***** Smart Case, I have submitted photo proofs to disputes@liquidation.com on September 22, 2014 and got denied for no reason.

Regarding to Lightning to USB Cable, I can understand your reasons to deny.
The 'generic' is the only support you are using to justify that this was fair.
However, whether this cable is 'generic' or not is very important.
The picture describes the product as 'Lightning to USB Cable' and this is exactly what 100% genuine ***** uses.
Because generic cables and genuine cables are almost exactly same, it should have been explicitly described as generic.
A generic cable would only cost 1$ to buy from online individually, but ***** cable would cost 19$.
However, the seller failed to provide this important information explicitly.
Therefore if the buyer has mistaken this as a 100% genuine ***** Cable, then buyer should have the right to request refund.
Additionally, there are little information regarding to the product where exactly it was manufactured, whether it's legal; because it is imitating *****'s packaging and cable design.
This is a substantial disappointment because it is 19 times less worth than what I expected it to be.

For example, if you are selling an 'fake' ****** 6, you have to make sure that the buyer know that he is buying a 'fake' not a real one.
Just because there is one word 'generic', you can't deny refund because you described with one word.
And we are talking about liquidation.com correct? 
If liquidation.com is a major liquidity service and professional company with a good-reputation,
liquidation.com should be able to refund this product with no problem.
few hundreds of dollars is probably not that big of a deal to such a huge company like Liquidation.com but it is a very large amount of money to me.

I think refund for both products are very possible with just out of good-will



Regards,

*** ******* **








1/19/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Paid for order by ****** on Dec 1 2014 trans I'd ******* I have not received order and company will not refund. Tracking shows not shipped

Desired Settlement: Refund asap

Business Response: January 7, 2015

*** ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC  20005-3404

RE:  *** ******* *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau.  *** ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******.  *** ***** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he had not received his purchase or a refund, but he has since been refunded in full.

On November 28, *** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 34 medical devices and equipment in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  When he did not receive his shipment after several weeks, he filed a chargeback with ****** on the transaction.

Shortly after the shipment should have been delivered, we discovered that the tracking number for the shipment was incorrect and therefore the shipment could not be located.  On December 8, it was decided that we would issue a full refund if we did not receive confirmation of delivery from the carrier.  In the meantime, we waited for delivery confirmation to arrive.  After three weeks, we moved forward with the refund and authorized a full payment of $288.65 to *** *****’s account on December 26.

Further, *** *****’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated as a result of the chargeback he filed with ******.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in the user agreement which *** ***** agreed to follow when he registered as a user on our website.  There was no record of a dialogue between *** ***** and our customer service team to attempt to settle the matter, and it does not appear that an effort was made by *** ***** to request a refund.

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


Regards,
Cary H****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

1/13/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently won an auction on liquidation.com 3 September 2014 (decided to bid because of the listed condition of the items "returns"). Directly from liquidation.com returns are described as, Returns: "...majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing." I had won bids before under "returns" and was satisfied because liquidation.com also tells you to check the manifest for more details (this is where sellers list model numbers, original price and grade/condition i.e. broken, missing parts heavy use etc. And this in my opinion prevented the sellers from trying sell a lot full of unusable items to unsuspecting customers. The auction that I won was labeled as returns, I then did what liquidation.com states in each auction listed as returns and checked the manifest. The manifest just reiterated that they were returns (also to point out pictures were taken of a lot of the items and listed with the auction so seller had a visual on the items to determine condition). The fact that they were no detailed description and thinking that liquidation.com had rules about deceiving bidders/customers by not identifying damaged products, made me think that they were all use able items. After collecting my products and inspecting them I found a lot of the items damage beyond repair (mostly the products with higher original price which were the reason for the price I was willing to pay). I filed dispute with liquidation.com to try and get my money back and was denied. Apparently the seller had no responsibility to state clearly the condition of items in the manifest.

Business Response:

October 15, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******** ****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** **** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** **** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 75 home goods in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 8, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that some of the items received had defects that were not identified on the manifest or auction advertising and should be considered Salvage condition. He requested a full refund on the transaction and a change in Liquidation.com policy to require seller disclosure of all defects.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ****’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

While sellers are not required to list each defect, buyers can review a seller’s rating prior to bidding to get a better idea of the types of merchandise and condition of merchandise provided to the marketplace by the seller.

We regret that *** **** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc..

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

Liquidation.com clearly states in there response there policy and that "returns" cover a range of products, which leaves much room for deception. They claim I can review sellers or buyers feedback but that does not give much information, because these resources didn't tell me that the seller sold broken/unusable items. Liquidation.com also failed to point out that after the brief explanation of "Returns" they tell you to see manifest for more in formation on product's codition. To conclude this is there stated policy, and no where in it does it state that I could receive unusable (ie. a metal economic friendly water bottle with the top broken off rendering it unfixable by anyone but the original manufacturer). So unless they include in there explanation of Returns that you could receive garbage/unusable (items unrepairable) I think they are deceiving customers.


Upon further investigation I found out that this particular auction was fulfilled by liquidation.com, so they had eyes on the products and were possibly aware of the physical condition of the items.

 Our disputes team reviewed *** ****’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

Regards,

******** ****








1/9/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have purchased many items through Liquidation.com listed as returns through their auctions and know the difference in returns & salvage items. Auction ID *******/Transaction ID ******* was listed as returns but when received obviously this should have been a salvage auction, not a returns auction. I did a dispute through liquidation.com and the results are a refund of $.92 cents of the over 170 spent on the auction which is insulting. This auction was fraudulently listed as returns when clearly the items are salvage. In the dispute results was a quote of their returns definition, well this is their definition of salvage directly from their website: Salvage: "Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance, or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts." This describes exactly what I received not returns. I started a dispute through Paypal which will probably get my account closed in retaliation.

Desired Settlement: Refund of the full purchase price I paid which includes the shipping charge and fees. If the items are requested to be sent back then shipping paid for by Liquidity Services, Inc.. Also would like my account to not be closed

Business Response:

August 26, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ********, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he is unhappy with the partial refund that he received.

*** ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 131 consumer electronics, including computer accessories, cables, adapters and HDMI splitter, in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On August 8, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. *** ******** said that the merchandise he received would be more properly classified as Salvage condition rather than Returns. He said that the items were “tore up and trashed” and that one box even contained a toy mouse rather than product he expected. *** ******** provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the lot of consumer electronics were in a condition other than advertised. The defects described by *** ******** fall within the acceptable range set by the definition of Returns merchandise on our website. While these defects may not be typical of Returns auctions, they can occur given the broadly acceptable returns policies of various retailers. However, the disputes team did decide that a refund would be appropriate for the one item that was replaced with a toy mouse. One item at the unit price yielded a $0.92 partial refund that was paid to *** ******** on August 18.

Further, *** ******** filed a chargeback on this transaction as well as Transaction IDs *******, ******* and *******. *** ******** had not even filed disputes on the other three transactions that he canceled. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, *** ******** had illegally taken possession of over $1,500 in auction merchandise, and his Liquidation.com user account was de-activated to prevent further theft.

We regret that *** ******** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

This company knowingly misrepresents the items in their auctions and refuses to refund the purchase.  I have read complaints all over about this company and their business practices and then will close your account as soon as you file a dispute with the way you purchased the items which in my opinion shows that they are at fault. As for the comments about the other three auctions I disputed, I did not dispute them on their website because it was beyond their very short dispute window and because they closed my account I was unable to dispute them.   Two of the disputes were part of four auctions I had won that were picked up on two pallets.  Two of the auctions were not on the pallets which is why the disputes were filed.   Coincidently I lost the dispute which this BBB complaint was about plus the two auctions I did not receive.   This company illegally scammed me by misrepresenting one auction and then not supplying me with the two other auctions I had won.  I am out of almost $1000 because of this and after doing some research I find that Paypal the company I used to purchase, dispute and lose disputes works closely with Liquidity Services, Inc. to sell their items that are returned to them.  The Fourth auction referenced in the response letter is still in dispute with Paypal and was originally disputed as not received but after communicating with Paypal and the carrier service, the box was found but now is in dispute as not as described as the items I received is all infant/toddler items but what I won was person electronics, movies, games, LP records, etc.  Liquidity Services, Inc. should be investigated for their fraudulent and probably illegal business practices.

Regards,

***** ********









12/29/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We bought a lot from Liquidation.com that included 7 **** Home Theatre Systems advertised as "Refurbished Grade A". 5 of the 7 system were missing transceivers with a total of 10 transceivers missing in total. I disputed the matter and was told it would be researched by Ryan & Cathy. They replied, "Unfortunately, the dispute for transaction ******* will remain denied as our warehouse has confirmed full shipment." They were sent pictures on all 5 items together and separately confirming the missing parts. I would say the following to them if it was worth my time to speak to them again: "Obviously, you do not have controls and accountability in place in your warehouse to guard against such an outrageous crime against your customers. We received 5 of these items without any transceivers. 10 transceivers in total were missing. That is not an accident. I was told that my dispute would be honored by Ryan & Cathy. It wasn't. They were not surprised that I was having this kind of problem. Interesting. Additionally, when your investigation concludes with the people who may have taken these transceivers and/or whose job performance is on the line being the voice that establishes that everything was done properly... then you've really got a serious conflict of interest problem. What a joke of an "investigation". When you put money first in a business you eventually lose customers. When you put customers first the money naturally follows.

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

Business Response:

November 25, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ********, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 12 refurbished **** home theater systems purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 31, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that five of his **** **** *** items were missing transceivers—two from each box, for a total of 10. These refurbished systems were advertised as Grade A retail ready so *** ******** expected fully functioning units with all parts necessary for use. He provided photos in support of his claim.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the dispute was filed well past the two-day inspection period allowed on Liquidation.com transactions. The delivery of this shipment was scheduled on September 18, but the dispute on the shipment was not filed until over a month later, on October 31. The inspection period begins after receipt and allows for buyers to review their merchandise and raise any issues prior to the release of funds to the sellers. Once funds are released to the sellers, they cannot be recalled and buyer refunds are no longer available. Also, it would be difficult to represent a buyer’s claims as accurate to a seller so far after the receipt of the merchandise. The two-day inspection period is included in the User Agreement which *** ******** agreed to follow when registering for Liquidation.com. The inspection period is also advertised in each of our online auctions, including the one subject to dispute here.

We regret that *** ******** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc..

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because: I called to tell them about the issue and they asked me to file a dispute knowing it was past the 48 hour time period. They indicated I was not the only Buyer having these problems.  If that is not the case then why did they "investigate" the dispute.


Timeline of Communication with Liquidation.com
October 31:  "We have received your dispute claim for transaction ******* (auction *******) and will begin conducting an investigation regarding the information you submitted."

My Comments: Why do a "careful and thorough investigation" if I am already outside their dispute window?  Note, as well, that the reason for denying this dispute has nothing to do with being outside their 48 hour dispute policy.  I was denied for insufficient data.  On November 14 I provided them with more data.
November 10: "After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: 

Dispute Denied: Insufficient support. The support provided does not properly validate the claim. In many disputes involving functionality issues or defective merchandise, still pictures cannot properly validate a claim. We therefore encourage (when applicable and/or possible) small video(s) to be sent as an attachment via WMV. (******* media video) file for example, or a valid link for an unlisted ******* video, to *****************************. This will assist in a more efficient and accurate resolution for a dispute. 

A reopen request may be forwarded for approval within a reasonable amount of time providing proper support is supplied to validate investigation. Please be advised. There is no guarantee the initial dispute resolution is to be overturned. If no additional support is received, the dispute will remain closed." 

November 14: I sent additional detailed pictures proving the items had no transceivers per my dispute.
November 20: They respond, "Unfortunately, the dispute for transaction ******* will remain denied as our warehouse has confirmed full shipment..."

The missing transceivers are the most expensive item in the refurbished **** Home Theater Sound System selling on  eBay for $95 though you can get them for $52 from **** directly.  10 of ours were missing.  At minimum, this is a replacement cost of $520 to make the sound systems we purchased functional. We can sell that entire system for about $130 when it has the transceivers. Notice again that they investigated by asking the warehouse workers/handlers of these items (who also may have stolen them...I don't really know) if they shipped them out.  Really?  When your investigation concludes with the people who may have taken these transceivers and/or whose job performance is on the line being the voice that establishes that everything was done properly... then you've really got a serious conflict of interest problem.Your investigation is to ask the people who would have had the opportunity to take these items if they took them.  They said they didn't steal them so now the "thorough and careful investigation" is over.  

Here is the truth:
1) We called about the missing transceivers after the 48 hour time frame and were still asked to file an official dispute.  We did.
2) An apparent investigation of some sort was conducted initially and our dispute was denied due to "insufficient support" not that we were outside of the 48 hour window.
3) We are told on November 10 that "a reopen request may be forwarded for approval within a reasonable amount of time".  This is Liquidation.com giving us permission to continue this dispute which is already way, way past the initial 48 hour dispute policy window.  This time they put it in writing.
4) We reopen the request on November 14 and provide absolute proof of missing transceivers.  This additional proof is above and beyond the proof they already had.
5) November 20 the claim is denied because the people who shipped the items said everything was shipped and  the dispute was outside the 48 hour window anyway. 

This could have been so easily resolved by a customer oriented company.  At this point, we would like 10 transceivers.

Regards,

***** ********








Business Response:

December 15, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ********, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ***** ********. In his response, *** ******** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

*** ******** claimed that the **** home theater systems he purchased via Liquidation.com were missing significant items that prevented several from being operable. Our disputes team decided that claim should be denied because it was well past the inspection window for shipment disputes.

In his most recent response, *** ******** 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 window. He worked with our disputes team and even reopened the dispute for further review before being told that it had been filed too late. He 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. *** ******** speculated that the warehouse personnel could have performed the theft and covered it up.

 *** ********’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 loss. The disputes team investigated by reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping information. This check showed that the shipment was complete and ready. It was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A rating. It had also been reviewed prior to sending. Finally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issues. Therefore, the records were found to be accurate and reliable. Also, a disputes manager reviewed the matter and found it odd that such a large loss was reported so late. Thus the dispute was denied, which is within the discretion of our disputes team.

Regarding the theft speculation, a coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by *** ********. A review showed that no unusual patterns existed with our handling and any merchandise claims with this specific warehouse. With no evidence of theft by our warehouse personnel, that has been ruled out as an explanation.

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

1) The Liquidation.com story line continues to grow.  Answer # 1:, "Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the dispute was filed well past the two-day inspection period allowed on Liquidation.com transactions. The delivery of this shipment was scheduled on September 18, but the dispute on the shipment was not filed until over a month later, on October 31." Now...there is an admission that "our customer service team suggested that the dispute be given special consideration due to the amount of the loss."  Well..it seems clear that I was telling the truth initially and the initial response from Liquidity Services (LS) was at best not considered in full.

2)  I am not accusing the warehouse of stealing anything yet I did "speculate" that they could have.  My point is not that they stole it but there should be a requirement of due process even with an internal investigation.  Just saying, "our guys  say they did it right" when it is self serving for LS to do so is not a thorough investigation as previously claimed.  

3) Liquidity Services claims "A coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by *** ********." Perhaps, this is true.  On our end here's how it happened and why "such a large lot was reported so late".  We received the shipment and sold several items fairly quickly without opening the boxes. Shortly afterwards (2-4 weeks), our customers returned several items saying the transceivers were missing.  Perhaps...I'll speculate again...our customers ordered the product just to get the transceivers.  Our response at that point was to open the remaining 8 Home Theater systems of which 3 had transceivers and 5 had no transceivers.  

Our mistake is not completing a full receiving protocol and for trusting LS and their meticulous process that they investigated and describe as "reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping information. This check showed that the shipment was complete and ready.  It was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A rating.  It had also been reviewed prior to sending.  Finally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issues."  

So, here's the truth once again.  We received 5 **** Home Theater Systems without transceivers. Given all of LS checks, rechecks and detailed systems analysis and oversight...we are still missing 10 transceivers.  

Since we last wrote we found 10 transceivers on **** for $20 each. They have also been for sell for near $100 each and **** is selling them for $52.  Send us $200 for the transceivers and let's end this dispute.


Regards,

***** ******** 








12/26/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased this item and my wife picked it up on May 1st. When I went to inventory it that night, i noticed that the package was short 12 items. After further investigation, I realized that none of the other items present matched the manifest. I called customer service the next day and the lady I spoke with (Marisa) called the Plainfiled warehouse where I picked it up. She told me that Plainfied said they had given me the wrong box (fine, mistakes happen) and that I had to return to the warehouse (195 miles) to return it and pick up the correct one. I called again on May 5th to verify that they would have the correct box ready. The lady (Keisha I think) said that they would have it and I could pick it up. We arrive at the warehouse today (195 miles) and they say that we are lying and that there is nothing they can do. We leave the original package they gave us with them and leave without getting the correct package.

Desired Settlement: Refund my original purchase price. I'm not even asking for gas money for the wasted trip.

Business Response:

August 22, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he did not receive the items he purchased.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

First of all, let me state that I appreciate Liquidation.com's response to my complaint.  It does give me hope that we can come to an amicable resolution. 

As far as I can tell, Liquidation.com's proposed remedy to the issue/complaint is: "*** ****** (sp) may have his Liquidation.com user account re-activated if he wishes".  While that may lead to further activity in resolving this issue (although that is not specifically stated), the reactivation of my account in and of itself does not in any way make me whole again.  The response provided by Liquidation.com seems to indicate that they do now seem to understand the issue and facts pertaining to this case and now in fact realize that I neither have the merchandise nor the $650+ that I paid for said merchandise.  If I have misunderstood Liquidation.com's remedy, then I apologize and please clarify your position.

While I would gladly agree to take possesion of the original auction item as presented on the Liquidation.com website that I bid on and won, I doubt that they still have it or can locate it if they do.  Alternate to that solution, I would like to have the payment that I made refunded.  As I said, I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in not asking for reimbursement for automobile expenses, meals, etc. related to this action.  I would just like the merchandise or to have my money refunded. 

A couple points of note.  First, the lot in question (Auction ID# *******) was supposed to have 46 items in it, not 20 as stated in the response.  I just wanted to clarify that for the record.  Secondly, it is true that the chargeback was initiated after exhausting all other courses of remedy in dealing with Liquidation.com customer service and warehouse personnel.  Once I was essentially called a liar for saying that I never contacted Liquidation.com customer service, I could see that there was nothing else I could do to seek remedy from the company without some kind of escalation to/from a third party.

Once again, thank you for your response and I look forward to final resolution of this complaint.

Regards,

***** *******








Business Response:

 From: Cary H****<**********@liquidityservices.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:18 PM
Subject: ***** ****** rebuttal response (ID #********)
To: "*******@mybbb.org" <*******@mybbb.org>

December 15, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

In our previous response, Liquidity Services indicated a willingness to provide a full refund to *** ****** if we could confirm from our warehouse personnel that *** ****** never received the lot he purchased.

Unfortunately, we will need some assistance from *** ****** to proceed. Our warehouse review showed no record of receipt of the incorrect lot described by *** ******. Normally, a returned lot such as this would be relisted for a separate auction event, but there is no corresponding relisting for this lot. That provided a second data point pointing toward a lack of return. Therefore, we will need *** ****** to provide evidence (a warehouse receipt, or intake form from our warehouse, etc.) of his delivery in order to be eligible for a refund.

Our warehouse personnel indicated that the package taken by *** ******’s wife was the correct package, but that the package as described was missing items. First, there is a signed materials release form which means that after the property leaves the warehouse premises, that it is accepted as complete and accurate. Therefore, pickups should be inspected thoroughly prior to removal. Second, the proper action once the items were reviewed by *** ****** would have been to file a dispute claim for missing items. As is, there is not much of a record of dissatisfaction for this transaction. This would not have been the case had a dispute claim been filed.

We look forward to reviewing *** ******’s delivery evidence. Thank you.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/16/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was told by a warehouse supervisor after being shorted 2 pallets of product that this company sells and collects payment on the same pallet of goods 2 or 3 times "in case the buyer doesnt remove the items they can immediately ship to the next customer." I have since researched their auctions and indeed the exaxt same manifests are listed multiple time on the website. I also was to that I did have 3 pallets when I checked in to pick up. 3 hours past my appt time and over 10 customers came and left as I was waiting I got my first pallet, waited 30 more minutes checked with supervisor and he informed me one pallet was mistakenly shipped the previous day and on was shipped to a different customer who had also purchased it. I recieve **# of product expecting the 3 pallets I paid for. I had $35 in fuel, $140 in manpower to load. For the **#'s I did get the shipping would have only been $40. I lost $175 on the day because of thier unethical, fraudulent, deceptive practices plus I am being charged for shipping on a load that should have had no shipping cost and was only ordered to fill the trailer .

Desired Settlement: 1. I would like the shipping on the pallet that should have been picked up at the warehouse, but was mistakenly shipped, refunded.2. I would like my out of pocket expenses deducted. I had $140 in labor and $35 in fuel, $175 - $40 (price that would have mitigated my damages by have shipped the **#'s I recieved) = $135.3.I would like the unethically, fraudulent deceptive practice investigated, stopped and them assessed with maximum punitive damages if applicable.

Business Response:

December 1, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* *****, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because he was unable to retrieve these purchases from our warehouse.

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 60 home electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. When *** ***** arrived at our warehouse to take possession of the auction lot, he found that the lot had already been shipped to him. He had previously paid for shipping, but he contacted our customer service team to consolidate the shipment with another auction. We were unable to accommodate the request because the two lots were located at different warehouses so *** ***** set one to be shipped and arranged a pick up date for the other. However, there was a data entry mistake that led to both of *** *****’s shipments being sent to him via *** Freight. Due to this error, we will refund the shipment cost on this transaction to *** *****’s account.

Regarding Transaction ID *******, *** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a pallet of small appliances and more in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. A miscommunication between the customer service team and our warehouse personnel led to the transaction being canceled and the items relisted for auction sale. Due to the mistake, a full refund of $127.12 was processed to *** *****’s account.

*** ***** said that he was told that our company “collects payment on the same pallet of goods 2 or 3 times” which is incorrect. The pallet that *** ***** purchased was not sold simultaneously, but his purchase was canceled and refunded to him. Then the lot was sold again as a separate auction. The multiple listings that *** ***** saw on our site are not uncommon. These listings, however, are for distinct auction lots of the same type and number of goods from large sellers who prefer to have one auction listing rather than to create a new listing for each of several auctions. Therefore, these are distinct auctions sold one lot to one buyer and not one lot sold multiple times.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by *** ***** and will consider the matter closed with the shipping refund payment.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/15/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
12/15/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On June 27, 2013 we were winning bid on a 2006 ********* through a Truck Center auction. Truck Center was acquired by Government Liquidators (owned by Liquidity). Government Liquidators had written the truck up with 529,338 odometer miles and 529,339 ECM miles (the mileage that is kept in an electronic computer module). We discovered after they had been funded that the ECM mileage was actually 947,593, which is an additional 418,254 miles than what they listed. We checked service records at *** & **** and verified this higher mileage was correct. We immediately began to contact Truck Center & were referred to Gov. Liquidators for the appeal process. They absolutely refuse to do anything about this. We have just received our last denial from them this week in the 6 month appeals process. ** ******* pays Gov. Liq./Truck Center to write up the trucks they are selling at auction. Someone with Gov. Liq./Truck Center made a mistake and they will not do anything about it. Now we have a truck with almost a million miles on it. We asked ONLY for the auction fee to be returned, which was approximately 2300.00...that is the fee ** paid them to inspect, write up and auction the truck. We really need them to take it back, but we were trying to work with them. We still have the truck & are advertising it with the correct high mileage. Of course, it is very hard for us to sell. It's been here for 6 months...no sale. We've been contacting them since we discovered the mileage issue in June. We have all the documentation to show how it was represented to us.

Desired Settlement: We ask for the auction fee to be returned to us. That will help us so we can lower the price of the truck for sale. We really wish for the entire amount to be refunded, but we do not think they will do that since they only made the auction fee on it. ** won't do anything because they paid Gov. Liq. to inspect and market the truck.

Business Response:

March 31, 2014

Dear *** ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with ******* ***** ******* ***.’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 bids. Our records indicate that ******* ***** ******* ***. agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Tue May 28 11:57:46 2013. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when ******* ***** ******* ***. placed their winning bid on Sale ******, Lot **** (Tue Jun 25 17:00:38 2013) on ***********'s website. The lot’s description advertised an odometer reading of 529,338. A copy of the lot's description is enclosed with this letter.

Our records indicate that ******* ***** ******* ***. did not preview the property. In addition, ******* ***** ******* ***. contracted a third party to remove the property, and that third party removed the property on July 15, 2013, without objection. The following excerpts of the Terms and Conditions pertain to preview and removal:

Section ll:A. ***********.com will post the Lots for sale on the Website. Each Lot will include the location of the Asset for Sale. All items are listed as accurately as possible; however, all descriptions and representations of items on the Website serve as merely a guide, subject to change. Neither ***********.com, the Sellers, nor any third party making claims as to the description of items on the Website, shall be liable for any errors on the Website. All items will be sold 'AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS' and except for the warranty of title, are being offered without guarantee or warranty of any kind, including but not limited to the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, unless otherwise expressly provided in the Lot details. Buyers are solely responsible for the inspection of all items, and accept such items with any faults or defects.

Section III.A. Every Asset is sold 'AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS' without warranty or guarantee either written, stated or implied. There are no warranties or guarantees as to year, make, model, serial number, condition or performance. All Assets are listed as accurately as possible and information is derived from sources deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. Buyer must inspect all items personally and accept with any faults or defects, and Buyer by virtue of having submitted the high bid will be deemed to have inspected the Asset(s) and found them acceptable, or have waived the opportunity to inspect and to reject the Asset(s) as non-conforming. Buyer in no way holds ***********.com or Seller responsible for any defects, inaccuracies or errors in any way, and releases ***********.com and Seller from any claims in respect of alleged defects, inaccuracies or errors.

Subsequently, ******* ***** ******* ***. filed a claim, citing a mileage discrepancy. ******* ***** ******* ***. claimed that the truck’s odometer read 947,589, approximately 418,251 more miles than the advertised amount. ******* ***** ******* ***. proposed two outcomes to their claim: (1) Take the truck back and issue them a full refund or (2) Allow them to keep the truck while issuing them a partial refund based upon the value of a truck with approximately one million miles. On August 13, 2013, ******* ***** ******* ***. was informed that their claim was being processed and would take approximately 15 business days or longer for a resolution. A copy of this communication is enclosed.

*********** determined that neither of ******* ***** ******* ***.’s proposals could be accommodated, as the property was accepted and removed without objection. Therefore, on August 29, 2013, *********** informed ******* ***** ******* ***. that their claim was denied.

Based upon the information mentioned above, *********** will be unable to accommodate ******* ***** ******* ***.’s request.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.

Regards,

Cary H

Corporate Paralegal 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

From: ****** ****** 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:22 PM
To: 'info@mybbb.org'
Subject: RE: You have a new message from the BBB of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #*******.

 

*** ***** ******,

I received the response from Carey H**** regarding our complaint.  I am taking issue with a statement he made that says "******* ***** ******* ***. proposed twooutcomes to their claim: 1-Take the truck back and issue them a full refund or 2-Allow them to keep the truck while issuing them a partial refund based upon the value of a truck with approximately one million miles".  I have pasted all the written correspondences that show we offered two options & neither were what they stated.  We ultimately asked for only the fee ** paid them (2300) for a job they did not do.  We worked toward compromising & they did not ever offer any compromise or offer any settlement to resolve this case.

I underlined the two offers we made on separate days.  We decided to only ask for the 2300.00 since we felt GE was not responsible for the error.  Please let me know if you need any other information from me.

Thank you,

****** ******

******* ***** ******* ***.

www.*************.com

###-###-####

Fax ###-###-####











Business Response:

December 3, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

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

*** ****** filed a claim regarding a 2006 ********* truck purchased via *********** that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. She said that the truck had been advertised with 529,338 odometer miles, but that the truck actually had 947,589 miles. As stated in the agreement signed by *** ******, auction assets are sold “as is, where is, with all faults” and should therefore be inspected upon retrieval. For this reason, her dispute could not be accommodated.

In her most recent response, *** ****** says that she proposed additional settlement options that were not specifically mentioned in our response letter. However, the additional proposed settlement options fail for the same reason that a refund is not available. The responsibility for reviewing purchased assets is specifically upon the buyer before taking control and custody of those assets. Neither ***********, nor the sellers are liable for any errors on the website, as stated specifically in the user agreement.

We also appreciate that ******* ***** ******* ***. would attempt to propose other settlements, including transfer of the $2,300.00 fee to the seller for our services. However, we performed our job for the seller of warehousing, inspecting, prepping, listing, auctioning and selling the asset. Therefore, we do not agree that a website error is grounds for forfeiting the fee when the odometer reading would properly be checked via buyer inspection.

We regret that *** ****** remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the agreement signed by *** ****** for ******* ***** ******* ***.

Regards,

Cary C. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.  

12/12/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I order 100 Pairs of High Quality Sunglasses for Men & Women - MSRP $1,500, I paid $199.50, Shipping & Logistics $40.25 and Buyer's Premium $9.98 Grand Total $249.73. I received cheap plastic glasses nothing like what was advertise on the website. These glass retail will not add up to what they claim (MSRP $1,500). I open up a dispute with company sending them pictures of the cheaply made plastic glasses. I was sent the following response to my dispute: "After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: Dispute denied; The support provided shows units received similar to the units represented in the auction listing. All parties must abide by the dispute resolution provided by Liquidation.com as stated in the Terms and Conditions." This company have false advertisement of products they are selling and is a total rip off! I don't know why they even have a dispute department if they are not going to take a honest look the cheap products that are being sent out! This company need to advertise on the website the products that are actually being sold and send out.

Desired Settlement: I want the High End Glasses as advertised in the picture or my $249.73 refunded back to me.

Business Response:

June 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Barnes, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 pairs of high-quality sunglasses purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. She said that only 29 of 100 pairs could be described as high quality and that the remaining sunglasses were simply cheap plastic. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her supporting photos did not show that the merchandise was in a condition other than advertised. The listing read that varied styles and assorted brands would be included in the shipment. The lot was judged to meet these standards.

We regret that *** ****** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

The pictures that was presented on the site was nothing like the merchandise that I received. The advertisement was for "High Quality" MSRP $1,500, this cheap plastic glass are not worth this price at all. 
The Auction advertisement and wording was misleading  if you say High Quality in your description I expected to receive High Quality not low end cheap plastic glasses.  
I noticed that auction  advertisement for the sunglasses wording have been corrected to reflect what the consumer is really receiving, if this was presented when I bidded on the sunglasses I would not have bid on them.

Liquidation falsely advertise and worded the merchandise incorrectly.

Regards,

******* ******








Business Response:

November 25, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ******* ******. In his response, *** ****** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

*** ****** claimed that the items she purchased from Liquidation.com were grossly misrepresented as “High Quality” merchandise. She did not believe that the items were high quality and requested a refund. She provided photos in support of her claim. Our disputes team reviewed the photos and found them to be consistent with the auction advertising. Therefore, her claim was denied.

In her most recent response, *** ****** restated that the advertising described the merchandise as “High Quality” and provided an MSRP of $1,500. She said that she would not have bid on the auction without the description given. She said that the cheap, plastic glasses that comprised part of the lot could not be considered high quality. In deciding this matter, our disputes team relied upon the objective measures given in the auction listing, including the number of sunglasses (100) and the types of sunglasses (assorted, including some brand names). “High quality” is a subjective term that falls within the bounds of advertising promotion. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the dispute based on subjective measures.

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/12/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I just want my money back plus the 540.00 I had to pay for authenticating fake items for a total of 2,900.00

Business Response:

August 1, 2014

 

Mr. David Dennis

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: Mr. Thomas F. Wittek, ID# ********

 

Dear *** ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction IDs 4415882, 4414695, ******* and other related transactions. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his dispute was initially denied. However, his request to reopen the claim is still being processed by our disputes team.

 

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

 

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the signatures and certificates of authenticity were not valid. *** ****** responded to the disputes team and requested to reopen the dispute. He has disputed not only these transactions, but several other transactions previously as a Liquidation.com user. *** ******’s account has been disabled on multiple occasions for failure to pay the seller and for credit card chargebacks, which violate the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com.

 

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

 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

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


Regards,

****** ******








Business Response:

November 28, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ****** ******. In his response, *** ****** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

Regarding Transaction IDs ******* and ******* with seller ****************, disputes were reopened on these transactions, and *** ****** sent samples to our warehouse for inspection. After receipt of his samples, we sent *** ****** the following message on July 30 explaining the process:

We are reaching out to you as a courtesy to advise you that your dispute claims are under investigation and will be provided a final resolution accordingly. We would like to thank you for your patience as our reopen requests are handled in the order received and do take additional time for a proper conclusion. We have reached out for a professional response from authenticators concerning your units in claim and the seller’s supporting documentation, and upon receiving the results we will provide you with an update. This process is a protocol to insure all aspects of the investigation claim are reviewed and considered for validation. Once again we are only contacting you to assure you that your claims are not disregarded and action is currently in process for a resolution of your dispute claims. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact our customer service department. Please be advised that our customer support team is only able to review transaction notes as well as add any further comments or support you may want to communicate. Our customer support team is unable to provide dispute resolution. You may also respond to this e-mail or communicate via e-mail to our disputes department at dispute@liquidation.com. Thank you for your patience and professionalism throughout the dispute process.

After thorough review, the disputes team concluded that these transactions should receive a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Refund payments for these transactions in the amounts of $531.79 and $267.77, respectively, were processed to *** ******’s account on August 13. Additionally, several other transactions between *** ****** and seller **************** were refunded on the same day.

Regarding Transaction ID ******* with seller ***********, there was no dispute form properly filed on the transaction so there is no open dispute. The transaction notes show that *** ****** sent an e-mail describing his concerns and that our customer service personnel left a voicemail for him on July 14 asking for more information.

We regret that *** ****** remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we have worked with him to settle where he has followed our procedures for resolution. We consider these matters closed with the refunds.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/12/2014 Problems with Product/Service
12/12/2014 Problems with Product/Service
12/12/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have tried to contact you guys by calling you and emailing you twice. I haven't had a response? I am writing you today about getting the $100.00 you shorted me on my check. The check sent was for transaction ID # ******* on my check you only gave me $31.00 instead of $131.00. The transaction ID # ******* you gave me the correct amount of $179.35. But you put a transaction ID # ******* a dispute hold of $100.00 on here??? This had nothing to do with what this check was. You are already holding money for this transaction so why would you take it from a different transaction number? I have one more problem I list my items with mixed lots and that is clearly stated and I have been getting a lot of disputes you have sided with the buyers over me. As clearly stated in the auction that it is mixed lots and they are not guaranteed to get what is pictured. I give the best mixed lots I can and I am not sure why you side with the buyer and put me out a lot of money.

Desired Settlement: I am looking to get the $100.00 you shorted me on the check before I cash it. Which the check was sent out October 2 and I have been trying to contact you guys to figure this out. BBB was my last resort to get this money you owe me. I am also wanting a fair dispute case when it does happen. I list my auctions and if the buyer doesn't read it right then that should be on them. They are all expecting a huge lot of Clinique or estee lauder and that isn't what is described in the auction.

Business Response:

November 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ***** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns she had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid her for completed transactions; however, the matter has since been resolved.

*** ****** sold a lot of 200 cosmetics items on Liquidation.com on September 17. That Transaction ID ******* would have paid $131.00 to her in an October 2 check; however, in the meantime another sold auction had received a buyer dispute (Transaction ID *******). When a dispute is filed on an auction, $100.00 is withheld until the dispute is resolved. This is why *** ******’ check was $100.00 less than she expected.

After resolution of the buyer dispute on Transaction ID *******, the $100.00 was released to *** ****** and paid on October 23, which was after her Better Business Bureau dispute filing. We include paperwork with our payments to describe the payout calculations.

We apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding experienced by *** ****** and consider the matter closed with the funds disbursement.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/2/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On April 10th, 2014 I bid on and won auction #7375438 which consisted of two ******* computers advertised as “Refurbished” with 90 day warranty. The computers arrived approximately a week later and to my disappointment one of them had a broken power switch and could not be turned on or off. I immediately contacted the 800 customer service number and explained the problem. They transferred me to their warranty service department and I was emailed a form to fill out which requested the problem I was having, the serial number of the defective system, my name and address, etc. I completed the form and was sent a shipping label to return the unit to warranty services in *******, TX. I shipped the item to TX on the 21st of April and received it back on the 5th of May. Unfortunately, the power switch was still broken and it appeared that nothing what-so-ever was done to the computer. I called warranty services on the morning of the 6th of May and it had to be one of the most ridiculous exchanges I have ever had. The lady told me that warranty services cannot repair a broken computer and, if it was broken, I should have returned it for a new one. I told her that is what I thought I was doing. That everything I had done to date was exactly what the company had advised me to do. I was then told that they would have the repair order back in a week and I could call back then. I explained that I had already been dealing with this for 3 weeks and wondered what good another week would do. She stated that the repair order would tell then what had been done to the system and then they could send me new labels to return it for repair. I said “wait and minute. You just told me that you can’t repair a broken computer so how will it help to send it back to you?” She said that if I send it back and it can’t be repaired they will send it back to me as is. I stated that that is what had just happened and again wondered how sending it for repair was going to help if they can’t repair a broken computer. She once again said that if they can’t repair it they will send it back to me as is. I asked to speak to a supervisor and was essentially told the same thing. To call back in a week and they would send new labels so that I could send it in for repair. After hanging up I thought about what I had been told and decided that it was totally unacceptable. I called your 800 customer service line and asked for a name and address of the President/CEO to make him aware of how his customers were being treated. I was told they didn’t have his name or address so I asked for a phone number that I could call to get it. They gave me the number ###-###-#### which only served to get me back to the same customer service number I had already been calling. When I again asked how I could get his name and number he said I was threatening them and deactivated my account.

Desired Settlement: I want the computer repaired, replaced or a refund of the purchase price.

Business Response:

August 27, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** **** ****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** **** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.

*** **** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two (2) refurbished ******* computers purchased via Liquidation.com. He said that he discovered that one of the computers had a broken power switch that did not allow it to be turned on or off. The computer came with a 90-day warranty so he called the 800 service number and arranged to send his unit for repair. When his computer was returned to him, the power switch was still broken and it appeared to *** **** that nothing had been fixed with the computer at all. He had a frustrating time finding resolution through the customer service personnel and ultimately had his account deactivated.

According to the transaction detail, *** ****’s Liquidation.com user account was deactivated due to him making threatening remarks to a customer service employee. Additionally, *** **** filed a chargeback for the transaction on May 6th, prior to filing his complaint with the Better Business Bureau. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that *** **** signed when registering with our website. This action would have triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account had it not already been suspended. Chargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for it. Once 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 *** **** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:
I did not threaten a customer server representative. I nicely asked him for the name and address of the President/CEO and he got mad. He not only would not give me the name and address of the President and CEO but instead, deactivated my account. I did not file a charge back. I filed a dispute with ****** because I felt that I had no other recourse once my account had been deactivated. When I received the computer back (STILL BROKEN) the ****** dispute was ended. I finally had the computer repaired at my own cost.

Regards,

**** ****








Business Response:

November 25, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** **** ****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** **** ****. In his response, *** **** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

*** **** claimed that a refurbished computer that he sent for repair returned without having been repaired properly. When discussing the matter with our customer service personnel, he was unable to reach a resolution. Our customer service representative flagged *** **** for threatening speech and *** ****’s account was suspended. Further, *** **** filed a dispute with ****** that also would have resulted in a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account. Chargebacks are not permitted because the user maintains possession of the merchandise with no payment.

*** **** responded that he had not used threatening language but that he had only asked for the contact information of the CEO of the company. It is unnecessary to untangle the counterclaims as to what else was said, however, because the filing of the dispute with ****** would have de-activated the account in any case. ****** disputes were specifically prohibited in the user agreement.

We regret that *** **** remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to de-activate the account for the ****** dispute.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:
I did not file a dispute with ****** until after they deactivated my account and left me no alternative. 

Regards,

**** ****








12/2/2014 Problems with Product/Service
11/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: You need to look and stop this people from conducting business and taking people's money. I was send two shipments which I paid close to $1000 and all the stuff was utterly damaged and broken, I send pictures and all the information as requested just to be send an email today that they have closed the case and all that I have received is mine, ****** ** ****** ************ **** ** ****** ****** ********** *** *****

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

Business Response:

November 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. *** ****** 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 *******, *** ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 10 furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 3, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction listing and that she was missing units. She said that she was missing a box of shelving for her bookshelf and that several other furniture items were scratched or broken. She provided supporting photos.

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

Our disputes team reviewed *** ******’s claims separately. For Transaction ID *******, they concluded that it could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

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

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

We regret that *** ****** 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****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.  

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

****** ******

11/22/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Originally I purchased a auction from liquidation.com and when I received the product i didn't receive genuine product. In this specific auction it was listed that there was "********* Elements Crystal" necklaces and earring sets valued up to $122.00. What I received was a fake knock off of ********* Elements Crystal sets, totally misrepresented. I actually found these same necklaces sold on a website that sells counterfeit goods. When I filed a dispute with Liquidation.com they denied my claim. This is what the message said: Dispute denied; The units in claim are covered under the quantity variance of the auction listing. The support provided does not validate the claim of misrepresentation. This is just an automated response, they told me after a careful and thorough investigation that my claim was denied. I then asked them to explain the process of this investigation which I have received no response back as of yet. In the future if I don't receive some type of refund or compromise of this claim I will send these necklace sets to ********* Elements to have them validated of their authenticity and when they come back as counterfeit I will pursue legal action if needed. It would have been fine if I knew before hand that this was counterfeit product so I would not have bid on this in the first place but they listed the product as "********* Elements Crystals" and not made with "********* Elements" and I believe if ********* Elements Crystals knew that this company was selling counterfeit product under their name they would pursue legal action as well. These people at Liquidation.com know exactly what they are doing when they list products and I have seen so much negative feedback online from ripoffreport.com and consumerreports.com with the same situations and they continue to run this business deceitfully taking money from hard working people trying to provide for their families.

Desired Settlement: I would like to return the auction goods for a refund or the necklace sets in question for some sort of compensation.

Business Response:

November 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** **** *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ***** 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.

*** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 1,000 name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 10, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the ********* Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit items. He requested a full refund.

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

**** *****

11/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I am receiving multiple emails daily that i did not sign up for and even after being removed from emailing list they continue to send these emails to me. I can not get off of their list.

Desired Settlement: Get my name removed from mailing list.

Business Response:

November 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ******* *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns he had as a recipient of multiple company e-mails that he did not request.

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

******* *****

11/22/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have contacted Liquidation.com both by phone speaking with a customer service rep and via email requesting they do not send any emails to my business account and they continue. I receive at least 10 emails per day some times more. I have never given them permission to send them to begin with.

Desired Settlement: I want the emails to stop immediately. I never signed up for them.

Business Response:

November 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ***** *******, ID# ********

 

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******* described concerns he had as a recipient of multiple company e-mails that he did not request.

*** ******* 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, *** ******* has been globally unsubscribed from all of our marketplaces per his request.

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

 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

***** *******

11/21/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Complaint taken over phone by BBB Staff - lj Consumer purchased merchandise approximately September 18, 2014. Paid $433. The items were delivered within ten days damaged. Ordered assorted men's and women's wallets and watches. The order was incorrect.Items were thrown together in box. Box was glued and falling apart. Did not receive any wallets. Watches were broken. Did not appear to be watches he had ordered from website. Should have received twenty five sets of assorted watches and wallets. Consumer E mailed pictures to the company as requested. Returned entire order to the company by *** on October 16, 2014. Company never received package. Stated it went to wrong address. Per *** company signed for package.

Desired Settlement: Consumer requests refund of $ 433.

Consumer Response:

From: ****** ***** <***********************>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Subject: 
To: "*****************" <*****************>


hello ****** my name is ******* * ***** complaint number ********.the reason for my email is to inform you of my intent to retract my previous clam of a misplaced shipment by the liqudation.com..there was a mix-up between *** and LIQUDATION.COM. about my package valued at over 400.dollars.*** admit that they were the one's who sent my package to the wrong place back on 10/18/2014.liqudation.com did NOT,mis-place the package,*** did and they are in the process of refunding me my money..thank u 
for your time....

11/14/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bid on an auction for genuine leather handbags and the handbags I received were not genuine leather. My invoice also states that I would receive the following designer bags: *****, ****** & ******, ********, **********. I did not receive a ******** or ********** bag and the ***** was not geniune leather! When I filed a dispute with Liquidation.com they told me the dispute could not be honored. They completely ignored the fact that the advertisement listed the bags as genuine leather and the bags I received are not. From what I can tell searching the web this is not an unusual practice for this company. I want my money back!

Desired Settlement: I want a full refund in the amount of $361.28.

Business Response:

October 14, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ***** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** ******* said that the handbags she received did not match the photos in the auction listing. She said that the handbags were very outdated and that some did not even have brand identification on them. Additionally, she had expected them to be genuine leather and they were not. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *******’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The listing stated that “You will be receiving items similar to the ones in the pictures.” The photo evidence provided showed that *** ******* received 30 handbags that were “Designer Inspired Bags.” The auction also did not specify that only genuine leather items would be sent or what quantity of genuine leather would be included.

Further, *** ******* filed a chargeback with ****** 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, *** *******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that *** ******* 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


Liquidation.com does not tell the truth.  The dispute I filed with ****** was decided in my favor because it was determined after reviewing my dispute that I was owed the refund.  ******'s stipulation was that I return the merchandise and provide tracking information.  This information was provided to ****** and they provided the tracking information to liquidation.com.  Therefore, again an untruth regarding this issue has been told.  ****** confirmed that the packages were delivered and refunded my money.

Liquidation.com's response is not truthful at all.

Regards,

***** *******








11/14/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a recertified laptop through *******.com this year that came with a warranty from Liquidity Services, Inc. Unfortunately, the laptop has repeatedly exhibited a condition whereby it instantly powers off, without warning, during times when it is running on battery power. This is an intermittent condition; sometimes the laptop will run on battery power for hours without issue. On September 4, I placed a call to submit a warranty claim for this defect, and the representative at Liquidity Services informed me that my claim would not be honored because my call was placed after the warranty period expired. I believe she said the warranty started on May 19, 2014 and thus expired 19 days before my call. I do not contest that my call occurred after the end of the warranty period, but I explained that the defect exhibited itself during the warranty period. I was informed that this was irrelevant, and the critical point was whether my case had been opened during the period. The warranty text provided with the product and posted on the ******* website seems quite clear on what should be covered: "In the event that the Product exhibits a defect in workmanship within the Warranty period, Liquidity Services, Inc. will facilitate the Warranty services applicable to the Product." The warranty makes no statements about when the Purchaser must contact Liquidity Services. Had they written in the warranty that I must contact them within 90 days, that would have been fair. However, that's not in the warranty. It feels like they are making up a new rule so they don't have to fix the laptop. They wrote the warranty, so you would expect they would know what's in it. In addition to the fact that the warranty period expired less than three weeks before my call, I have evidence that shows the defect was exhibited during the warranty period -- I normally have several documents open on my laptop, and when it suddenly powers off, temporary backup copies of the documents are left. The timestamps on these backup copies establish that the defect occurred during the warranty period. I suspect this may not be the only method of establishing the defect date was during the warranty period. I provided evidence to Liquidity Services, and they chose not to address it. I have exchanged emails with Liquidity Services following my initial call, and their position is unchanged.

Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity Services to abide by the warranty, which means repairing the laptop.

Business Response:

October 14, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** **********, ID# ******** 

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ********** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ********** described concerns he had as a buyer of a laptop under warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. *** ********** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


Mr. H**** has stated that my warranty claim would need to have been initiated prior to end of the 90-day warranty period in order for them to honor it.  Had this stipulation been in the text of the warranty, I would find his response acceptable.  However, that is not in fact what the warranty says.  The warranty text provided with the product (attached) is quite clear on what should be covered: "In the event that the Product exhibits a defect in workmanship within the Warranty period, Liquidity Services, Inc. will facilitate the Warranty services applicable to the Product." The warranty makes no statements about when the Purchaser must contact Liquidity Services.

I would like to point out that Mr. H****'s response did not indicate the source of this additional stipulation, which I have not been able to find anywhere in the warranty.  The business has also never contested the date of the defect.

As my laptop exhibited a defect within the warranty period, and the warranty says this is covered, I would like Liquidity Services to fix the laptop.


Regards,

***** **********








11/1/2014 Problems with Product/Service
10/26/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Bought 100-piece mixed goods lot. Values range from $1 to $100. Only most valuable items shown online with no complete manifest of all items to be received. Cheapest items or quantity of those items not shown in photos nor listed. Most valuable item received broken. Complaint filed with photos of damaged and retail sticker of piece. Request made for replacement piece of same item broken to adequately compensate for this 1 piece. Not provided. Rather total paid divided by 100 for refund of 1 piece. This does not adequately compensate for the loss. The company does not bare any responsibility of transparency requiring a complete manifest of all items being sold in the lot or any specifics about whether 1 item is broken that you'll only receive 1/100th of the total price paid regardless if it is the most valuable item in the lot. Company holds no one responsible for how items are packed and shipped so that if the value of all pieces in the lot are not made clear to buyers and the most valuable piece(s) is/are damaged that all that we be refunded is a fraction of what item is worth. A replacement of the exact piece would be acceptable and should be forcibly provided if broken or the full value of the piece refunded, especially since no complete item by item manifest of all items being sold is made known to buyer or details about only 1/100th of total cost will be refunded if most valuable item is broken in a 100-pc. lot as in this case. When consulted by phone, company made clear only 1/100th of price paid would be refundable, but this amount does not adequately compensate for the loss sustained with this transaction.

Desired Settlement: Replacement of same item or one of equal value in the same category. Or, refund of sticker price as shown on the manufacturer's packaging box of item in question which has already been provided in detail with photos.

Business Response:

October 14, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** **** ********** ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ********* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ********* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ********* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

*** ********* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 holiday home goods in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items he received were not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. He said that the most expensive item in the lot arrived damaged and unusable. He requested that the item be replaced with another of the same item in good condition or that $100 be paid as compensation as the list price for the item.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *********’s claim and concluded that a partial refund would be appropriate for the damaged item at the unit price. A partial refund of $3.00 was processed to *** *********’s account on September 25. *** ********* was also informed that a shipping damage claim had been filed with UPS on his behalf. We continue to await the outcome of that claim.

We regret that *** ********* 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

10/24/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I will a FULL refund for all goods and shipping costs. I will send what I received back but liquidation.com must provide a shipping label, I'm not spending a dime out of pocket to send the goods back. I've lost valuable time and money having to deal with this entire mess.

Business Response:

October 15, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ********* ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he did not receive the items he purchased.

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

Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. The lot was listed improperly by the seller. Return shipping labels were sent to *** ******** on October 11. We will process the refund to *** ********’s account once we confirm that the return has been received by the seller.

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Thank you for the understanding.

Regards,

****** ********

10/17/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Auction Auction ID Trans ID Lot Qty Total Amount Date/Time Bought Status Designer Ladies Clothing by ********* *****, ****** *****, *****, ****... ******* ******* *** 183.13 USD 2014-09-29 13:23:02 Seller Preparing Shipment View Invoice won an auction 9/29/14. have not received even shipping information from the seller. I have sent at least 3 maybe 4 emails to liquidation.com since This monday oct. 6 asking for some sort of response from the seller. All I keep getting is "we have informed the seller..." each time. I was told yesterday that the seller has 4 business days to ship my items. 4 business days would have been friday oct. 3 or even Monday oct. 6 at the latest. It is now almost 3 days past the alloted time the seller has to ship. The above is what it has been saying since I paid for my auction (which was paid immediately after I won) i was asked yesterday if i wanted to cancel since it has been past 4 days. NO I DO NOT WANT TO CANCEL. I just want my goods delivered. I feel nothing has been done to resolve this issue and as I say below, "The seller evidently has the stock because there have been SEVERAL auctions since my purchase last week with the SAME TYPE of items" so this should not be an excuse at all. poor communication/service from the seller. The account manager is Sheldon H***********. He was supposedly notified this morning. still no shipment, tracking number...nothing at all just the same thing told to me in several emails by liquidation.com. My last shipment from a different seller on liquidation.com was received by me in less than 3 business days and tracking uploaded that same day.

Desired Settlement: I DO NOT want to cancel my transaction as I need them for my own internet business purposes. I want my goods delivered as I won the auction. The seller evidently has the stock because there have been SEVERAL auctions since my purchase last week with the SAME TYPE of items.

Business Response:

October 15, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** **** *****,

ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she did not receive the auction items she purchased.

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary C. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

**** *****

9/8/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a refurbished computer and I received a Broken/not working computer. I have purchased a refurbished computer from them. "Before purchasing the costumer service representative explained that I am purchasing a refurbished computer. I asked what it meant, and she said " it has been previously used but was checked and make sure that everything works, it is restored to a like-new condition". I received the computer today hoping I could use right away since I needed it for my school home works. As soon as I opened it, I put the battery on and hit the ON button. As soon as the screen lights up, I saw the words " Your PC needs to be repaired. And the computer obviously won't open to any website. I tried to hit other button but the computer is not opening at all. The only thing I see is the screen with the words stating that it needs to be repaired. I am filing a complaint because I am very upset and disappointed to received a broken bot working computer, not a refurbished one. They told me that the computer was check and made sure is working properly and as soon as I opened it, it is broken? I understand that I am buying a used computer but I expect to received a broken computer that you can't even open any website. if I get the computer working and get to yahoo for example and start having problem, then I would understand that I bought a refurbished computer. But receiving a broken/not working computer, is not understandable. I feel like they just picked up a broken/not working computer without even checking it and sent it me. I am very disappointed with this, I expect them to send me a used computer that is at least working. This also created an inconvenient on my side because I will not be able to do my home works since the computer is not working. They said I will have to send it back and they will fix it and send it back. it will take days or maybe weeks for them to fix it, then I will have to wait for it, before I can do my homework? no! My main point is that, they sent me a broken and not working computer. that is different from what they promised to send me. Broken and not working computer is not a refurbished computer. They should have told me in the first place that refurbished computer is a broken/not working computer, because I won't purchase a computer that is not working. They said, it was checked and made sure everything is working properly, and was restored to a like-new condition. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I RECEIVED.

Desired Settlement: They told me I can't get my refund anymore. But because they sent me a broken and not working computer, and is different from what they told me I would get. then I am asking for a full refund ASAP. I need a computer to use as soon as possible. I also want them to compensate me with the inconvenience they created on my situation. They have created a difficulty on my situation because they sent me a BROKE/NOT WORKING COMPUTER and I was not able to do my home works, and other things I have to do on

Business Response:

August 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns she had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for her refurbished computer. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she was unable to receive a properly working computer.

*** ****** purchased a refurbished computer with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On November 15, 2013, she started a warranty claim because her computer was giving her error messages that it needed repair. The unit was sent for repair on November 27, 2013, and it was determined that a replacement unit would be sent to her. On December 21, 2013, *** ****** received a replacement unit which she also found to be defective. She then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the replacement unit was experiencing problems as well so it was returned for repair on December 26, 2013. Finally, yet another replacement computer was shipped to *** ****** on January 9 to fulfil her purchase.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from *** ****** after the January 9 delivery of the most recent replacement computer so the matter was considered resolved. In her complaint, it appears that *** ****** had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably.

We regret that *** ****** had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution. 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

9/8/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I orders a ******* (****) laptop from the **************** lawsuit settlement site.The laptop came and didn't boot up, and has bee sent back twice for In the e-machines lawsuit, I picked out a refurbished ******* Laptop for free with a voucher. The laptop was ordered on December 13, 2014 and the order number was ***-***************. When the unit arrived it would not boot up 9 out of 10 times. It was defective from the moment it came. A refurbished unit is a unit that should work since it was repaired back to factory settings. It comes with a 90 day warranty from ****. I notified the **** repair center on December 18th in order to return it. It did not work at all. The unit arrived back on January 15,2014. In the next few days the laptop had the same difficulty booting up. The laptop would freeze, or give error messages, or state that it needed repair. I contacted the **** warranty again in order to return it. I shipped it back on Jan. 21, 2014. i enclosed pictures of the screen which displayed the error codes. I have made a dozen calls to this repair company. My unit has been sent back twice for repair. I have 90 day warranty and 60 of them are used up and I still don't have a laptop that works. The repair center is **** ******** ******** ***** * **** ****** *******, Texas **********. That is the address that i ship the unit to for repairs. I e-mailed and called Angel , and Natasha on 12/18/2013.1/08/2014,and on 1/18, 2014 to complain. The warranty e-mail ***************************************...Their e-mail includes **** Warranty Service on it.

Desired Settlement: Fix or repair the laptop and give me a new 90 day warranty.

Business Response:

August 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ****, ID# ********

 Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** **** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns he had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his ******* computer. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.

*** **** acquired a ******* computer on December 13, 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On December 18, 2013, he started a warranty claim because his computer was not booting up properly. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on January 15. *** **** then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on January 21. The computer was then sent back to *** **** from the repair facility on February 17. Unfortunately, the computer was still found to be defective so he requested a warranty extension to cover additional repair. On March 18, *** **** was granted a 60-day extension on his 90-day warranty.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from *** **** after the March 18 extension so the matter was considered resolved. In his complaint, it appears that *** **** had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably.

We regret that *** **** had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

9/5/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The merchandise I received from Liquidation.com appears to be stolen. I contacted liquidation because I wanted to return the merchandise. I provided support documentation including pictures. One of the pictures submitted shows a store security tag still on an item. Other pictures show items with a small hole near the seam of the item where is appears security tags have been forcibly removed. Liquidation.com refuted my dispute based on the fact the merchandise was listed as "salvage" meaning I could not return it based on condition; however I am not asking to return it because of holes or defects, I would like to return the merchandise because I do not want stolen goods.

Desired Settlement: I wish to return the merchandise and get a refund

Business Response:

August 22, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 60 sportswear items in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 30, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** ***** said that she believed that the merchandise was stolen. She said that one item had a security tag attached to its collar and several other items had small holes where the security devices were removed by something other than the professional device that would not damage the items. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *****’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:

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

We also contacted the seller to confirm the status of the merchandise. The seller said that they usually remove all security tags, but that they had missed one in this lot. As a result, we decided to provide a refund for the one item that still had a security tag at the $1.75 per unit price. This seller has over 800 completed auctions with us.

We regret that *** ***** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

9/5/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: FIRST & LAST NAME: **** ****** CUSTOMER NUMBER: ******** SALE NUMBER: **** LOT NUMBER(S): **** INVOICE NUMBER: ****** RI SITE LOCATION:TX, ***** REASON FOR DISPUTE: MATERIAL RECEIVED WAS NOT AS DESCRIBED. WE PURCHASED ONCE FIRED BRASS THAT WAS TO BE ALL **** **** '10 HEADSTAMPED, HALF OF MY ORDER (OVER 600 POUNDS) IS UNUSABLE AND IS *** (********** '10) HEADSTAMPS. WE ONLY USE **** **** TO PROCESS AND CANNOT USE THE *** AT ALL FOR OUR CONVERSIONS. IN OUR CONVERSION PROCESS THE *** HEADSTAMP BRASS WILL NOT CONSISTENTLY/PROPERLY SIZE TO 300 BLACKOUT TO RUN RELIABLY, WE DO NOT USE ANY OTHER BRASS BESIDES LC FOR THIS REASON. HERE IS A LINK TO THE AUCTION I PURCHASED : ************************************************************ YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ANY '**********/*** '10' HEADSTAMP LISTED IN THE AUCTION, NOR A DISCLAIMER SAYING THE AUCTION MAY CONTAIN OTHER HEADSTAMPS. WE ONLY PURCHASED THIS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEIR LISTING WAS TRUE AND ACCURATE, AND WE WOULD ONLY BE GETTING **** **** BRASS AS IT WAS ADVERTISED. GOVERNMENT LIQUIDATION AKA LIQUIDITY SERVICES REVIEWED AND DENIED MY CLAIM SAYING IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO FLY TO TEXAS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO ENSURE THEIR LISTING WAS ACCURATE. HOWEVER, IN THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEY ARE ALSO BOUND TO THIS REGARDING THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF THEIR CLAIMS: Section 3: SELLER OBLIGATIONS (top) Users who use GL's website to sell assets or merchandise of any kind agree that: A. Sellers shall submit information about assets or merchandise to be listed on our website to the designated GL account representative. The GL account representative will post all the relevant information regarding the merchandise that will be necessary to sell (e.g. description, price, quantity, lot size, shipping information), promote and facilitate the logistic management. The information may be reviewed to ensure its consistency and accuracy and posted upon agreement of our Sales Team that will tailor the sales strategy to maximize your returns. Prior to any auction activation, the Seller must have a signed Asset Sales Agreement ("ASA") plus a Schedule I ("Schedule 1") for each inventory of assets provided to GL for sale. B. Listing Information. Unless GL has been contracted to develop an Asset List at the Seller's facility, Sellers are solely responsible for the accuracy, completeness and validity of all the information describing the assets listed for sale (the "Listing Information"). Sellers, who provide information to GL regarding property for sale on GL's website, represent and warrant that they are the lawful owners of the listed assets or acting on behalf of and with the authorization of the lawful owner of the listed assets. Each Seller represents and warrants that all Listing Information provided is accurate and truthful regarding, without limitation, the type, quantity and condition of the listed assets in any auction posted by the Seller on GL's website. Sellers understand and agree that GL, at its sole discretion, may take any action it deems necessary to review, edit or remove any listing information provided by a Seller. Assets MUST be available for pickup within 3-5 business days of the auction closing. Auctions not available for pick-up within 3-5 business days may result in the assessment of fees and damages payable by the Seller.

Desired Settlement: BEING AS THE DESCRIPTION AND PICTURES WERE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS DRUM PICKED UP AND REPLACED WITH A DRUM OF **** **** HEADSTAMP BRASS '10 OR NEWER, OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY ORDER TOTAL OF $5120.23 CREDITED BY HALF FOR $2560, AND HAVE THE *** DRUM PICKED UP AND RETURNED. I WOULD ALSO LIKE A CREDIT FOR HALF OF THE SHIPPING WHICH WAS $520 AND HALF BEING $260. IN TOTAL I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE $2820 REFUNDED TO ME, AND WOULD LIKE SOMEONE FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION TO PICK UP THE UN-USABLE 55 GALLON DRUM OF *** BRASS. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE BRASS, AND WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU ALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE A FREIGHT COMPANY PICK IT UP. I AM ATTACHING PICTURES AS WELL. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I NEED THIS MATERIAL TO RUN A BUSINESS, AND I CAN'T USE HALF OF IT....WHICH MEANS I NOW NEED TO FIND MORE. OR THEY CAN DROP THE PRICE OF SCRAP OFF OF THIS DRUM OF BRASS, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING I CAN USE IT FOR, WHICH IS CURRENTLY LOCALLY $1 PER POUND. SO IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO PICK IT UP OR REPLACE IT WITH THE BRASS THAT WAS ADVERTISED, I WOULD SETTLE FOR A PAYMENT OF $2820 - THE COST OF SCRAP ($630) FOR A TOTAL REFUND OF $2190.

Business Response:

August 25, 2014

Dear *** ******,
We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with *** ******'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 bids. Our records indicate that **** ****** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when **** ****** placed his winning bid on Sale ****, Lot **** (Friday, April 4, 2014) on Government Liquidation's website. The lot's description advertised was advertised as, 1,340 lbs. (approx) of 5.56mm Fired Brass. Head stamp ****. Property is on (1) pallet with (2) metal drums approximately 56 X 29 X 39 and the container is included in the weight of this lot. Mutilation not required. Material located at *** ***** Army Depot, in *****, Texas. Preview available prior to start of the sale, by appointment only and is recommended. Load out by appointment only, with a 48 hour notice required.

Our records indicate that **** ****** did not preview the property as recommended in the lots description. In addition, *** ****** removed and signed for the property without objection. The following excerpts of the Terms and Conditions pertain to preview and removal:
8:H Either you or your agent will be required to sign for all material in the presence of a GL representative (unless otherwise approved by an authorized GL agent) prior to removing property.

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

Subsequently, **** ****** filed a claim, citing a material/description misrepresentation. *** ****** disputed lot **** claiming that, the “Material received was not as described. Half of my order is usable and is *** headstamps. We only use **** **** to process and cannot use the *** at all for our conversions. In our conversion process the *** headstamp brass will not consistently/properly size to 300 blackout to run reliably, we do not use any other brass besides LC for this reason”.

On May 14, 2014, **** ****** was informed that his claim was being processed and would take approximately 15 business days or longer for a resolution. A copy of this communication is enclosed.
Government Liquidation determined that **** ******'s claim was not valid and an approval of his refund request ($2,560.00), could not be approved do to the following reason:

*** ***** removed lot **** from the site personally and signed the removal invoice. The Terms and conditions expressly state that “You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it". Once a lot is removed from our site and signed for as correct a claim/refund request cannot be approved as the property is no longer in Government Liquidations
possession.
A copy of the signed invoice has been enclosed.
We have additionally included Section 4:D excerpts 1 & 2 from the Terms and Conditions below.
D.1 YOUR PURCHASE OF OR PLACEMENT OF A BID ON THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPERTY "AS IS" AND IN A USED CONDITION. "ACCEPTANCE"AS USED HERE ALSO MEANS THAT, BY PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXAMINED, OR HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE, THE PROPERTY AND AGREED THAT THE PROPERTY IS OF THE SIZE, DESIGN, CAPACITY AND MANUFACTURER SELECTED BY YOU, IS IN PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, AND IS FIT FOR THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND USE YOU REOUIRE. WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR THAT THE PROPERTY IS FREE FROM LATENT DEFECTS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE NOT A MANUFACTURER OF THE PROPERTY, OR ANAGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER, AND THAT THE ONLY EXPRESS WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY IS THAT OF THE MANUFACTURER, IF ANY YOU WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST US AND THE SELLER FOR DAMAGES, LOSSES, COSTS, INJURIES, PENALTIES, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LIABILITIES OF WHATEVER NATURE WHETHER IN TORT, CONTRACT, WARRANTY OR STRICT LIABILITY, INCLUDING THOSE RESULTING FROM INJURIES OR DEATHS OF PERSONS AND DAMAGES TO PROPERTY RESULTING FROM OR ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE, CONDITION, OPERATION, TRANSPORTATION, SERVICE, POSSESSION, RENTAL OR SALE OF THE PROPERTY, LOSS OR LIABILITY RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF WARRANTY, PARTS, LABOR, DELAY OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES, DELIVERY DELAYS, WORKSTOPPAGES, FAILURE TO WARN, OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES OR FAILURES, BREAKDOWNS, STRIKES, ACTS OF GOD, UNAVAILABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OR OTHER CAUSE (WHETHER THESE CAUSES AREAVOIDABLE OR NOT) CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY YOU, US, YOUR OR OUR EMPLOYEES, YOUR OR OUR AGENTS OR THIRD PARTIES (COLLECTIVELY, "SPECIFIED CLAIMS"). UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PARTY, YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD US AND THE SELLER HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINST
ANY AND ALL SPECIFIED CLAIMS.
D:2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: The information and descriptions found in the advertising materials for specific sales are not guaranteed. We neither assume responsibility nor make any warranty regarding the sale's contents. Condition codes, National Stock Numbers (NSN), Local Stock Numbers (LSN), National Item Identification Numbers (NIN), and Scrap Condition List (SCL) codes are provided as received from the DLA Disposition Services as assistance to our customers. We do not guaranty the accuracy of this information. It is your responsibility to verify an item's information and description, including but not limited to, product condition, estimated weight, count, measure or other factors that determine the bid price. Information provided by us is not guaranteed and should not be considered as a substitute for your due diligence and physical inspection of the property
Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation will be unable to accommodate **** ******'s request.
Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.
Regards,

Cary H

Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

 

9/5/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The seller misrepresented the auction to the buyer. I gave 2 email sets of photos of all goods that I received. Which you do not see any of the handbags represented in the photos that the auction was representing at all. The photos they showed were of really nice looking bags and tags on a lot of them not what I received at all in any of the lot I bid on the item per what I was seeing in the photos on what I would be receiving and how much I was willing to pay on items in photos of the goods. But what I received was nothing as described not even the Brand names they said. I was totally lied to in the auction So what they are telling me is that what you are seeing in the photos of a listing, is not what you will be getting at all , But something similar to it. They refuse to refund me the money. I gave them proof of the items in photos that was sent. They refused my dispute even though I had the proof on my side. I have all emails and photos that I have corresponded with them These guys are defrauding the consumer

Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund on my items.

Business Response:

August 22, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* **************, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ************** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** **** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 31, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** **** said that she only received one of the items from the auction photos and that the name brands shown in the listing were not sent. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ****’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was properly represented. The seller sent the correct number and type of items advertised. The auction listing states that there will be designer inspired handbags and genuine leather bags. It also reads, “You will receive items like the ones shown in the pictures.”

Further, *** **** filed a chargeback with ****** 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, *** ****’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. Due to the chargeback, we can provide no further consideration of the dispute. When *** **** registered as a member of our website, she agreed to follow our dispute procedures and stands in violation with the chargeback.

We regret that *** **** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

8/29/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The computers continually crash. I first purchased the ******* computer 07/2013. I am now on my 4th computer. None have made it out of the 90 day warranty. The last replacement they sent was actually just the same computer that I sent back. When I told them that the unit arrived with all of my setting already on it, even though the unit was "already packed and waiting", I was told that they did that on purpose since I had had so much trouble with them!! They keep replacing the unit, with me doing without a computer during all of the shipping phases. They have had the computers longer than I have had one in my house.

Desired Settlement: The secondary warranty that I purchased refunded the purchase price within FIVE MINUTES of my relating the problem. Since the secondary warranty cost me approximately $60, I believe that they should refund the secondary warranty cost, since they were the ones that ultimately made good on the product.

Business Response:

August 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** **** with the Better Business Bureau. *** **** described concerns she had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for her ******* computer. *** **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she was unable to receive a properly working computer. 

*** **** purchased a ******* computer in July 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On October 7, 2013, she started a warranty claim because her computer was experiencing freezing problems. The unit was sent for repair and then returned for her on November 18, 2013. *** **** then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on December 27, 2013. At this point, a replacement was sent to *** **** on January 9. However, the replacement was also defective so another replacement was provided on February 24. Unfortunately, this computer was also found to be defective by *** **** so she was sent yet another replacement computer on March 4.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from *** **** after the March 4 replacement so the matter was considered resolved. In her complaint, she said that she had been refunded her purchase price through a second warranty. *** **** now requests that Liquidity Services pay to her the $60.00 that she paid for the second warranty. Unfortunately, we cannot refund money that was not paid to us, by company policy.

We regret that *** **** had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  While I had a bad experience with them, their statement to look into the computers is good.  Someone needs to review not just that the computer is fixed, but one of the computers shipped back to me actually still had my information on it.  So I would say that someone needs to look at shipping and returns as well.

Thank you for your help.  

Regards,

****** ****

8/29/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Failure to repair or replace defective **** Tablet computer In Jan of this year I purchaced an **** ****** W tablet computer from the emachines redeem web site. As received the computer would not charge or turn on. I contacted warrantysupport@Liquidityservices.com. They sent me an e-mail with attached labels to sent the machine to an **** repair center in ******* TX. I am not a computer person and had problems getting these labels. When I got the machine back the screen orientation would not follow the orientation of the machine. Worst yet the screen would flip upside down, Again I called LIQUIDITY and was told nothing could be done till they received a report from the **** repair facility in ******* TX and this would take 10 days, assuming the carrier pigeon didn't die or get lost (just kidding.) Finally I got more labels and back went the machine. This time when I got the machine the flip problem was not fixed and in addition I got a message telling me I was using an invalid product key for *** * and ********* offered to sell me a key for $129. Again I called LIQUIDITY and got the same run around, but finally more labels appeared and back went the Tablet. When I got the Tablet this time it was just loose in the box, and the back was not even attached. It still did the flip trick but now was set on Administrative running so a screen would come up but no APPS would run. This time when I called LIQUIDITY I got the same 10 day run around, but instead of labels to the repair **** facility in ******* I was sent a label to ship the machine directly to ******* TX for replacement. Hearing nothing after two weeks I called LIQUIDITY and was told they would be sending a replacement this week, but to call back to make sure. When I did this I was told they would have to send the machine to ******* first, but the representative said she'd call me back and let me know for sure what was happening. I got no call Bluntly put these guys and **** are a bunch of incompetant crooks. I filing this report mostly to make sure that no else has to go through this mess. I've also filed a complaint with the TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERALS office and everyone else I can think of. Thaanks for your time reading this story

Desired Settlement: I'll take the cash settlement offered on the emachines redeem web site. I never want to hear from these smucks or **** again, ever!

Business Response:

August 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ******* *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ******* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******* described concerns he had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his **** tablet computer. *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer. 

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

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

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

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

******* *******

8/27/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Business Response:

July 28, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ****** *****, ID# ******** 

Dear *** ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied. 

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

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

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

We regret that *** ***** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


Regards,

****** *****

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

 I call them so many times and every time I call the it been recorded and when I asked them play back the phone call they say we have no access the the calls  so you can ask them if they can play back to my phone calls and you find how many times I asked them I need to return the phone back.
Thank You



8/26/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 6/21/2014 I won an auction on Liquidity Services Inc.'s website (Liquidation.com) hosted by SurplusXchange. I received the merchandise on Friday 6/27/2014 at approximately 10:30 am. I began inventorying the goods and noticed a few minor discrepancies, i.e. pieces that were totally different than the ones pictured in the auction but were at, or just a little below the retail prices noted in the manifest, so I simply chose to ignore it. Then I spotted the ***** ****** watch (the flagship of the auction) and I immediately noticed that it was a lot different and cheaper looking than the one pictured in the auction. This watch was to be the centerpiece of the jewelry section in my new store. Other than sharing the same name brand, the similarities end there. Here are the major differences that can be obviously seen in the photos I submitted. The watch they sent me has a small single ring of 36 ********* crystals on the dial, compared to the much larger double ring of 156 ********* crystals that are embedded in the bezel of the watch pictured in the auction. The watch they sent me doesn't have any sub-dials compared to the 3 sub-dials ornamented with 54 more ********* crystals in the pictured watch. The watch they sent me has simple numbers on the dial compared to the more eye appealing Roman numerals displayed in the pictured watch. After further investigating I found out that the watch they sent me has a retail value of just $175 compared to $225 listed in the manifest, which is significant when you are talking about a $400 investment (the price of the winning bid), but it is not just the $50 difference in retail value, as anyone can see (especially a potential buyer), the watch pictured in the auction has so much more overall appeal than the one they sent me. I know I would have NOT bid on this auction if they had the watch they sent me pictured, instead of the much more nicer one. On Monday 6/29/2014 I submitted a dispute with Liquidity Services Inc. but they chose to deny my dispute saying that the two item were similar. That is like saying a Corvette and a Geo Metro are similar just because they both say Chevrolet on the fender. I think that this is a classic case of "Bait and switch". It was really disheartening when the best piece in the auction was so blatantly misrepresented and I have to spend time disputing this. I was really hoping that Liquidity Services Inc. and SurplusXchange would just do the right thing in this matter. Thank you for you valuable time. Sincerely, ********...*****************

Desired Settlement: Just give me the watch pictured and I'll give them the misrepresented one back.

Business Response:

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ******** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

*** ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 131 items of major department store jewelry and watches in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 30, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department stating that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** ******* said that several of the items were similar to the auction listing, but of slightly lesser retail value. However, her focus was on the ***** ****** watch, which she said looked different than the one represented in the auction. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested an exchange of the misrepresented watch.

Our disputes team reviewed *** *******’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The items shipped to *** ******* were in Shelf Pulls condition, and her support confirmed that the buyer received items similar to what were pictured in the auction. Additionally, the disputes team advised *** ******* that MSRP prices are not encouraged as a basis of dispute, as these values are the suggested retail values of a new unit given by the manufacturer, whereby resale values will vary based on several factors throughout the retail process. Therefore, the items received by *** ******* do properly represent the items listed in the auction.

We regret that *** ******* 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: *** ******, The Liquidity Services inc.'s legal and disputes teams appear to want to divert the issues of this dispute towards retail values and shelf pulls, but as I stated in my initial complaint, it is not just about the differences of the retail values, and the fact that the items were shelf pulls was never even an issue. The only issue here is the uncomplicated fact that SurplusXchange DISPLAYED A PICTURE OF A REALLY NICE WATCH IN THE AUCTION, AND THEN SENT ME A MUCH MORE INFERIOR ONE. It is just that simple, and no, they are not similar, anyone viewing them with an impartial eye can see that. I'm not unreasonable. I was willing to overlook the other items they switched, but I just can't believe they would try and switch the most featured piece in the auction. And if somehow Liquidity Services' Terms and Conditions allow these unethical practices, then that is just plain wrong and it should be amended immediately. Again, in case they missed this part too, other than the fact that the watch pictured in the auction has so much more appeal than the one I received, the differences are.... The watch I received has a small single ring of 36 ********* crystals on the dial, compared to the much larger double ring of 156 ********* crystals that are embedded in the bezel of the watch displayed in the auction. The watch I received doesn't have any sub-dials, compared to the 3 sub-dials ornamented with 54 more ********* crystals in the watch displayed in the auction. The watch I received has basic simple numbers on the dial, compared to the much more eye appealing Roman numerals displayed in the watch shown in the auction. As I stated before, I would have NEVER bid on this auction if they had displayed the watch that I received. I'm not a trouble maker, and I detest the fact that I have to spend what little spare time I have to dispute this, but I will make time, because I don't think anyone should be treated in this manner. It appears as if they think because they are a large corporation with a legal and a so called disputes team, they can bully the small business guy/gal, do anything they want, and get away with it. But I'm confident that just about anyone that's not on their payroll will see my point. It's simply just not right. Thank you for your valuable time, ******** ******** *****************

Business Response:

August 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ******** *******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******, 

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

*** ******* filed a claim regarding general merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. Our disputes team requested support (photos, videos, etc.) for her dispute and after reviewing the support, we concluded that *** *******’s claim could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. *** *******’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 auction. In her initial complaint, *** ******* 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 $400 investment. Those MSRP values, however, did not dictate the prices of the items within this auction. The “per unit price” of this auction was $3.07, accounting for the $402.00 winning bid. Under 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 auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, 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 auction. This was visible on the auction page. As per the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com, this variance was permitted. For this reason, we cannot accept *** *******’s secondary complaint, which argued on behalf of the MRSP and value of this watch. Lots are sold in their entirety with consideration for quantity variance so a buyer should not bid for the purpose of receiving an individual item. If the item had not been shipped at all (a “missing” item) it would have been covered under quantity variance. Likewise, the lesser item is acceptable so long as the lot meets the advertised requirements for 97% of the merchandise.

We regret that *** ******* remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute because the auction was properly listed. 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because, they keep attempting to cover up the fact that they featured one watch and sent me an inferior one. Their desperation is getting very obvious. They know that their actions are simply unethical.
Regards,

******** *******








8/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 6/3/2014, I purchase some ******** Phone cases from Liquidation.com with the belief that the items were as pictured. The items description states "Return items", however when I receive my order the items were utter garbage as if the were taken out of dumpsters. The items appears as if they were used for many years and then thrown in the garbage and that is what they sent to me. 99% of the items were broken and dirty and thrown in a bag along with the non broken items. I immediately contacted Liquidation.com and they asked for pictures as proof of my claim. I complied and submitted the pictures of all the damaged items they sent to me in the same box. Here is the amount that I paid for the items: ***************Transaction Detail*************** Transaction ID: ******* Total Auction Amount: 237.33 USD Buyer's Premium: 11.87 USD Shipping quote: 40.25 USD Total Amount Paid: 289.45 USD A few days later I receive an email that states: "Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: Dispute denied: Items are properly listed as Returns. Per the definition of Returns, as stated on the auction page, "The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing." All parties must abide by the dispute resolution provided by Liquidation.com as stated in the Terms and Conditions. The status for this transaction has been moved to "Paying Seller" and the funds will be released to the seller. Should you have questions, please call our Customer Support Department at ************." So not only did they refuse to accept the items back, they refuse to refund my money for the damaged and utterly broken items. Today I tried to login to Liquidation.com to view my account to see the transactions and I could not get in. After calling them, they stated that they close my account because I open up a Credit Card despite. They also told me if I cancel the dispute they would re-open my account. I refuse their illegal offer and that is why I want everyone to know the kind of Company that Liquidation.com is. They are dishonest and does not care about the Customers.

Desired Settlement: Base on the amount of money that I spent on the merchandise: $289.45 USD. I would like a FULL 100% replacement. I need liquidation.com to ship me the items that I paid for OR issue me a FULL refund of $289.45

Business Response:

July 16, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ******* ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

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

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

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

We regret that *** ****** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc..

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

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

2. Upon filing a Credit Card claim; Liquidation.com IMMEDIATELY closed my account and told me the only way to re-open my account is to drop the Credit Card claim. 
As a buyer I have the right to complain. This is not a 3rd world Country, it's the United States; and they are in Violation of freedom of speech.
With that said. I will file a legal suite if needs be.
That is the violation on THEIR part. 
I REFUSE their claim and I DEMAND an IMMEDIATE and stately resolution.

Regards,

****** ******








Business Response:

August 5, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ****** ******. In his response, *** ****** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

 

*** ****** claimed that the items he purchased from Liquidation.com arrived in a condition other than advertised in the auction listing. He provided photos in support of his claim. Our disputes team reviewed his dispute and found that his evidence did not support his claims that the merchandise he received was not in Returns condition.

Items that are designated as Returns were originally sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the items back to a store or mailed them to a specified location. Though the reason for returning the product may not have any correlation to its usefulness, it can have some operational or cosmetic problems, due to further handling. *** ****** assumed that these items would not have extensive operational or cosmetic damage, but that does not correspond to our definition of Returns, which states that these issues can appear in returned merchandise.

Further, *** ****** seemed to expect Shelf Pulls condition merchandise whereas the auction listing consisted of Returns condition merchandise. Shelf Pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They tend to have been exposed to appreciable customer contact and can show signs of further handling. However, this merchandise was never owned by a consumer whereas Returns merchandise was purchased by a consumer and then returned at a later date. Depending on the manufacturing company’s return policy, the amount of use can vary significantly. Therefore, a buyer should expect a wider range of potential conditions for these Returns condition ***** boxes.

Finally, *** ****** filed a chargeback with his credit card company and therefore his user account was deactivated. When he signed up as a user on Liquidation.com, he agreed to follow our terms and conditions. Chargebacks are not permitted because the user maintains possession of the merchandise with no payment.

We regret that *** ****** remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we cannot reject a legitimate sale of Returns merchandise due to customer expectations when liquidated lots undergo excessive handling as a matter of regularity. Therefore, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

8/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: our pay periods are messed up pay period would begin on the 08\01\2013-08\15\2013 and we get our check on the 15 of the month I dont understand what they are doing but I think its fraud please help me find out

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation) pay day should be on the 5 and 25 of every month so we can have actual hours that we actully worked

Business Response:

August 4, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* *****, ID# ******** 

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns she had as an employee of Liquidity Services, Inc. *** ***** believes that our company is violating employment law.

*** ***** said that while she had received paychecks on the 15th and last day of each month that she was employed by Liquidity Services, Inc., that she preferred to be paid on the 5th and 25th of the month. She thought that the payments on the 15th and final day of the month may constitute fraud. 

In short, we believe that this is not the proper forum for this inquiry. Furthermore, we are within the law in our payment procedures to our employees so there is no fraud being committed with respect to the days that payments are issued to our employees. Finally, *** ***** is no longer employed by Liquidity Services, Inc. so the complaint is moot on her personal level.

We thank the Better Business Bureau for allowing us to respond to the complaint; however, we do not believe that it has any merit to warrant further consideration. 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

8/22/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I scheduled 5 transactions to be picked up from this company (******** *******, *******, ******* and *******). I received an email back stating that the transactions would be ready for pickup on 3/19/14, so I paid for a freight company to pick the 5 pallets up. On the morning of 3/19/14 I received an email that stated that one of the transactions had been shipped but that the others had not. I called the customer service phone number and they tell me that they only had one pallet scheduled to be shipped and that I would have to reschedule picking up the other 4 pallets. While I was on the phone with the customer service people, I get an email from the freight company that Liquidation.com would not let their driver pick up any of the transactions because the amount of pallets on the Bill of Lading did not match what they had in their records. Because of that, I would have to pay a $150 fee to pickup a second time. I prepaid over $800 to a freight company to pick up all 5 pallets and I am not paying any more money because of their mistakes. I told the customer service person to cancel all five of these transactions and that I expected a refund immediately. Thanks to the incompetence of the people behind shipping@liquidation.com and the poor customer service of Antoinette in customer service, I have lost over $800 for their mistakes. Over the last 4 months I have purchased over $7,000 of products from Liquidation.com. Because of this disaster, I will be sure to let every other reseller I know what a poorly run company this is.

Desired Settlement: I want at the very least a portion of the fees that I lost to the freight company because of Liquidation.com's mistakes.

Business Response:

August 4, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ***** *****, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******** *******, *******, ******* and *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies. 

*** ***** was the winning bidder of five auctions for lots of Returns condition merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that despite receiving an e-mail indication that her loads were ready for pickup, that her freight company was unable to retrieve her merchandise as expected. There was one shipment that was scheduled to be shipped while four others were set for pickup. When her freight company arrived, they were unable to retrieve the loads of merchandise because the number of pallets on the bill of lading paperwork did not match the request in the warehouse records. *** ***** was told that she would have to reschedule the pickup.

Company policy requires that pickup by third party freight companies be tightly managed to prevent fraud or theft. Since the paperwork did not match the warehouse records for pickup, the warehouse personnel could not release the merchandise. When a buyer arranges for pickup by a third party on Liquidation.com purchases, the buyer takes on the responsibility of securing accurate paperwork and coordinating the delivery between the third party and warehouse. Further, our company is unable to refund money paid to other parties so we cannot reimburse *** ***** for her payment to the freight company. 

We regret that *** ***** 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

8/19/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a **** 13.3" Laptop 4GB 128GB | *********** on 12/3/13 from Liquidity Services Inc, with a provided "Recertified Product Limited Warranty". I received the product on or about 12/12/13 and wrapped the original, undamaged, box as a Christmas gift. The box was opened approximately 1/1/14. The product was found undamaged and in good working order. On approximately 1/10/14, the laptop cover was opened normally whereupon the '******* glass' exterior cover cracked. Given that this was normal use, I am only to assume this is a manufacturer defect in the glass itself.

Desired Settlement: Repair or replacement of the **** 13.3" Laptop 4GB 128GB | ************

Business Response:

May 24, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns he had as a buyer using the **** **** store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.

On December 12, 2013, *** ****** received an **** 13.3-inch laptop computer in an undamaged box in fine working condition. About January 10, the “******* glass” exterior of the laptop cracked upon normal opening. Since this was normal usage, *** ****** suspected that the glass may have had a manufacturer’s defect so he contacted our company for remedies under the limited warranty. He provided photos of the laptop and requested a repair or replacement for the laptop.

Upon review of the photos sent by *** ******, our team noticed physical damage to the laptop. Unfortunately, the limited warranty does not cover any defects related to physical damage to the laptop, which would include the glass. 

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

 

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

There was NOT damage to the laptop and therefore it is NOT possible to see damage in the photos.  I reject this finding and ask that the photos be annotated and returned with 'damaged' areas.  In addition, I reject the proposal that 4 weeks of normal use may result in cracked glass.  This is simply not a reasonable expectation of a customer for this product.


Regards,

****** ******








8/19/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would like them to state a return policy on every listing, so that a buyer knows that they might not get what they paid for and will not be able to return the item.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ******* *************, ID# *******

Dear *** ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ************* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ************* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ************* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** ************* was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 120 mixed DVD movies purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 5, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** ************* said that he was not satisfied with the selection of DVDs he received. He said that there were no “blockbusters” in the shipment, as advertised and shown in the photos accompanying the auction listing. There was also a music CD which was not wanted and not advertised as part of the lot.

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

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

We regret that *** ************* 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

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


Regards,

******* *************








8/19/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I rent home office space from someone who told me about his account with liquidation.com. I am starting a business, and decided to use liquidation.com as my supplier as well. I applied for an account, listing my billing address -- home, and my office space. Liquidation approved my account. I spent considerable time watching auctions, I bid on them, and won them, fair and square. I was invoiced. I paid for the first lot, and when I went to pay for the second and third lots, the web site said my account was cancelled because "only one account is allowed per household." We are not legally a household in any way, shape or form. We are not related. It would be highly inconvenient for me to ship all these huge packages to my home address instead of office, however if that's what I have to do, I would do it. Unfortunately, Liquidation was completely unwilling to budge and to maintain their end of our contract. I am LIVID. They completely wasted my time and set my business back by one week.

Desired Settlement: I expect them to compensate me for the time I lost because I trusted that they would honor our contract. I am requesting either that my merchandise be made available to me right away, with a waived shipping fee for the delay, or that $200 in transferrable store credit, so I can use it on someone else's account, since I'm not allowed to have one. If they can't comply, this needs to stay on record to warn others about this dishonest company that hurts small business owners. Thank you.

Business Response:

February 13, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ******** *******, ID# *******

Dear *** ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that she disagreed with Liquidity Services, Inc.’s user identification policy. *** ******* believes that our company has not conducted its business practices properly because she was unable to keep her user registration. 

*** ******* created a Liquidation.com user account on January 22 and purchased three auction lots. The next day, however, her user account was de-activated because she shares a residential address with another Liquidation.com user. We do not permit more than one user account per household.

This policy protects our users by providing a unique, reliable identifier for each user. This helps to establish a clear chain of custody for Liquidation.com goods. If more than one recipient was allowed at an address, there would be little to determine who received shipments, or if anyone received them at all. Unfortunately, we cannot make exceptions to this rule regardless of the enthusiasm of our potential new user. A different address will need to be registered if *** ******* intends to join our buyer/seller network.

We regret that *** ******* does not agree with our decision; however, we hope that our explanation has provided the necessary information regarding our policy.

Regards,

Cary *. H****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.  

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because Liquidation's rules stated that there was only one account per household or business. I do not share a household or business with the other customer, only a shipping address. They could have asked for my driver's license or tax returns to validate that. I would have changed my shipping address if Liquidation had told me that their policy extended to that requirement. Instead, they cut me off without warning, so that I could not even view my own orders. Subsequently, one of my orders arrived and was salvage instead of returns, and was entirely different items. I was unable to provide proof about the original order to Liquidation because they had locked me out of access to my account history. This made the process very complicated, but they eventually approved my return, sent me a return shipping label, but I cannot access the return label because, again, my account was deactivated, and I am getting no response when I request that they send me the return label as an attachment instead. 

It was just a very rude way of doing business. They could have blocked shipments until the matter was resolved, or some other civil way of handling it. It is not as hard as Liquidation seems to think, to simply be courteous and accommodating while still maintaining their rules. Also, the rules should be stated more clearly, since my situation did not match the unauthorized situations their terms of service describe and their BBB response references.

Regards,

******** *******








7/27/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased two laptops from liquidation.com and under their description they said the laptops were missing hard drives. once I received the laptops they were completely destroyed due to water damage. I contacted the company and they would not issue my a refund or allow me to return the items because they said it was sold as is. Had I known the laptops had water damage I would not have bought them. They never told me the laptops were as is or that they do not accept returns until after I had this situation.

Desired Settlement: Refund for the amount I paid which was $942.66

Business Response: July 16, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** *****, ID# ********

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for C Grade ***** ******* and ******* Satellite laptops in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 15, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed in the auction. He said that that the ******* laptop not only was missing the hard drive as advertised, but also had water damage and would not turn on. He requested a full refund on the transaction.

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

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

**. ***** attempted to reopen the dispute, but was informed by our accounts team that his account information violated the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com. The account information, specifically the credit card used by **. ***** in this auction, belonged to his brother. Our team consulted **. *****, stating that his account could not be activated even for probationary use until the account information correctly reflected the user. He then filed a chargeback with ******** *******, which is in violation with the Liqudation.com terms and conditions.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

7/25/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I am asking for a full refund.

Business Response:

June 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

*********, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ****** *********, ID# ********

 

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ********* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ********* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ********* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

**. ********* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 4,000 cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 29, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she received 3,000 items of the exact same cosmetic pencil out of the 4,000-item shipment. This was unacceptable to her. Additionally, she said that many of the items were expired, sample sizes or testers not intended for resale. **. ********* requested a full refund. 

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

Further, **. ********* filed a chargeback with ******** ******* 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, **. *********’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that **. ********* 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 Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

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


Regards,

****** *********








7/25/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Company Description per their website: Liquidation.com is a Liquidity Services, Inc. marketplace where professional buyers can source commercial surplus inventory and government surplus assets in an online environment. Bulk lots are sold by the truckload, pallet, or small package, and conditions range from new in a box to customer returns and used. Our wide variety of product categories includes apparel, computers, electronics, housewares, industrial equipment, vehicles, and much more. I decided to purchase items from the companies website Liquidation.com; On 4-9-14 I was the winning bidder on two separate lots of product from the same seller at the same location, through Liquidation.com I specifically choose to purchase two separate lots because they were being offered from the same seller and the same shipping location, where I had the understanding shipping cost would be less than if I bought at two different stores. I choose to purchase these two lots for this reason, shipping would be consolidated when buying from the same buyer and same shipping location. On Monday, 4-9-14 @ 8:02am CST, I called Liquidation.com customer service and asked for the shipments to be consolidated and I was advised they would be and I would receive an email on how to complete the payment. I continued with an additional purchase (bidding on other lots) until I was locked out from bidding any more (in the middle of a auction and bid) because the previous items haven't been finalized (due to customer service not combining the previous purchase) and therefore lost out on two additional purchases that I needed. Tuesday, 4-10-14, I still have not received an email confirming that the first two items would be combined. i called customer service again, where I was advised that the items would be combined and shipping would be less. By the way, the minimum estimated estimated shipping for the items was $40.25 for each lot. One weighing 9lbs and the other 6lbs = $80.50. Obviously, very expensive, which is why I was glad they would combine the shipment. On Tuesday, 4-10-14 @ 10:00am CST, I called customer service again where I was reassured that the two lot purchases would be discounted and combined, but sometimes it takes 24-48 hours for accounting and shipping to make the changes to be reflected on the invoice and for shipping to make arrangements. As of Wednesday, 4-11-14 @ 9:36am CST I still have not received an email confirming the adjustment. However, I did receive and email advising me that the payment deadline for the purchase was past the 48 hour time frame. I called customer service again, 4-11-14 @ 9:36am CST, to inquire about the purchase again, where I was told this time that they could not and would not combine the purchases. If this was the case I would not have bought both items, just one of them. After explaining everything for a third time, the customer service representative offered to speak to her supervisor, since I was told on two occasions that the shipment would be discounted. The customer service representative advised me that since I was told this they might go ahead and honor what I was told. However, the supervisor was occupied at the moment and could not speak to me about it, so the supervisor would call me back withing a couple of hours. As of 1:41pm CST, I have not received an email nor have I received a phone call, so I called customer service again. I tried to explain, for a fourth time, to the customer service representative, yet she continued to interrupt me, saying they were not going to combine the shipping. I asked the customer service representative to stop interrupting me and allow me to finish talking as I needed to speak to a supervisor, at which point the representative put me on hold (hung up on me), where I waited online for 6 minutes and the phone call was disconnected. It is now 2:31pm CST, still no email and no phone call. I tried to contact the main office and speak to Bill A******, CEO, but was unable to reach him or anyone else for that matter. Customer service representatives were very rude each time I called, with the exception of the third call, where I was told someone would call me back. The fees associated with shipping are massive and outrageously out of line with actual cost. you don't really know the actual cost until you have actually won the bid for the items in the auction, but when you buy from the same seller in the same shipping location, there is no reason for this company to charge double fees for somethings. Which is why they have the statement on their website regarding combining shipments (see below, as I copied and pasted their words directly from their website regarding combining shipments). I was told on Monday and Tuesday that the shipments would be reduced to one fee and shipped. When a company tells me they are going to do something, they should honor their words and do it. They should not give people the run around. They obviously don't care, as if I don't complete the purchase they said I would be charged a $200.00 cancel fee. Bait and switch. The company website states the following....directly from their site: Liquidation.com does however provide shipping discounts for customers who ship multiple auctions from the same location using LSI-arranged shipping. To take advantage of this, one of your transactions must exceed the minimum shipping charge of $40.25. Consolidation must be requested within 48 business hours of winning the auction and prior to payment. For more information, or to consolidate a shipment, please contact us at ###-###-#### or shipping@liquidation.com.

Desired Settlement: I was told the shipment would be combined into one. So, the charge should have been $40.25 for both lots (costing $200.00) not $80.50, so I expect them to refund me the $40.25+ applicable tax as they said they would do the first two phone calls. otherwise I would not have bought both lots. This massive shipping fee made the items higher than their worth.

Business Response:

June 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ***** ********* ID# ********

Dear *** ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***** ********* with the Better Business Bureau. *** ********* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID ******* and *******. *** ********* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his shipping costs were higher than advised.

*** ********* was the winning bidder of two auctions for two separate lots of credit card knives in new condition purchased via Liquidation.com. After he had won the auctions, he contacted customer service and asked for the shipments to be consolidated because the two lots were from the same seller and shipping location. He was advised by a customer service representative that his request would be met, and that he would receive his email confirmation within 24-48 hours. After the 24-48 hour request period ended, *** ********* was informed by a customer service representative that we could not accommodate his request to consolidate the shipping. This was the case because the lots were packaged and handled by the seller and not by Liquidation.com personnel at one of our warehouses. If the shipments had come from one of our warehouses, we would have control over the packaging and consolidation of these lots.

 

*** ********* was dissatisfied that his request was denied and that the shipping costs remained in full for both lots. He said that he would not have purchased both lots if he could not reduce the shipping costs to $40.25 from $80.50. *** ********* also said that he did not know the “actual cost” of the lots until he had won the bid. However, *** ********* purchased both lots before inquiring about our shipping policies. As a user on Liquidation.com, *** ********* voluntarily bid on these two, individual lots and then asked to clarify some of his shipping questions after winning the auctions. Additionally, for each of these auctions, there was an opportunity to view an estimate of shipping costs through the “Get a Shipping Quote” feature found on the auction listings.

 

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services,Inc.

 

 

 

Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because: Where did this person get their information. This is typical cover up response. I will clarify for this *****. I did check the shipping rates on both auctions and found the shipping cost to extremely high for such a small shipment. This is when I went further into researching the shipping possibilities of combining the shipment for items purchased from the same seller in the same location.  knew this before bidding, hence the reason for the phone call to customer service where I was told twice it would be combined. It wasn't. I was instead told on a third phone call it would not be combined. Then I received an email from Liquidation.com stating that I better pay for the auction or I would be charged a 200.00 cancellation fee. So I had no choice but to pay for the auction. After paying for them transportation informed me that they now cannot combine shipment. This company is the worst I've ever seen. I will never do business with them again. In fact I had another purchase that was not what they advertised, the seller took care of it before I even heard from these guys.See emails below.

Auction Purchase

****** * ******************

Jun 11
to melissa.gierin., publicrelations, sultana.ali
To Whom it may concern:

I have been waiting for customer support to combine shipping for two auctions from the same seller, Trans# ******* and # *******, per your web site and per the 2 separate phone conversations.  Today I receive an email saying that I would be charged a $200.00 cancellation fee if they are not paid for. I want to pay for these, but they have not been combined for shipping as I was told. I am new to Liquidation.com and have completed one purchase and was planning on using Liquidation.com as a source for product, however, my buying experience has been very poor. I would appreciate it if you could assist with this matter.

***** *********
###-###-####

 

Payment Past Due for Transaction ID *******

Inbox
x

Do_Not_Reply@liquidation.com

Jun 11
to me
Dear *****,

Your payment for 50 pc. / Wholesale Lot (Credit Card Knife) with Retail Package and box is past due. This auction was invoiced 2 days ago. Please remit payment as soon as possible to avoid a cancellation fee of $200.00.  Thank you.

***************Transaction Detail***************

Transaction ID: *******
Total Auction Amount: 100.00 USD
Buyer's Premium: 0.05 USD
Shipping quote: 40.25 USD
Sales Tax: 8.77 USD
Total Amount Due: 149.07 USD

*************** Instructions for Domestic First Time Buyer*****************

Credit Card
In order to submit payment by credit card, log into My Account and follow the instructions provided at: http://www.liquidation.com/account/main

******
In order to submit payment by ******, log into My Account and follow the instructions provided at: http://www.liquidation.com/account/main

Wire Transfer
Please provide your bank with the information listed below in order to transfer funds directly to the bank account specified (**** ** *******). Please remember to include your transaction ID# in the wire.  Once the funds have been sent, we require that a confirmation be faxed to ###-###-####.

        Name of Bank: **** ** *******
        Bank Address: *** **** **** *** *** ***** ** *****
        Name of Account & Beneficiary: Liquidity Services, Inc.
        ABA (Routing) number: *********
        Account number: ************
        Reference: Transaction

Please remember that it is Liquidation.com's policy to allow first-time buyers to have no more than two outstanding transactions requiring payment at one time.

************************* General Information ***********************

View your invoice:
***************************************

Monitor transaction status:
Visit My Account - at https://www.liquidation.com/account/main

Questions? Please contact our Customer Support Department via email at payment@liquidation.com, or toll free at ###-###-####, Monday-Friday, 9:00am to 6:00 pm EST.

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department
Liquidity Services, Inc.
Asset Recovery Division
http://www.liquidation.com
1920 L Street, NW 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: ###-###-####

 

Payment Past Due for Transaction ID *******

Inbox
x

Do_Not_Reply@liquidation.com

Jun 11
to me
Dear *****,

Your payment for 100 pc / Lot (Credit Card Knife) Thin Folding Wallet Size, Great Gifts is past due. This auction was invoiced 2 days ago. Please remit payment as soon as possible to avoid a cancellation fee of $200.00.  Thank you.

***************Transaction Detail***************

Transaction ID: *******
Total Auction Amount: 100.00 USD
Buyer's Premium: 0.05 USD
Shipping quote: 40.25 USD
Sales Tax: 8.77 USD
Total Amount Due: 149.07 USD

*************** Instructions for Domestic First Time Buyer*****************

Credit Card
In order to submit payment by credit card, log into My Account and follow the instructions provided at: http://www.liquidation.com/account/main

******
In order to submit payment by ******, log into My Account and follow the instructions provided at: http://www.liquidation.com/account/main

Wire Transfer
Please provide your bank with the information listed below in order to transfer funds directly to the bank account specified (**** ** *******). Please remember to include your transaction ID# in the wire.  Once the funds have been sent, we require that a confirmation be faxed to ###-###-####.

        Name of Bank: **** ** *******
        Bank Address: 103 West 33rd St, New York, NY 10001
        Name of Account & Beneficiary: Liquidity Services, Inc.
        ABA (Routing) number: *********
        Account number: ************
        Reference: Transaction

Please remember that it is Liquidation.com's policy to allow first-time buyers to have no more than two outstanding transactions requiring payment at one time.

************************* General Information ***********************

View your invoice:
***************************************

Monitor transaction status:
Visit My Account - at https://www.liquidation.com/account/main

Questions? Please contact our Customer Support Department via email at payment@liquidation.com, or toll free at ###-###-####, Monday-Friday, 9:00am to 6:00 pm EST.

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department
Liquidity Services, Inc.
Asset Recovery Division
http://www.liquidation.com
1920 L Street, NW 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: ###-###-####

 

Request for consolidation TID ******* *******

Inbox
x

Transportation Department transportation.department@liquidation.com via ********************************************** 

Jun 13
to me

Unfortunately, since the transactions have been paid fro we can not consolidate. 
We apologize for the inconvenience. 

Sincerely, Customer Support

:::*********************

****** * ******************

Jun 13
to Transportation
How convenient. Ii was threatened with a cancellation and a fee of $200.00 if I did not pay within 48 hours, but you guys took 5 days to address this after you told me you would consolidate it. I have filed a complaint with the BBB already. You guys are a terrible company to do business with. Believe me when I say, I will blog, email, call, write, and any other type of means in spreading the word on how bad you conduct business.

****** * ******************

Jun 13
to Transportation
You have to be kidding me. I did call, 4 times. I was told it would be handled the first two times, the 3rd time I was told a supervisor would call me and no one called. then got a notice to pay for the items or I would be charged $200.00 to cancel each transaction. I was hung up on the 4th time. I even called the CEO and still haven't heard back from him. You guys ****.

Transportation Department via ********************************************** 

Jun 13
to me

We do apologize for the inconvenience. Once the transactions are paid for we are unable to consolidate. 
At this time we are unable to further assist you. 

Sincerely, Customer Support

:::*********************

Regards,

***** *********








7/23/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Dispute of Transaction *******: I was sold a lot listed as 40 Pieces of Women Designer Sleepwear. Upon receipt and inspection of items, I noted the following: a. There were only 36 items shipped; b. Some items resembled blouses -- not sleep items; and c. The shipment consisted of 7 nightgowns, 6 PJ sets (1 of which was pre-packaged), 6 PJ bottoms and 18 assorted tops. None of the assorted tops coordinated with the bottoms in terms of designer, color or size. In the Company's response to my dispute, they contended that, " While the buyer may be able to match some of the units as sets because of color coordination, they are sold as separate pieces in ****'s and are not 2 piece sets." However, unlike shopping at ****'s -- where I would have the option to select a top and a bottom -- I was precluded from making that same selection by the Seller's decision to send me 18 tops, but only 6 bottoms. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the option of making sets, and therefore I am also unable to offer my buyers the same opportunity they would have at ****'s to select a top and a bottom -- not necessarily matching -- to make a set. I am unable to use these items for the purpose for which I purchased them. My customers will not buy a top without the option of a bottom as well. Also, since there were 4 missing pieces -- if we are counting the one marked as a set on the garment tag -- there is more than the 2% variance listed as the Company's policy. I am hereby requesting a full refund, or the option to have an equal amount of bottoms to tops -- even if they are different colors. Thank you. Dispute of Transaction *******: I was sold a lot listed as 40 Pieces of Women Designer Sleepwear. Upon receipt and inspection of items, I noted the following: a. There were only 36 items shipped; b. Some items resembled blouses -- not sleep items; and c. The shipment consisted of 7 nightgowns, 6 PJ sets (1 of which was pre-packaged), 6 PJ bottoms and 18 assorted tops. None of the assorted tops coordinated with the bottoms in terms of designer, color or size. In your Resolution of my dispute, you based your decision on, " While the buyer may be able to match some of the units as sets because of color coordination, they are sold as separate pieces in ****'s and are not 2 piece sets." Unlike shopping at ****'s -- where I would have the option to select a top and a bottom -- I was precluded from making that same selection by Seller's decision to send me 18 tops, but only 6 bottoms. Even if I wanted to, I don't have the option to make sets and therefore I am unable to offer my buyers the same opportunity they would have at ****'s to select a top and a bottom -- not necessarily matching -- to make a set. I am unable to use these items for the purpose for which I purchased them. My customers will not buy a top without the option of a bottom as well. Also, since there were 4 missing pieces -- if we are counting the one marked as a set on the garment tag -- there is more than the 2% variance. I am once again requesting a refund, or the option to have an equal amount of bottoms to tops -- even if they are different colors. Thank you.

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

Business Response:

July 21, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ****** *****, ID# ********

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

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

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

Further, *** ***** filed a chargeback with ****** 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, *** *****’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

July 22, 2014

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: Liquidation.com, ID# ********

 

Dear *** ******,

 

Please be advised that on June 16, 2014 I filed a complaint with ****** regarding this matter. After hearing from both sides, ****** decided in my favor on June 30th. I have since returned all of the items, and have received a full refund in the amount of $260.75.

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

Regards,

** *****










7/12/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I guessed at the best option above. I recently purchased a lot of goods for 20 ***** ****** Purses that had been returned goods from Liquidations.com. The transaction ID was *******. This site offers various goods for sale in various conditions. With each auction however their is a Quantity variance percentage listed. When you click on the definition of what the Quantity Variance percentage means it simply states the following: "Quantity variance: - Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items. " This definition clearly states that the variance "pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items" It stands to reason then that damaged goods are included in the Quantity variance calculation or so should. When we received the goods their were only 17 items that were shipped. The company did then ship the additional 3 items. Upon review of the the 17 received we found that 5 of the purses were damaged beyond sale condition. Not simply scuffed ect. but had extremely torn or broken purse straps. We then contacted Liquidation.com to file a dispute which they denied on because they state that the goods were returned good and as such they could not honor the dispute. They stated in their response - "Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, Thank you for your communication. Unfortunately, your request cannot be honored as the units are properly represented under returns condition. As stated in the auction listing the majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling." I understand that some of these items may be defective or broken etc. But when you put the definition of returns along side the definition of "Quantity Variance" the two conflict. Any buyer of such auctions looks at the "Quantity Variance" to determine how many operable items they will be likely purchasing. You can not on one hand say that the variance includes damaged goods in its calculation but then on the same auction for returned goods say they can be damage but that the damage can and may be above the quantity variance. This is confusing at best and an outright false statement at the least. I have purchased a number of lots from this company with no problems. But in this case I think their policy and statements are in conflict and I depended on the quantity variance statement in my purchase of the returns lot. Remember that definition of quantity variance is "Quantity variance: - Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items. " I depended on the statement "including missing or damaged items". This auction had 20 items for sale (we got 17 but they did ship the additional 3 so no complaint there) but of the original 17, 5 items were damaged beyond being able to be sold. The variance for this auction was listed as 2% so less than once item should have been "missing or damaged" The actual variance rate on this lot was 25%. I have spoken with 3 different customer service reps that all agreed that the variance was designed to cover damaged goods but the dispute department denied the claim 3 times so I then asked for a supervisor in the customer service department. I spoke with her today and she simply said I was the only person that did not understand this policy. I may be but that does not make the practice misleading. If the company sells returns that may be damaged either their should be no Quantity Variance for "missing or damaged" goods or that variance should included the "missing or damaged goods". The company can not on one hand say you bought a lot of returns all of which could be damaged (as the customer supervisor stated to me today) and then at the same time put on the same auction a quantity variance the stated the percentage of "missing or damaged" items in the auction as these two statements are contradictory to each other. Customers as I stated (at least I did) relied on the quantity variance percentage to ensure how many goods would be received in good working order. I think this was reasonable as why else would the auction for returns list such a variance. The other customer service people I spoke with all agreed (except the supervisor) that if it were not for the variance a buyer would have no idea of the goods and that they could all be damaged beyond being any good.

Desired Settlement: I have several options that I would consider reasonable to settle this dispute. 1. First, ship an additional 5 full size ***** ****** purses in good working order 2. Refund the cost of the 5 damaged purses or 4 since at a 2% variance 1 could have been bad for approximately $200 as we paid about $40 each 3. Allow for a full return (at my cost) of all goods for a full refund. I think these are very reasonable requests. Finally I suggest that Liquidation.com be required to state that the quantity variance does not included "damaged goods" as it clearly does not when it pertains to returned items that are being sold. Buyers need to have confidence in the goods that they are buying and the fitness of the goods for the intended purpose but in this case the definition of a quantity variance to included damaged goods and the definition of returns are at odds with each other when it comes to the exact number of undamaged goods a buyer will receive.

Business Response:

June 27, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ***** ******, ID# ******** 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 ***** ****** handbags in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 23, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units. He said he only received 17 out of 20 handbags in his shipment. In response to his dispute, the seller sent 3 additional handbags to **. ******.

After **. ****** received the 3 additional handbags, he once again contacted a customer service representative and said that 5 out of the 17 original handbags were too damaged to be sold. He said that this was beyond the quantity variance advertised in the auction, which was 2%. **. ****** calculated the damaged handbags as a 25% quantity variance for the entire lot. He then suggested a partial refund or replacement items to settle the dispute.

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

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

Since **. ******’s damaged unit claim was denied, the quantity variance does not apply. It only applies to damaged items when calculating a partial refund.

Quantity variance is intended to cover missing merchandise only. It refers to the quantity of items sent. The definition given on our website for quantity variance follows:

Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items.

**. ****** believed that quantity variance not only covered the quantity of items but also the condition of each item. However, the reference to damaged items in the definition above would only apply to dispute claims for damaged items that were found in favor of the buyer. In this case, the damage claim was rejected.

An example of how quantity variance would apply to damaged goods may clarify the matter. If an auction for 20 items had a quantity variance of 10%, then the quantity variance would equate to 2 items. Therefore, if our disputes team honored a damage claim for 5 of the 20 items with a partial refund, then the quantity variance would apply to that calculation. Instead of receiving a partial refund for 5 items, the buyer would receive a partial refund for 3 items while 2 items would be considered part of the quantity variance. It would be as though the buyer did not receive those 2 damaged items in the original shipment.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

7/11/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had spoken to *******, *******, ******* and two other customer service reps. They had sent me a shipment of overstock clothing at 300lb instead of the Consumer electronics I had ordered (160Lb) . The package has been sitting at the UPS store since Thursday. I was assured by ******* that it would be picked up by UPS freight and returned on Friday. It has not been picked up- even after repeatedly calling them. ******* admitted on the phone to me that they had made a mix up with 4 other shipments that were sent the wrong buyers. She assured me again it would be picked up. It was not, and has not. After seeking help from their customer service phone number for 5 days. I filed a claim to ****** for a chargeback. Liquidity Services then restricted access to my account on their website and demanded I drop the claim with ****** at once. I I called ******* on Monday and explained to her that I would not drop it unless I received in writing or email confirmation of a shipping label and refund. ******* assured me she'd email it to me "in five minutes." She did not email it, nor did anyone pickup the package. I called again on Tuesday asking about the email, she replied by saying "I guess, I forgot." I explained to her that in order for me to drop the claim with ****** she would need email me confirmation of a pickup, a shipping label and a refund. She replied by saying "I don't care if you drop the claim or not." Then she hung up on me.

Desired Settlement: Refund the amount to my ****** account immediately.

Business Response:

June 25, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ***** ********, ID# ********

 

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because there was a delay in resolving a wrong shipment issue; however, it has since been resolved.

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

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

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

7/11/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a lot of 72 sports bras. They were advertised as brand new with tags. When they arrived and I took them out of their packages I smelled a strong odor - a musty, chemical smell. I also noted mold on several of the bras. I cannot re-sell these bras and want a full refund.

Desired Settlement: I want a full refund and will return the products. Liquidation.com should send me a pre-paid label so that I may return the products.

Business Response:

June 25, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Khosravan, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ******** *******, ID# ********

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she received merchandise that could not be sold; however, it has since been resolved in her favor.

**. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 72 ladies sports bras purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 5, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. **. ******* said that the new bras that she received had a strong chemical smell and that many had mold on them. Therefore, these items could not be sold as new merchandise. She provided photos and requested a full refund. Also, she sent a few bras as samples for review in cooperation with our customer service disputes request.

Our disputes team reviewed **. *******’s claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. A full refund of $153.13 was initiated to the **. *******’s account on June 9; however, she had filed a chargeback during the disputes process. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. *******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

7/10/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This company falsified the weight masters weight ticket making my purchase 160 pounds heavier than its actual weight. They falsely advertised the sale as 6020 pounds of copper wire, when there was 1000 pounds of optic fiber included in the load. Optic fiber is not copper wire. When I contacted the company to resolve this matter, they never responded. They have a general phone number and email so as you can never contact a specific person in the company. No one ever called me back to attempt to resolve these disputed charges. This purchase was $9780.87, I am disputing 1160 pounds not received at $1.68 per pound. This purchase did not warrant even one customer service call to resolve. Once I disputed this charge through ******** ******* the accountant from Government Liquidation, ***** ***** called me and agreed to credit my account back for $1680.00, this amount was never credited back. This company is dishonest, they falsified documents and lied to me as a customer regarding the credit. This is completely unacceptable behavior for any business. This business does the majority of surplus sales for the government and it sickens me that they conduct themselves in this manner.

Desired Settlement: I have requested that my account be credited for the 1000 pounds of optic fiber i was charged for the total amount $1680.00.

Business Response:

March 28, 2014

Dear *** ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with *** *******’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 bids. Our records indicate that *** ******* agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Fri Jun 22 10:50:34 2012. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when *** ******* placed her winning bid on Sale ****, Lot **** (Tue Jun 11 16:58:55 2013) on Government Liquidation’s website. Sale ****, Lot ****’s description is as follows:

6020 lbs (approx.) of Insulated Copper Wire with foreign attachments in five 4 cu. yard hoppers. Hoppers are not included in the weight or sale. Mutilation not required. Wire has been sufficiently mutilated prior to sale. Preview and load outs by appointment only. GL will only load an open top conveyance.

Our records indicate that *** ******* physically removed the property associated with Sale ****, Lot ****. At the time of removal, *** ******* received 6,020 pounds and was issued a weight ticket indicating such. A copy of the weight ticket is provided along with this communication. *** ******* did not object to the contents of the lot; she signed for the property as correct. A copy of the signed invoice is provided along with this communication. Section 8:1 of the Terms and Conditions indicates that the buyer should reject the property if it is not acceptable. Section 8:1 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.

Section 8:1. You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it.

After removal, *** ******* filed a claim with Government Liquidation. *** *******’s claim indicated that she received approximately 4,870 pounds of insulated copper wire, 1,150 pounds less than the advertised amount, and was issued a weight ticket reflecting 5,860 pounds, 160 pounds less than the advertised amount. Government Liquidation reviewed *** *******’s claim and determined that her claim was not valid since she signed for the property as correct and was issued a weight ticket reflecting 6,020 pounds. However, as a courtesy, good-will gesture, Government Liquidation issued a 160 pound shortage, resulting in a refund amount of $259.88. Subsequently, Government Liquidation advised *** ******* of the claim denial and her pending S259.88 credit card refund.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.

Regards,



Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

     When I arrived to pick up the  lot which had been advertised as copper wire, my weight ticket was falsified intentionally by the weight master. This should be apparent in the original weight ticket that was issued. This company will penalize it's customer fining them two and half times the total cost of the lot purchased. That is why they issued the refund reflecting the fraudulent difference in the actual weight. It is a crime for a weight master to falsify the weight on a weight ticket. This company is responsible for accurately advertising the contents of the lot they are selling. They included material in this sale that was fiber optic wire, it has no copper in it all. 1000 pounds of the lot was this fiber optic wire, so as a result I was lead to believe it was copper when it was trash. If a customer misrepresents the contents of a sale they are held responsible. This company has a very long list on it's contract advising that honesty and accuracy of the lots sold will be upheld by all parties and if customers are found to inaccurately describe the contents of a sale they would be prosecuted. The optic wire was buried in the lot and was is spools, the only way it was identified was to actually cut every piece of wire. This was not a practical means of inspection at the time of pick up, as their representative loaded the wire and hurried me off the pick up site which was a military base. 

     After arriving to my destination, I immediately called Government Liquidators to advised them of the 1000 lbs. of optic fiber that should not have been included in this sale which was advertised as copper and the 160 lbs of weight that was falsified by the weight master over charging me for weight I did not actually receive. I called at least ten different times and could get no one to return my calls. This was approximately a ten thousand dollar sale which I had to pay for within three days after the auction. Which was way before the merchandise was picked up. So with no other choice since Government Liquidators would not return my calls, I disputed the payment with my credit card company. Only then did I receive a call from the accounting department of Government Liquidators which he told me consisted of himself, Keith Isler. He agreed to refunding the cost of the 1000 lbs of optic fiber which should have never been included as part of this sale, and when I asked him to also add the refund of the 160 pounds of weight added to the weight ticket, he became very angry and told me he did not have to refund anything to me. He advised he handles these situations all day and had **** in the bag. He hung up on me and never called back. I called him and he never returned my calls. I attempted to contact his supervisor and they never responded. 
     My purchase was approximately $10.000 the amount of refund I felt this company owed me was approximately $2000. Rather than make things right and keep a satisfied customer they penalized me as a customer and banned me from ever using their web site again. This company does not have any respect for their customers, as shown when not one representative returned my calls. Again their lack of respect was shown  when their accounting department offered the refund and then hung up on me. Only later to refund the $259 because they intentionally falsified my weight ticket. This company monopolizes the sale of government surplus and has total disregard for the customers that support their business.

Regards,

******* *******








7/9/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The stated description, of products I purchased, was a blatantly lie. The items were described as shelf pulls. Nowhere, in the description, did they indicate they were used, severely worn, and missing material. The condition of the **** *********** * games is sad. Their are scratches all over the cases, all of the games have been opened and used. The back side (data side) for some are in need of cleaning, and the guides for some are missing. If these were shelf-pulls, why do they contain "Not for Resale" items. The images, provided for prospective buyers, were of no help. All we could see were the game case spines, making it impossible to know that they were open, used and scratched. Claims of what the games may sell for sounded reasonable, if they were unopened. With the condition they are in, though, one would be lucky to get 50% of what the lowest acceptable bid was.

Desired Settlement: The items need to be returned, at Liquidity Services expense. Their practice, and that of their sellers, of claiming what items will sell for needs to change, so it reflects the true expectation based on the condition of items that are offered via their site. Don't base it on the item's price AS A NEW ITEM FOR SALE, especially when the items are in poor condition. Better descriptions, about an item's condition, are desperately needed - state if they are opened, worn, used to what extent. The sellers need to also be held accountable for their false advertising, but that is another issue.

Business Response:

February 13, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* ********, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******* ******** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. *** ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

*** ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 50 *********** * video games in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 1, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. He said that all of the games had been opened and that many of the game cases were scratched. He also found that some of the game discs were scuffed and that some game instruction manuals were missing. A few games even had stickers indicating that they were “not for resale.” *** ******** said that these items were should be considered Used and not Shelf Pulls as indicated. He requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed *** ********’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the items were properly listed as Shelf Pulls, which are defined on our website as follows:

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

*** ******** then requested that his dispute be reopened for further consideration and provided photo support of the two “not for resale” games. However, our secondary review also determined that his photo support did not validate the dispute claims for the lot in its entirety.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:



Liquidity.com, or Liquidity Services, Inc., and their description of "Shelf-Pulls" may state that price tags and signs of package handling may be present, and there was no question about this. What "Shelf-Pulls" doesn't include, in the description, is the missing manuals, the open packages (over 95% of them - one wasn't open), and the Not for Resale games. If a game isn't for resale, that's a clear indicator that it was NEVER on a retail store shelf for sale (on it's own). The others, with the open packages and severe signs of wear, are clearly USED, which is an entirely different category with Liquidity Services, Inc. This isn't a case of simply a disappointed purchase, as I've purchased through them before and received what I expected (100 or 120 DVD movies). In this instance, the seller (******************) falsely listed the items, in stating they were shelf-pulls and not used. Had they been listed as USED, I likely wouldn't have bid due to the lingering question of "How much wear and tear will these have?" All attempts, through their site, to identify the seller's true name and address have yielded nothing. I've requested this information by email, as well, but expect Liquidity Services, Inc. to thumb their nose at me as they have done with the past disputes. 

Again, this is a clear case of fraud - the seller knowingly listed the item under the wrong condition (shelf-pull instead of used) and sold it with the buyer expecting the items to come with reasonable wear, but not looking like they came out of someone's basement after months (or years) of use. Liquidity Services, Inc. is also guilty of their part, as they have been communicated with in regards to the condition of the product received, and have informed me that they have (or will) release the money to the seller. If they cared, at all, they wouldn't allow sellers to falsely list their items.

The seller shouldn't receive the money, they need to be held accountable for the fraud (across state lines - federal crime?), the items need to be RETURNED and my money needs to be REFUNDED in full due to the deceptive practices of ****************** and Liquidity Services, Inc.'s support of the seller's practice!

I've attached two pictures, of the "Not for Resale" items. There are too many other items, with their signs of being open and severely worn, to flood your inbox with them. If need be, though, I will send digital photos of others to prove their condition.
Regards,

******* ********








Business Response:

March 20, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* ********, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ******* ********. In his response, *** ******** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

*** ******** claimed that the items he purchased from Liquidation.com arrived in a condition other than advertised in the auction listing. He provided photos in support of his claim. Our disputes team reviewed his dispute and found that his evidence did not support his claims that the merchandise he received was not in Shelf Pulls condition.

Items that are designated as Shelf Pulls have received increased handling as the original retailer has tried multiple attempts to move the product. Items such as these are sometimes placed in large bins for customers to dig through. Once these types of items are finally pulled from the sales floor, they are then usually sent to a central or regional warehouse for processing. In transit, they are not often packed with care and may incur additional cosmetic damages to the packaging. Upon arrival at the warehouse, each case could be opened to confirm that the game CD is still intact and not broken or removed. There are thousands of Shelf Pull items that would be processed through a warehouse so if a game manual fell out occasionally, it would not be unexpected as the crew must inspect and sort very quickly. So the fact that the games were opened does not in itself disqualify them as Shelf Pulls merchandise. *** ******** assumed that these items would not have been opened, but that does not correspond to our definition of Shelf Pulls which states that the packaging can differ substantially (i.e. being opened).

Further, the “Not for Resale” stickers could have been placed on the top game unit of a stack of games that had been removed from the sales floor and set aside in a back room prior to shipment to a warehouse for liquidation. The stickers would merely indicate to other shifts of workers that any underlying items should not be put back out onto the sales floor. Our definition also mentions that stickers may have been placed on the product. 

We regret that *** ******** remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we cannot reject a legitimate sale of Shelf Pulls merchandise due to customer expectations when liquidated lots undergo excessive handling as a matter of regularity. Therefore, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:


Re-defining "Shelf-Pulls" to fit the condition of "obviously used" products isn't acceptable. Shelf Pulls, while they may have signs of wear, shouldn't be without ALL of their packaging. The condition of these games - both inside the case and outside - clearly reflects "USED." There should be no need for employees to open a package that still has the cellophane packaging on it. As for the "Not for Resale" items, some have the sticker on them, while others have it permanently printed on the plastic casing, but ALL of these have no bar code. Major retailers use the bar code to maintain inventory tracking and the "Not for Resale" items typically are packaged as part of a larger pack and meant to accompany other games. Stores do not sell these ALONE.

I go back to the original reasoning, provided in prior correspondence, that these products are in POOR condition. Condition that goes well beyond the potential wear they may incur when handled by employees / machinery when they are pulled from shelves and moved to the warehouse for re-distribution.

Liquidation Services, Inc. has a category of USED and they, and their seller, should have listed this under that. The seller, Scentsations582012, has yet to be identified. Hiding behind an alias only provides them with protection when fraud is committed. The seller, too, needs to answer for this and be held accountable.

What happened to honest business practices?

Regards,

Michael Hallberg









7/2/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I won and paid for an online auction for 240pcs. of ****/mobile phone accessories there were 3 different types of items in the auction. I only received one of those type of items and a quantity of 48 only of that item. I only received one box that weighed 12 pounds but it had a shipping label of 65 pounds on it. I opened a dispute process with photo evidence. I was told a week later that my Dispute was denied for no reason other than they basically stated the auction was for 240pcs and that's what I should have got. I called and asked the Customer service if I could get further assistance and was denied that as well and was told i could only send emails which I have but with no response from Liquidation.com

Desired Settlement: Deliver the product I order or send me a refund for the items I did not receive. And do something about your poor Customer Service.

Business Response:

June 27, 2014

**. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ******* ********, ID# ********

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor. 

**. ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 240 pieces of ***** accessories and more by ******* in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 19, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units. He said he only received 48 out of the 240 items. **. ******** also said the shipment only included 1 of the 3 types of items advertised in the auction and sent evidence for his dispute. **. ******** then suggested that the seller deliver the remaining product or a partial refund for the missing items.

Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the missing units in the lot. Initially, **. ******** was told that the auction was properly listed based on the evidence and photos that he sent. **. ******** reopened the dispute, and said that the photos did not reflect the quantity of merchandise he received, and that he was still missing units. The seller then suggested that he would be willing to send the quantity of missing items to the buyer to settle the dispute. 

Our disputes team was in agreement with the seller’s solution and the seller sent the missing items, including the cables and armband clips that were missing in the original shipment.

 

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. ******** and consider the matter closed with the additional shipment by the seller.

 

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response:  
Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

******* ********

7/1/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: $145.

Business Response:

June 21, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ***** *******, ID# ********

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

***** *******

7/1/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: They refuse to look at this dispute for transaction #*******. I understand they are abiding by the returns category, but my ite** are not in that category that were purchased. I was sent the wrong ite** and they refuse to correct this issue. I have contacted them times and I will continue to try to contact the department and your business until my case or issue is explained and handled correctly. I need to be escalated to a supervisor or superior. The ite** I received are wrong. I was supposed to receive returned ite** but I received salvaged ite**. I did not bid on salvaged ite**.

Desired Settlement: I paid $50 for the winning bid and also shipping $185.24 with total cost of $239.24 for Transaction #******* and Id#*******. I want a full refund and for them to come pick up this salvaged merchandise.

Business Response:

June 25, 2014

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Khosravan, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ********* **********, ID# *******

 

Dear *** ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ********* ********** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ********** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ********** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she received the wrong shipment of merchandise; however, it has since been resolved in her favor.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

********* **********

6/7/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased a ********** through ******* and Liquidity Services Inc. is the company that carries the warranty. We were told the warranty was through **** on *******'s website but the 1-877 number provided to us was to Liquidity Services. Our warranty is a 90 day warranty and we are within the 90 days. Upon contacting them they sent me an email with all the information they needed to process our claim. I responded with the required information within the day. I received an email from then explaining our ********** issue which is a display problem, is not covered under the warranty. I asked for a copy of the warranty. In reviewing the warranty I did not find anywhere that is stated display problems were not covered. The warranty states that "the product is to be free from defects in workmanship under normaluse during the limited warranty period of 90 days" The only exception was "the warranty does not extend to accessories or expendable parts'. I would considered a working display an essential part of a laptop computer. I responded to them and asked how this was not covered under their warranty. Their response was that "per policy and procedure, your unit is not covered by the warranty due to a display issue regarding damaged pixals" I asked for further written information on the policy and procedure. They responded that they already sent me a copy of the warranty and in bold letters. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. First, this is horrible customer service, second I think they do not want to fullfill their warranty agreement.

Desired Settlement: I would like either a repair of my ********** or a refund of my money.

Business Response:

May 24, 2013

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: *** ******** ******, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ******** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. *** ****** described concerns she had as a buyer using *******, with the warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. *** ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her warranty request was denied.

On December 27, 2013, *** ****** purchased a ********** through *******. The laptop began to experience display issues so *** ****** contacted our company on March 10 to initiate a claim under the 90-day warranty. She provided photos of the unit in support of her claim.

Upon review of the photos, our team discovered that the screen was cracked. Unfortunately, the warranty does not cover problems related to physical damage to the laptop. If the damage was present upon arrival, then a shipping claim should have been filed through *******. If the damage occurred later, then it would fall outside the responsibility of the warranty.

We regret that *** ****** is dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

6/7/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This was a purchase of a refurbished desktop computer. The machine would freeze up after about half an hour of usage. I determined the cause was likely something overheating. I've purchased 5 other machines from this company without issues, so it's surprising they would give me such a hard time trying to just get this one machine fixed. After contacting their customer support department, I sent the computer in for repairs. After it came back, the issue as not resolved. The computer still overheated. In addition to this, the operating system had now become corrupted. I could not even boot into ******* anymore. I only knew the overheating issue still existed because I spent hours trying to resolve the operating system issue and it would freeze up after some time. I contacted their customer support department again and waited the standard 7-10 business days only to be told my case was being closed because it was determined that the cause of the computer problem was "customer abuse."

Desired Settlement: I initially asked for a replacement of the same or similar model. I'd still like that, since this is a good machine and we will be in need of more computers in the near future. If no more replacements are available, I'll be willing to take a check as a refund. If that's the case, please send me some UPS labels so that I may ship back this defective unit.

Business Response:

May 24, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer using the **** **** store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. **** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he has not received an acceptable solution via the product warranty, but he has since received a full refund.

**. **** purchased a refurbished **** desktop computer, but the unit began experiencing freezing issues. He suspected that the problem was caused by overheating of the unit, so he contacted our company to initiate a remedy via the 90-day warranty. He then sent the computer for repair, but it was returned to him without being repaired by our repair partner. **. **** wants a replacement unit or refund for his purchase.

The warranty claim was initially denied by our repair partner because it was determined that the problem was caused by physical distress to the unit. Physical damage is not covered by the warranty so the computer was returned without any attempted repair. Since our company did not have photo evidence of the damage, our customer service department contacted **. **** to arrange a solution. We agreed to provide a refund upon return of the unit. **. **** returned the unit to us and a full refund of $291.59 was processed to his account on May 9.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

6/2/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: There are 2 incidents: First incident was a lot of 190 Grade A ******* cases. They arrived dirty and not in the condition advertised; they refused to issue an RMA and allow a return. I did not dispute yet, however, I plan on it. Second incident, a lot of 7 Grade A **** minis. They shipped to me with no packing material...and they arrived broken. I reported to my credit card company, to ******, and now to you. They will not issue an RMA or a refund. Third, their software malfunctioned and I lost an auction; they refused to investigate (I have all the emails), and when I pushed them to acknowledge their mistake and fix it, they deactivated my account. I believe their customer service and returns are structured to get their merchandise out however they can...some transactions with them have been fine...others have been lies.

Desired Settlement: I tried to get resolution and an RMA for the ******* cases from them...now I need to work with my credit card company. I submitted photo and written evidence and many phone calls within their contact period...but no resolution. I will now start working with my bank. I am working with them on the **** mini's...I submitted photo and written evidence and many phone calls within their contact period...but no resolution. Given my past experience, I am working with ****** and my bank. When I told them of their mistakes regarding bidding errors, they deactivated my account and will no longer speak with me. I want an RMA for the dirty ******* cases and the broken **** mini's, and I want to warn other customers of their technology issues and the fact that they don't follow their own policies and have extremely poor customer service. I've filed a complaint with *** regarding internet crime, case ID ****************.

Business Response:

May 8, 2014

 

**. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ***** ******, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believed that our company was in breach of this contract; however, he filed his complaint with the BBB prior to discovering that the matter had been resolved in his favor.

 

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because while the response was correct, that was not the transaction which forced me to contact the BBB. They were forced by ****** to provide a full refund for two other orders due to the same challenges in shipping but more their lack of responsiveness to me or to them in rectifying the issue. As they responded, they locked me out of their site, preventing all email communication, and when attempting to contact them via phone, both ****** and I were unsuccessful.

My complaint stands; when the merchandise that the third party ships to the winner is not what is expected, in my experience there is little chance they will respond as their stated processes advertise. This was shocking as I had purchased previously, however, in those purchases the merchandise was fine. They do not provide customer service to the level of expectation, and as you experienced, getting any sort of reply from this company is difficult when faced with challenges.

The public should be warned...****** very rarely makes the decision to refund the buyer's money regardless of whether the merchandise is returned; that is what happened with me because of their practices-they went as far as rejecting the return authorized through ******. Please watch this company and seek out others for the same experience; I will never do business with them again.

Regards,

***** ******








5/30/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would love to receive 40 regular wallets or my money back

Business Response:

May 17, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** *******, ID# ******* 

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied. 

**. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 40 men’s wallets in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 27, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said he only received eight (8) actual wallets in the form expected, and that the remaining items were only the inside parts of wallets, including picture holders and a credit card holder. **. ******* also said that some of the wallets were torn, missing labels and appeared to be Used. He requested a full refund on the transaction. 

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

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc...

 

5/30/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased 3 jackets on this site that were sold as BRAND NEW. When we recieved the jackets, we opened the package and found them to have the word SAMPLE on the jackets. We filed a complaint. We then received the ok to return the jackets. In the email it stated that if we did not return the items to a *** drop off in 5 business days, it may be null and void. We sent an email because it was outside the 5 days and said that we were returning the items and that if there was an issue, they needed to let us know. The email we received Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, Thank you, we look forward to doing business with you again. Please feel free to contact us if you have any more questions/concerns. Thank you again for using Liquidation.com, your source for business surplus. Sincerely, Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc. Phone: ###-###-#### ********************************************* ************************ We have a copy of all correspondence in regards to this matter. We are now being told that we will receive a refund for the 147 but will pay a 200 unauthorized return fee. This is not right nor is it ethical. We are requesting that the 200 fee be waived since nothing was said in the emails about this. We would have kept the items and tried to get our money back another way instead of this way.

Desired Settlement: The 200 fee waived.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ******* ********, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he disagreed with our company’s canceled transaction policy; however, it has since been settled in his favor.

**. ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three (3) new Oakley jackets purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 15, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. **. ******** said that two of the three jackets were stamped in red as “SAMPLE.” He stated that he would not have bid at all, had this been disclosed. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund. 

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

5/30/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I am a seasonal buyer on liquidation.com (Oct-Feb) . I purchase mostly winter gloves and since 2012 I have purchased over 3000 pairs, spending $20,351 (that does not include the proxy bids I get out bid on). A good portion of the auctions won came from seller, ************, with relatively few problems ex., pairs pictured not in shipment, mismatched or damaged pairs , returns stickers on "Shelf pull" items etc., but never a big enough issue that would affect profitability and force me to do a dispute. My past two shipments, within one week of each other, were like any other auctions from this seller, until I received the shipments. The first one had 44 out of 50 damaged pairs of gloves. Damaged meaning unsaleable and non-repairable- tears and rips, thumbs missing, large patches of sticker adhesive over leather, gloves literally stuck to one another and further damaged when pulled apart, and the adhesive cannot be removed from leather without further damaging gloves. When I brought this to dispute (with attached photos that didn't match what auction photos showed), I was told this is normal for "returns" auctions and therefore non-refundable. I called liquidation.com and explained. The employee I talked to understood and agreed, and then told me to respond with more detail to the refund denial. I did and was once again quoted their "returns" auction definition. Now, I've had "shelfpull" lots with return labels from store on them, and "returns" lots with an obviously mismatched pair of gloves. Do not quote me your "returns" definition when you obviously don't follow the definitions yourself. This seller set precedent on what their "returns" were on numerous auctions that I won, which was acceptable, and I continued to bid and buy from seller. This is not representative of their photos for auction, nor are they "returns". They are "salvage" - as in unsaleable. At the very least, the photos for auction should have accurately represented what was in lot and the description should have detailed as to the quality of the gloves. I received the last shipment today and these are of same poor quality. Since a dispute has done no good, I find myself here. Let me explain what this means for me. If you, liquidation.com, cannot back your seller's auctions, then I can no longer purchase from you, entirely. This may be small beans to you, but it has become a successful small business for me. I have won 60+ auctions and disputed one, and that one dispute gave me the confidence to continue bidding, thinking that you stood behind your seller's products. I understand the "returns" definition and these are not "returns". If I wanted to be picky, I would have stopped after first auction not 100% accurately represented. But I allow for normal amounts of "returns" or "shelfpull" type damages. I have other options, however, I would prefer to continue our business together, with mutual benefit.

Desired Settlement: I would like to return two shipments of gloves, and receive a full refund on both auctions.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ****** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 50 men’s designer leather gloves in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. ****** said that 44 of 50 gloves had sticky residue on then and that many also had tears or scuffs that made them unsuitable for sale. He believes that these gloves are more properly classified as Salvage condition rather than Returns.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ******’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the gloves were in a condition other than advertised. The defects described by **. ****** fall within the acceptable range set by the definition of Returns merchandise on our website. While these defects may not be typical of Returns auctions, they can occur given the broadly acceptable returns policies of various retailers. This particular lot would require additional work to prepare for sale in some outlets, but that is not to be completely unexpected for Returns merchandise. **. ****** expected merchandise in better condition within the Returns designation, but this is not always the case. Most buyers expect the upper end of the range, but we cannot control the returns policies of the various retailers from whom our sellers obtain merchandise to list on Liquidation.com.

Regarding the other transaction mentioned in **. ******’s complaint, no dispute was filed. Further, **. ****** filed a chargeback with PayPal for both transactions. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. ******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

5/30/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I feel the auction should continue as an open bidding auction with the original bidders reinstated with the former "no reserve" status.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website. **. **** was unable to complete a bid for a discontinued auction and disagrees with Liquidity Services, Inc. policies concerning the auction’s dismissal.

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

5/30/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Seller delivered goods not ordered and refused to pick up such goods, and issue a full refund to include delivery cost. Liquidation allowed seller to bait and switch items in an auction and deliver severly defective merchandise, food which had rodent feces, and did not have any toys as indicated in the description. Seller showed photos of merchandise to be sold and had completly switched mostly all of the merchandise.

Desired Settlement: Pick up and remove merchandise and issue a full refund.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

*******, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** *******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

**. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 24 pallets of general merchandise, including toys, light fixtures, sink, toilet, etc., in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 1, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she did not receive the pallets pictured in the photos accompanying the auction listing. **. ******* opined that the merchandise she received is mostly garbage that could not even reasonably be classified as Salvage (to be used for parts only). She also said the shipment contained broken and bent light fixtures, food that had been violated by vermin, and worn out sneakers. She also stated that there were specific items, such as a wreath, which she had wanted and not received. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. *******’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her supporting photos did not show that the merchandise was in a condition other than advertised. There were no signs of vermin, and the defects described and shown fell within the acceptable range for Salvage condition merchandise. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

5/30/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently bid entered a bid and won a "lot" that represented four (4) ******* 7" Tablets within a "Lot". As with all other products that are up for auction within www.liquidation.com's website, they provide the "Quantity in Lot", which in this case reflects four (4). These tablets average around $60 per tablet. I won the lot at $145.00 + $40.00 S&H and Other Misc Fee's totaling $192.50. All I was sent was ONE (1)7" ******* Tablet. I immediately filled out a dispute form with www.liquidation.com in which they stated the four items were listed in the manifest: 1) The 7" Tablet 2) The AC Charger 3) USB Cable 4) User Manual. The item is brand new therefore these items come all together as a single package. By reading the manifest it would appear that there is one of each (above) included in each of the packages as the "Quantity in Lot" shows four (4)

Desired Settlement: It is unrealistic to pay $145+$40 S&H on one (1) Tablet worth approximately $60. I would expect to be sent the other three (3) tablets as the advertisement reflects the quantity for -OR- be able to return the product for a full refund.

Business Response:

May 17, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: **. *********** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. *********** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of four (4) items, including an ******* 7-inch ******* ****** tablet, purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. ****** said that he had expected to receive four ******* tablets, but that he had only received one tablet and some accessories. He requested that three more tablets be sent to him or that he be allowed to return the shipment he received for a full refund. 

Our disputes team reviewed **. ******’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that he was missing items. The auction manifest clearly lists each of the four items: 7” ******* Tablet, Ac charger, USB Cable, and User Manual. Buyers are responsible for performing due diligence before bidding on an auction. The users of our website are equal, professional buyers and sellers conducting transactions via our Liquidation.com marketplace. A bidding mistake by the purchasing party cannot be grounds to reverse a completed transaction by a seller.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

5/28/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Liquidity Services Inc. provides the warranty serivces for **** ***********. My laptop had a 90 day warranty upon purchasing. When I first received my laptop I noticed the computer would only charge when restarted. That was issue number one. Issue number two was that even at 95-100% battery level the computer would just die as if I pulled out the battery. This was due to bad hardware because even in the boot sequence my laptop would sometimes die, meaning its not a software issue. Normally the warranty is there for this reason but here is where things take a turn for the worse. I bought my laptop in August and was doing a warranty repair by October. I got authorized a label on October 16, 2013. I sent it in and waited over 3 weeks to received the same unit without any repairs done. I called again and sent it back. After not hearing anything for over a month I had to write email and make calls until they finally admitted that they didn't have a replacement unit for me. So they offered me an "upgraded" unit. I say "upgraded" because some specs where better, some the same, and some worse. I accepted this unit on January 5, 2014. However, they decided not to ship it for reasons unknown. On January 9, 2013 I get an email saying a laptop that was the same model as the one I send in was found and it would be shipped. I am perfectly fine receiving my original model instead of the "upgraded" unit, but the fact that they lied about what and when it would be shipped out is what angered me. When I received this unit it had a fake windows version installed. Which prompted another return. They received the unit on January 21, 2014. I had to call February 10, 2014 after not receiving any info from them. They informed me the same generic talk (for lack of a better term) that it takes 7-10 business days to process a repair, to which I promptly told her it had already been 14. They apologized and authorized a next day shipment. I received a different model this time, no biggie as the specs where all nearly the same, however it was still a defective unit, with the same problems as my original laptop. It is now February 13, 2014 and they said the only thing they can do is have me ship it back so they can ship out another one. However, by Februrary 14,2014 they still had not given me a label so I had to call again. I have been without my laptop since October 17, 2014. February 17, 2014 will mark 4 months of incompetency with this company because of a faulty laptop.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund for the full price of the laptop as the warranty hasn't been honored.

Business Response:

May 24, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: *** ****** *******, ID# *******

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer using the **** **** store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received an acceptable solution via the product warranty.

In October 2013, **. ******* contacted our company to initiate a repair of his **** laptop under the 90-day warranty. The laptop had been purchased in August 2013 and was experiencing multiple power failures. **. ******* sent his laptop to us for repair; however, upon return the unit was not effectively repaired by our repair partner. For this reason, our company began to search for a suitable replacement laptop. Two different laptops have since been sent to **. *******, but both of them have also had problems.

We continue to search for an appropriate replacement for **. *******’s laptop; however, we do not control our inventory from **** so we must wait for a fully functional unit to become available for replacement. 

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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

Better Business Bureau:

The solution was satisfactory in the end. I eventually received an almost completely working unit and decided to keep it because I just couldn't deal with support anymore.  The problem was that it took multiple shipouts (4) and 4 months of waiting which is unacceptable.

****** *******

5/20/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently won a Liquidation.com auction for 10 print cartridges (transaction ******* & auction *******) and paid $155.75. I received the merchandise however, there are two issues with it. Firstly, the auction manifest states that there are 5 ** 3A ink cartridges in the shipment, however, only four arrived. The missing ink cartridge is valued on the secondary market at $39. Secondly, the two ink cartridges listed in the manifest as "Misc toner" are not in "new" condition and did not come in sealed plastic bags as promised in the listing description. These two ink cartridges have been opened and are in "used" condition. The yellow cartridge has yellow ink covering the inside of the bag. The black cartridge shows signs of use in a printer as evidenced by the black ink found around the cartridge exterior. These two cartridges have UPC codes ************ & ************ and are valued at $120 & $170 respectively on the secondary market. I used Liquidation.com’s online complaint form and submitted the above dispute description with photographic evidence. Within 12 hours Liquidation.com responded via email that because I took longer then 48 hours after shipment arrived to submit my dispute my complaint is invalid. I assert that Liquidation has systematically failed to fairly regulate their marketplace and has put policies in place including, the 48 hour dispute window, that intentionally favor the deceitful auction seller and use these unbalanced policies to provide an excuse for permitting merchandise to be delivered with missing products and not in the condition promised, thus allowing Liquidation.com to keep the fee it levied on it’s customer.. Furthermore, Liquidation.com coerces it’s customer into signing a user agreement that includes such unfavorable clauses without advising the customer to seek legal counsel prior to signing the agreement. I am seeking compensatory damages for the misrepresentation of this product.

Desired Settlement: Refund of the $155.75 total paid for the purchase and shipping of the merchandise.

Business Response:

May 8, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ******* *****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied a review by our disputes team. 

**. ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 10 printer cartridges in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 25, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. ***** said that he was missing one of the ** 3A ink cartridges that was listed on the auction manifest. He also said that some toner cartridges showed evidence of use by having ink on the outside of them and were therefore clearly not new items as expected. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team could not review the claim because the dispute form was sent well beyond the 48-hour inspection period provided. Section 4.2.1 of the User Agreement states that buyers have two days from the date that the product is delivered to inspect the shipment and file a dispute with Liquidation.com. The shipment for this transaction was received on February 10, and the dispute was received 13 days after the inspection period had ended. Funds for the transaction had already been paid to the seller and we could no longer recover them. This is why the inspection period is set and must be followed by our users.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

5/20/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was supposed to get 150 pieces of Children's - ***** ******, *******, ****, ****, ****** cloth. I got only few prices of cloth less than 20 nothing like the description (mostly looks like used or returned) and the rest are toys and useless damaged items not as described. I like to re-tune the items and get my money back ASAP Auction Title: Children's - ***** ******, *******, ****, ****, ******, ********** Auction ID:  *******

Desired Settlement: I like to re-tune the items and get my money back ASAP

Business Response:

May 8, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ******* ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 150 children’s items, from ***** ******, *******, ****, **** and others, in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On 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. **. ****** said that he only received about 20 clothing items when he had expected 150 and that the remaining items were toys and children’s accessories. He said that the toys and accessories were unacceptable and that the clothing received even appeared to be Used or Return merchandise. He sent photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ******’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that lot was grossly misrepresented and not in the proper condition. The auction manifest lists that there will be 50 clothing items and 100 accessories so the buyer should not have expected 150 clothing items.

Further, **. ****** filed a chargeback with ****** for the transaction on January 30, prior to our decision. Therefore, we could not continue the investigation. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. ******’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. 

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

5/16/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was high bidder on two items offered by government liquidation, at a *** *** Minnesota location on 1/9/2014 I was invoiced in the amount of $747.54.In the invoice I was told to arrange pick up. after 5 days of leaving messages I finally was told to call a ***** ****** at ###-###-####, who told me that these items were no longer available, and sold to someone else in October of 2013.I called government liquidation and was told a form would be emailed to me at my email address, for refund, (there would be a 15 day delay in the refund) after waiting three days I still have not received the forI am disputing this purchase through ******.I suspect this purchase, and the purposes of the seller not to go through with the sale. I am hoping there is no fraud involved.This Invoice has been Paid In FullOrder Number | Type: ******* | ** LOT **** * **** ***** **** ******* ****** Vertical Type. Serial Number: Located At: MN, *** ***, ***** Site Phone: ********** $150.00 $150.00 ************* * **** ******* ****** ***** Type: A 1 Buyer's Premium $27.00 $27.00 Order Number | Type: ******* | ** LOT 0*** 1 2004 ********* 5 Digital Platform Scale. 5,000Lb Capacity. Located At: MN, *** ***, ***** Site Phone: ********** $440.00 $440.00 ************* 1 Digital Platform Scale ***** Type: A 1 Buyer's Premium $79.20 $79.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax Code Tax State Tax Rate Amount Taxed Amount ********** MN 7.375 % $696.20 $51.34 Transfer, Credit Card (****TM, **********TM or ******** *******TM) 7.375 % Sales/Excise Tax: $51.34 Payment is due within 3 days of invoice date. Balance Due: $747.54

Desired Settlement: refund or replacement items delivered to me.

Business Response: May 2, 2014

Dear *** ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with *** ***’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 bids. Our records indicate that *** *** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Thu Oct 5 12:29:20 2006. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when *** *** placed his winning bid on Sale ******, Lot *** (Tue Jan 7 18:43:48 2014) and when he placed his winning bid on Sale *****, Lot *** (Wed Jan 8 01:07:47 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. Subsequently, on January 09, 2014, *** *** was invoiced for both lots, and Government Liquidation received payment in full, $747.54, via his ****** account. A copy of the paid invoice is enclosed with this letter.

*** *** then corresponded with site personnel in an effort to schedule an appointment to pick-up the property associated with Lot *** and Lot *** from Sale *****. *** *** was informed by site personnel that the property could not be located and was advised to contact Government Liquidation’s Customer Service Department for recourse.

On January 17, 2014, *** *** contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service . Department. *** *** explained the situation to a Customer Service Representative, and the Customer Service Representative advised *** *** to outline his concerns in writing by replying to a claim form that we would send to him.

Subsequently, on January 19, 2014, *** *** initiated a charge-back, as the claim form had not been sent to him. On January 20, 2014, the Customer Service Department verbally informed *** *** that a full refund, $747.54, was in process and that he would be receiving a written confirmation within the coming business days.

On January 23, 2014, a full refund, $747.54, was issued to *** ***’s ****** account and a written confirmation was e-rnailed to *** ***. A copy of the refund confirmation is enclosed with this letter. A copy of the written confirmation is enclosed with this letter.

Due to the aforementioned, *** *** cancelled the charge-back with ******, as his dispute with Government Liquidation was resolved.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.

Regards,

5/9/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Pallet of TV's were advertised as salvage units for parts or to be repaired. They did not state the actual condition grade or that the screens were all broken. The pictures provided did not show the tv screens, only the back of one and a box with the model of one of the units. Since they are the judge, jury etc., they obviously ruled against my complaint.

Desired Settlement: Either pick up merchandise and refund full amount paid including shipping, or refund the shipping or merchandise price and I keep the units.

Business Response:

April 28, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. **** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of five (5) LED TVs in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 7, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. **** said that the televisions he received all arrived with cracked screens; however, the manifest descriptions provided no reference to cracked screens. There were also no photos of the screens provided by the seller in the listing, only the back and sides of the televisions. He sent photos in support of his claim and requested either a full refund or a partial refund representing a discount for the damage.

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

5/9/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have been a customer of Liquidation.com and have had a few successful transactions there. Overall I have been happy with the products and services received by them. However, the auction I won on January 23rd 2014 (transaction id *******) has changed my mind considerably about this company. My package arrived on January 31st 2014 and from the second I opened it, I knew something was wrong. The auction was to contain an assortment of tablet and cell phone cases totalling 476 items. When I actually counted the merchandise I received, it was only 74 items. I promptly wen to their website and filed a dispute claim for the merchandise. I abided by all the rules of their dispute process and uploaded pictures of the items I did receive. I also took a video of the items but was unable to upload it on their website due to the size of the video. I then called their customer support number to let them know that I had video evidence as well but that I had no way of getting it to them as their website would not allow me to upload it. I was told by the customer service rep ******* (sp?) that if the dispute department needed the video they would call or email me to ask for it. On February 6th, I received an email back from them stating that my claim had been denied for lack of evidence. Here is the email I received: "Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: Insufficient support provided to validate claim. Furthermore, shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contact. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g. from a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing. " This is clearly a form response that they just cut and pasted from somewhere else as my claim had nothing to do with the quality of the items, only the fact that over 400 items were missing. They also denied the claim for lack of evidence when I told them through multiple venues (in the original dispute, through a support call and in email) that I had video evidence but had no way of uploading it to their site do to some limitations on their end. I repeatedly asked for a way to upload the video evidence and still have not been given a way to do so. I again immediately called their customer support line and again ******* answered to tell me that there wasn't much I could do and that I could try re-opening the dispute. I did just that. I re-opened the dispute and asked them why I had been denied and they responded with this: " Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, Please disregard the previous Dispute Resolution email that was sent to you in error. Please provide a detailed manifest of the missing items within the next 24 hours so that we may continue to investigate your claim. Thank you again for using Liquidation.com, your source for business surplus. Sincerely, Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc." First of all, they claim the first email was sent in error which I don't believe but they did re-open the case and ask for a full manifest of the items that were missing which I provided in the following email: "I just went over the auction manifest of the items actually on the manifest, I received: 15 of 70 Generic Cell phone cases 20 of 24 Generic Tablet cases 3 of 6 ******* Flip Cover Cases 0 of 4 **** *** Waterproof cases 0 of 14 ********* Phone Hard Case 2 of 2 ******** 12 of 16 ****** Phone Case 0 of 318 ****** Phone Case 0 of 4 Belkin Grip Candy Sheer Case 0 of 2 Kate Spade ****** Case 0 of 2 Tory Burch ****** Case 0 of 4 ******* DualPro ****** 5 Case 0 of 4 ******* Survivor Extreme-Duty Military Case That accounts for only 52 items received that were on the manifest. I also received the following items not even on the manifest: 4 ******* Pro Cases 1 **** **** Case 3 ********* Tablet Keyboards 2 ****** Charger/Speaker 3 ****** ****** ** Cases 1 ****** ****** ** Cover 1 ******* ****** 5 Case 1 ******** ****** ** Case 1 HTC One Case 1 unu Rechargeable battery Case 1 *** Power Case 1 **** ****** 5 Case 1 ****** Power Boost 1 ******* ****** S2 Car Dock Which accounts to 22 more items that I received that weren't even on the original manifest. I still believe I was sent the wrong shipment. I also still have the video that I took of all the merchandise but I have had no way of getting it to you. Is there an FTP site I could upload it to? I also still see that the status on the transaction is "Paying Seller". If the dispute denial email was sent in error earlier, I think you may need to make sure payment isn't released before the dispute is settled. If there is anything else you need from me please let me know. " As you can see I fully detailed all the items that were missing and also included items that I received that I shouldn't have as they weren't even manifested. After a few more days of waiting, I received this response from them today: "Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com, After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: . The Carrier has confirmed the weight of the units shipped is the same weight of units during delivery. You claim has been closed for insufficient support received to validate your claim." I fail to see how the weight of the package has anything to do with the items inside it. A package with 74 items in it can weigh 62lbs just as much as a package with 476 items could. The fact that the package weighed the same upon delivery only means that the items that shipped in the box are still in the box. It does not prove that the correct (or the right number of) items shipped. They also had no explanation for why I received items in the package that were not manifested in the auction. Again I contacted their customer support department and again spoke to ******* (starting to think she is the only employee) who told me there was nothing that could be done. She was rude to me on the phone, hung up on me a few times and refused to escalate my call to anyone who could help me or even explain to me why my claim keeps getting denied. I have honestly never received worse customer support in my life. The term "the customer is always right" is certainly lost on these people. At this point I am totally disgusted with this company and sick of wasting my time dealing with this issue. I also believe it is entirely possible that this was an error on ***'s end but since Liquidation.com is the shipper *** will only work with them and Liquidation.com told me they are not willing to file a claim on my behalf.

Desired Settlement: I expect that all money from this auction should be returned to me or at the very least I should only pay for what I received (74 items * 1.55ea = $114.70). This is my first avenue to try to resolve this case. If this does not work I will be disputing with ******, my bank (*** ****), **** and if necessary taking this to small claims court. I feel that $850 was pretty much stolen from me and I will not give up until it is returned.

Business Response:

April 28, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ****** *****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** 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.

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

Our disputes team reviewed **. *****’s claim and erroneously sent a denial related to another matter. After 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 transaction. Therefore, on February 15, we notified **. ***** that the dispute was ruled in his favor and that a full refund would be provided upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After receipt of the return was confirmed, a full refund of $835.13 was processed to **. *****’s account on March 4.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased merchandise through the online auction website, and was told by the pick-up site that I could repackage the merchandise so my own freight company could ship the merchandise back to my hometown. I purchased an airline ticket, rented a car, stayed at a hotel, and drove to the pick-up site to repackage and ship the purchased merchandise. Upon arriving, I was told that I could not repackage the merchandise and use my own freight company. The representative told me I could not open the boxes with the merchandise in it, but had to go through one of their select freight companies. Since I was stuck in a situation that I had no options, I was forced to use their freight company. When the merchandise arrived, a large amount of the merchandise was missing at which time I notified Liquidity Services Inc. They just sent a notification that they cannot honor the request to refund the money for the merchandise. They state that buyer or the buyer's agent was responsible for verifying the property purchased. The problem with that was I was never given the opportunity to do that but was told I could not open the property. This whole process has been very unprofessional and somewhat of a bait and switch in order to sell merchandise that is not as stated. Also, the communication that wasted about $1,500 for me to travel to Oklahoma is very unprofessional and wrong.

Desired Settlement: I desire a full refund of the purchased merchandise.

Business Response:

March 28, 2014

Dear **. ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to address **. **** *****’s claim.

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicated that **. ***** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on the property in question.

According to Government Liquidation site personnel located in Oklahoma City, OK, **. ***** was not given authorization to repackage the property (Invoice #******) associated with **. *****’s claim. Customers repacking is not in line with the Terms and Conditions. Section 8:B of the Terms and Conditions indicates that customers must make arrangements for purchased property.

8:B Please note that GL does not package items prior to pickup. Buyers need to make arrangements for packing of purchased items with a packing and shipping store, or other suitable vendor.

In addition, site personnel indicated that **. ***** arrived at the Oklahoma City, OK warehouse without an appointment. Government Liquidation has thousands of customers retrieving property from our warehouses. Appointments are necessary to accomplish the removal process in a safe, orderly and efficient manner. The property **. ***** purchased required a removal appointment as indicated on the property information page, which was made available to **. ***** before the auction started, during the auction and after the auction close. A copy of the property’s information page has been included with this response.

Please note that Government Liquidation customers are allowed to use any shipper of their choosing. Shipping is not a part of Government Liquation’s business. Government Liquidation does not receive payment from any shippers. The Oklahoma City, OK site personnel provided shipper information to **. ***** to assist him. **. ***** authorized ****** * ********** (*************************************). a nationwide shipping company to ship his property. A copy of the authorization and removal documentation has been included with this response.

After **. ***** received the property, **. ***** filed a claim. **. ***** indicated that he was missing items from his purchase. **. *****’s designated shipper signed for and removed the property from the Oklahoma City location. **. ***** did not supply any additional information to validate his claim.

**. ***** initiated a chargeback in the amount of $1,442.48. Government Liquidation’s accounting records indicate that on January 28, 2014, a refund settlement was issued to **. *****’s credit card in the amount of $1,442.48.

Again, we wish to thank you for the chance to address **. *****’s claim.
Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

This business continues to be dishonest with the handling of this complaint.  First lie is the statement that I didn't have an appointment.  I can send proof of appointment if needed.  The other lies were already explained in the initial complaint: being told I could repackage and use my own freight company (otherwise I wouldn't have travelled all the way to Oklahoma), not given permission to view and accept the merchandise (which I at that time could have seen missing merchandise), etc.
This company has been the most unprofessional and dishonest I've dealt with to date.


Regards,

**** *****








4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On January 3,2014 I made an online purchase from one of their auctions. I was not able to reach the location at which I was to pick up the merchandise by phone. I contacted the Arizona customers service number and was informed by a representative that they could not reach them as well and an email was forthcoming. I was within my alotted time to pick up the merchandise. I received an email from an employee which directed me to call him. When I called, I was told he did not have the authority to contact me regarding the items and or a time extension. The secretary informed me that I would have to pick up the items the following day. I requested an extension and was told that the site manager would have to grant the extension. Upon speaking to the site manager, I was accused of not being truthful and told they would keep my money and resell the item. I informed him I would contact his superior. I notified *** *** of the dispute and received an email from an account representative in Arizona . I was instructed to call the individual. Upon contacting the individual, I was told unless I ended my dispute he would close my account and I would not be able to purchase merchandise in the future. I was told my items were going to be resold and I would not get them. I stated to the individual that I was ready willing and able to pick up the merchandise within the terms and conditions of the sale, but needed the additional time as a result of their phone issue. He refused and closed my account issuing a refund and prohibiting me from purchasing Government surplus in the future. For all intended purpose this supplier is a monopoly and the sole source of direct specific Government surplus. I sent the individual the dates and times of my calls which I took from my cell phone for some of the calls made and I also forwarded him email to substantiate the validity of my claim. His action although narrow sighed complies with part of the company policy it does not comply with the Published Code of Conduct of the Company in dealing with customers.

Desired Settlement: I would like my account reinstated in good standing.

Business Response:

March 31, 2014

Dear **. ******,

We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with **. ********’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 bids. Our records indicate that **. ******** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Thu Sep 22 19:17:47 2011. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when **. ******** placed his winning bid on Sale *****, Lot **** (Thu Jan 2 16:42:23 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. The next business day, January 03, 2014, **. ******** was invoiced for Sale *****, Lot ****. A copy of the invoice is enclosed with this letter. Sale *****, Lot ****'s removal period was January 03, 2014, through January 17, 2014.

Our records indicate that **. ******** did not remove the property by January 16, 2014. Therefore, as a courtesy, Government Liquidation sent an abandonment notice to **. ********, and it indicated that the property had to be removed by no later then January 23, 2014, in order to avoid abandonment, a process that is outlined in Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions. A copy of the abandonment notice is enclosed with this letter. Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.

Section 9. A schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale. You must remove all property awarded within this time limit. If for any reason removal cannot be completed within the time period, it is your responsibility to arrange with our site manager for an extension of time. We are not responsible for property that is not removed within the time allotted. If property is not removed within the specified removal period or scheduled for removal at a later date with our site manager, we will consider the property to be abandoned by you, and you will have abandoned all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property. We are not required to send abandonment or late removal letters to you prior to exercising the right of abandonment.

Subsequently, on January 20, 2014, **. ******** contacted the Government Liquidation facility that housed the property, *************, Pennsylvania, and requested a removal extension until January 29, 2014. Government Liquidation informed **. ******** that his request could not be accommodated. In addition, Government Liquidation reiterated to **. ******** that the property had to be removed by January 23, 2014, to avoid abandonment.

On January 21, 2014, **. ******** contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service Department due to the denial of his request. In turn, on January 23, 2014, the Customer Service Department instructed **. ******** to file a claim. A copy of the claim form that was sent to **. ******** is enclosed with this letter. Instead of filing a claim, however, **. ******** initiated a charge-back for the purchase price of the transaction, $192.39.

Due to the charge-back, Government Liquidation communicated with **. ********, and he indicated that he was aware of the Terms and Conditions but maintained that he was unable to meet the removal deadline due to the *************, Pennsylvania, facility’s phone line being down. Government liquidation advised **. ******** that we would review the phone records to validate his claim, but **. ******** stated that he did not need to continue doing business with Government Liquidation due to the unprofessionalism. Therefore, in accordance with Section 7-C
of the Terms and Conditions, Government Liquidation issued a full refund to **. ********'s credit card, $192.39, and permanently closed **. ********’s Government Liquidation account. Section 7-0 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.

Section 7-0. Any Buyer that attempts to rescind a credit card transaction without our express written consent (i.e., charge-back), will have their account immediately and permanently de- activated. If you perform a charge-back after receiving the property, GL may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserves the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover our damages.

Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation has determined that a business relationship with **. ******** is not conducive.

Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.
Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

1.  The facts as outlined in the response are not factual.
       a.) The seller had issues with their telephones at the pick up location, and I was not able to make a timely pickup due to this.
       b.) I notified the seller of the problem at their main location. 
       c.) I was informed by the site manager that no matter what I was told or did, he did not intend to grant an extension.
       d.) I contacted *** *** dispute resolution in an attempt to resolve the problem by third party
       e.) It was Sole decision of the Sellers representative to refund my money.  I was told at once either forgo my money or he would    
            terminate my account.
       f.)  I made an offer of phone records to show that I attempted to contact them.
       g.  I sent emails showing attempt to contact and a response by an employee,  who I was told should not have responded.
       h. I have been a good customer with Government Liquidation in the past and made arrangements to accommodate them on pickup
           at different locations around the country.
       i.  All the merchandise purchased is donated to homeless shelters free of charge without any tax deductions.  The merchandise is
           needed immediately at the time of purchase.  The purchase was for a tent to be used as a bad weather shelter.  They were
           told the merchandise was needed as soon as possible.


This is not an isolated instance with Government Liquidation, the internet is filled with horrible practices.  Being the sole source of US disposition disposal they should be held to a fair business dealing practices.  



Regards,

****** ********








4/24/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I began doing business with Liquidity Services, Inc. (aka Liquidation.com) on October 4, 2013. When I won my first bid with them and noticed that they had added taxes to the invoice, which only showed up when I changed from having them arrange the shipping from New Jersey to arranging my own shipping. I called and spoke with **** ******* who informed me that I would need to complete a Tax Certificate and fax it to them to receive a credit for the taxes as a reseller. On October 8, 2013, I completed the Tax Certificated and faxed it over to Liquidity and called and spoke with **. ******* who confirmed receipt of the form and stated that a refund of taxes would be honored and that I should receive a credit within a few days. I called almost every day following those few days and have been told a number of different stories, depending on who is on the Customer Service desk and answers the phone when I call. The stories have ranged from we can't find a Certificate for you to we found it and sent it to the appropriate department, but it hasn't been processed and back and forth with the same stories over and over. I won my 2nd bit on October 14, 2013 and when I went to pay the invoice, I noticed that taxes were added to that invoice as well. I called them and the stories have started all over again. I then started having proble** with getting my merchandise shipped and getting the correct measurement and weight of my shipment so that I could provide that to my shipping carrier to have it picked up. My order consisted of 3 laptops and initially they were sending them in 3 separate boxes and the weight was 56 pounds. I couldn't understand why the laptops were being individually shipped since they were all a part of the same lot and on my 1st order of 2 laptops, which were all in one lot were shipped in one box. I spoke with **,. ******* and he advised me that he would put in a request to have them packaged in one box. That request didn't get in and took me calling back several times over severa days before it was completed. They then informed me that rather than the shipment being in 3 separate boxes, 2 laptops were in 1 box and 1 laptop was in another box and the shipment consisted of a total of 2 boxes. They told me the weight now was 70 pounds. The packages were consolidated now, but the weight went up 14 pounds. I called and called and requested clarification and they said they would have their Indiana warehouse look into it. They then came back and said the 2 packages weighed 21 pounds a piece. Well I knew that couldn't be true because 2 laptops were in 1 box and 1 laptop was in 1 box. I complained to no avail. When I picked up the shipment from *****, I had them measure and weigh the packages. One box with 1 laptop measured 18 x 16 x 6 and weighed 10 pounds. The other box with 2 laptops measured 18 x 18 x 16 and weighed 19 pounds. Both boxes totaled 29 pounds in weight. Meanwhile, I called a number I found on the internet for the company CEO, ******* *******, and left a message. On October 16th at 3:04 pm, I received a call from **. ***** **** infor**ng me that she was following up on a call that I made to **. *******. I explained all the problems and she apologized for all the issues I had been having and advised me that she was going to do an audit on my account and send me an email to follow up on our conversation and include her contact information within 48 hours. I never received a follow up email concerning the audit of my account from **. ****. In calling back after October 16th and in speaking with **. *******, I found that **. **** is the Supervisor of Customer Service. I have called several times since speaking with **. **** and left messages with **. ******* and others in Customer Service for **. ****, but never received a call back. I am on the phone calling Liquidity almost daily about the tax refunds on my account and they have done little to nothing to resolve my tax refund issues. It seems as though, while Liquidity allows the customer to arrange their own shipping on certain orders, the customer is penalized by having taxes added to their bill and given in accurate information to make the process of arranging their own shipping difficult and almost impossible. Since I started doing business with Liquidity, I have received the absolute worst customer service that I have received in a long time from any company that I have done business with.

Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity to refund me $48.09 (Transaction #*******) and $29.30 (Transaction #*******) for a total refund amount of $77.39. Also, I would like them to correct my account so that if I make any future transactions, that taxes don't get added to my invoice at all.

Business Response:

March 26, 2014

 

**. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ***** ****, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. **. **** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.

 

**. **** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two refurbished **** laptops on October 4, 2013, and a lot of three refurbished **** Aspire notebooks on October 14, both purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that when she noticed that sales tax had been charged to her that she contacted our customer service department to receive a refund as she is an exempt reseller. **. **** was instructed to complete and submit a resale certificate so that she would have the proper tax designation. She said that she submitted the form initially on October 8 and then noticed that taxes had again been charged a few days later on her second transaction. When she followed up with customer service regarding the error, she could not get a satisfactory response. She requests a full refund of her sales taxes from the two transactions and that her account receives the proper designation to avoid future problems with sales tax payments.

 

After some miscommunications, the resale certificate was posted to the account and applied on November 19, 2013. Sales taxes were not taken from **. ****’ two subsequent transactions and will not be taken from her transactions going forward. The resale certificates arrive for review by our finance department and they had been initially rejected and deleted before the issue was corrected. The customer service team would not have seen the resale certificate posted to the account because it had been deleted by the finance team for inaccuracy by the time **. **** contacted customer service. We apologize for the confusion regarding the status of the certificate.

 

Additionally, we will refund the $77.39 requested to **. ****’ account. Her account now has the resale certificate applied and will not be charged sales tax on future transactions.

 

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

 

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:


Regards,

***** ****

I can no longer accept a refund of these taxes.  I filed my complaint almost 5 months ago and they are just responding.  My taxes were filed in February and those taxes paid were claimed on my return.  Liquidation has credited my bank account for these fees on March 27th in 2 separate transactions ($29.30  and $48.09).   They will need to go back and reverse those transactions because I can't lawfully accept them because they have already been claimed on my tax return.  At this point, the transaction will have to remain as it was initially done because it is too late to correct it by issuing a credit.  I was out of the country on March 27th and only returned close to midnight on March 29th, which is why I am just now responding.






4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidation.com to actually look into my complaint as well as their policies. I offered to send in more pictures to show the shipment that I received and all of the issues with it. At this point over a month later, I am now losing money on this and would like for this to be rectified somehow. If I do not get a response from this then I will go through the Attorney Generals Office and file complaints through them. I don't participate in selling or buying ite** not as described.

Business Response:

January 27, 2014

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

*****, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ******* *****, ID# *******

 

Dear *** ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied. 

**. ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 500 children’s clothing items in Used and Shelf Pulls conditions purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 14, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that the items had several major defects, including large stains, missing tags, unraveling seams, staple insertions, cut fabric and holes. **. ***** expressed that she was very disappointed with the quality of the lot and was not willing to resell the items. She provided photos in support of her claim.

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

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

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

 

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

Items may not be in equal proportions.

Not all Shelf Pulls have tags on them.

Used Clothing may contain stains from normal wear.

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

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc

Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:
1st off, I did not receive ANY emails from this business!!  I called multiple times to find out what was going on...I still have all of my emails, spam, and trash from that time and I have nothing from them...Every time I called in to see what was going on, no one could tell me anything and they were extremely rude to me...As for the condition of the merchandise, they consider it used, that is extremely laughable...I am going to attach their terms of conditions:

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

Salvage - Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance, or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.

These clothes could definetely fall into the used category, however, they more fall into the category of defective concerning their functionality & appearance...These things are torn, ripped, beyond stained, no tags, staples in them, etc...I WILL NOT sell them under my business name and represent trash which is what was sent to me...I feel bad even donating them...Unlike Liquidation.com and whatever buyer that I got these from, I care to represent my business and what they sent me truley shows that companies like this only care about what lands in their pockets. Just because you don't do your job doesn't give you the right to pass your inability to stand by good business on to your buyer...I hope that this is made available to read to any buyer that does their research on such companies and that they are aware that they are about to waste money on someone who can't stand behind their black and white print...I am now taking a loss on my business of $420, I guess I have some expensive rags to use for the next couple of years!!!

Regards,

******* *****








4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Hi, i contacted Liquidation.com, because i only got 340 pieces of jewelry instead of 400 pieces. Liquidation.com offered me $11.00. But i want the 60 pieces instead. Liquidation said that the seller **** ******* did not reply to them. But there is no way for me to find the address of the company **** *******, i only got the address of *** ******* Illinois.

Desired Settlement: I would like to have the 60 pieces of jewelry that are missing in my order. Thank you very much for your time. Please contact me thru email. Have a great day. ****** ******************

Business Response:

January 27, 2014 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ****** ******, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she is unhappy with the amount of her partial refund.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

**** *. *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.  

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:
 

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

Regards,

****** ******








4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I want my refund. They can have the product with the defective (scratched and scuff boxes). I can not sell them in my store.

Business Response:

January 20, 2014

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. ****** **********, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ********** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ********** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ********** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied and she was unable to reopen the dispute for further consideration.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

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

This company is a fraud and I will no longer do business with them.  They are liars and take a hard working person's (small business owner) money.  If they were to take a  look at the transaction, my second bid came in the exact same time as someone else.  We both bidded the same amount $120.00. The company needs to check their records to see.  My husband said that I should have informed the company immediately when they said I won. However, when I was notify of my winning bid, I took it and was just happy to have something (nail polish) else to offer customers in my store.  


As of Dec 31, I donated the nail polish gift sets to a church since I was unable to sell them. The customers thought they were used since the packaging was so badly scratched and scuffed.
See the pictures they speak for themselves!

Regards,

****** **********








4/24/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Below is the exact email I sent to this company concerning a auction purchase I made on the morning of 9-21-2013. You will see all is self explanatory. This morning I purchased a bracelet from your site. ID 6706207, transaction # *******. I believe this seller was deceptive in describing their product. Below is their description of the Bracelet. Description: 9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet (notice BOLD HEADING and large print) aster jewelers designed your bracelet with: 16 pieces of GENUINE Sapphires. 16 pieces of GENUINE single cut diamonds, 0.18 carat Tw. 11.62 grams of sterling silver layered with 18K gold. (Small print hidden in middle) The length is 7 1/2 inches. The width is 1/4 inches or 6mm. This lovely bracelet comes in a free jewelry gift box! Everyone is a winner!!! Great jewelry investment gold is going up! (How much gold is in the layering to justify this statement GOLD HAS BEEN GOING DOWN. Copy of invoice: Retail Price Quantity Description 1415.00 1 Sapphire & Diamond Bracelet No mention of Gold Layering ! In addition to this below is a copy of Primary Summary page . Payment Summary: Auction ID *******/Transaction ID ******* We will send you an email notification as soon as your payment is processed and your order is ready to ship. In the meantime, you can check the transaction status. Seller: ************* Payment Summary: c/o Liquidity Services, Inc. **** * ****** *** *** ***** Washington, DC ***** ************ Fax: ************ Payment Due Date: 09/21/2013 Transaction ID: ******* Payment due upon receipt of payment summary. Sold To: A&G Sales Attn: ****** ******** * ***** ***** ******** ** ***** United States of America Ship To: ****** ******** * ***** ***** ******** ** ***** United States of America Units Description Price Per Lot Total Amount 1 9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet $300.00 $300.00 Shipping & Logistics $40.25 Buyer's Premium $15.00 Sales Tax $24.87 Grand Total $380.12 Again no mentioning of Gold layering. Throughout, layering is mentioned only once but deceptive descriptions suggest all 18k gold. Solution sought is cancellation of transaction, no attempt to charge card of record and suspension of privileges for the seller. Thank you ****** ********, ************ Upon getting nowhere with their dispute resolutions dept and getting a bunch of double talk about my needing to submit proof of their deceptive and possible fraudulent ad I lost it and sent them an expletive filled email which , I mad add, was eloquently and professionally handled by them. I then entered a dispute with my bank. I also asked Liquidation.com for instructions to return the bracelet and they said sorry but I am stuck with it.

Desired Settlement: As I have a dispute in process with my bank the solution I would accept is for Liquidation.com you comply with my banks inquiry and agree the transaction should be and will be cancelled and to allow me to return their bracelet I haven't even opened the shipping box. I have on file all my correspondence with Liquidation.com. Any additional information needed can and will be sent to the BBB upon request. Thank you ****** ********

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

Business Response: November 6, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a sapphire and diamond bracelet purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 24, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he was misled by the seller regarding his purchase because the seller used large, bold print to announce “9.29 Ct Sapphire & Diamond 18K Fine Designer Bracelet” and normal print to provide details including “11.62 grams of sterling silver layered with 18K gold.” **. ******** provided no photos in support of his claim because he never opened the box, according to his correspondence.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ********’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the buyer provided no support for his claim that the bracelet was grossly misrepresented. This was clearly a case of buyer’s remorse which is not an acceptable reason to cancel a transaction. The information provided by the seller in the auction listing was accurate.

**. ******** then filed a chargeback with his bank for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it (which constitutes theft). For this reason, **. ********’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We regret that **. ******** 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,


4/24/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bid on a lot of what I was led to believe was Brand Name perfumes. In the description there are the designer brand names and the fuzzy pictures have the designer name on the boxes. The wording, size of font and the ONE fuzzy picture led one to believe that indeed these were designer brand name perfumes which i was to resell on ****. when I looked at a similar auction (from the same seller three days after I won the auction The same seller had the same listing but this time with additional pictures. One that you could clearly read above the designer name the words, Version Of. And another picture of the Version Of bottles which clearly show that they are indeed copies or as they state when using the designer names and faintly use the words Version of. Broken bottles were in the delivered boxes I filed a dispute and was declined.

Desired Settlement: The seller obviously had been advised, or just by luck added clear pictures and the product out of the box showing the bottles to the same exact product but three days later. On top of that, I received the items and there were/are two bottles that had broke rendering the rest of the 72 bottles stained and unsellable I wish i would have read the BBB complaints and other web complaints prior to bidding. Thank you **** * ***********

Business Response: November 5, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** *********** with the Better Business Bureau. **. *********** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. *********** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. *********** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 72 assorted women’s perfumes purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 8, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the items he received were non-authentic, “knock-off’ perfumes of brand names. From the photos accompanying the auction, the buyer could not see the phrase “Version of’ which is clearly printed on the perfume bottle labels.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ***********’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the seller had properly described the merchandise in the auction listing. The listing clearly states that these perfumes were ******* collection versions of various designer perfume brands. Therefore there was no misrepresentation. The buyer simply failed to read the description.

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

Regards,


Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

The auction did not clearly display the information that the business implies. The photos were indeed grainy and it was not clear that these were replicas.  I have saved the pictures and the description of the original auction.  After my complaint to the company the very same product in a new auction was on their site with updated , clear and very detailed information. This is proof that the auction I bid on was misleading hence the change in the detailed pictures and listing details for future bidders. I have saved the pictures and listing of the same products after they fixed and upgraded the listing details, pictures of the same product after my original complaint.  I believe that this shows the company took steps to not have a future customer complaint by "correctly" listing the product as opposed to what I experienced
Thank you for your time


Regards,

**** ***********








4/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Two of the items have severe physically damaged. The ********* home theater system has a bent board on the bottom that protrudes out. It has scratches and dents on the top. The ********** item has bent ports gashes on the top. I called your customer service department I spoke with a woman that was very rude to me. When I asked to speak to a supervisor she put me on silent hold for over 10 minutes then came back to tell me the supervisor was not there and would "call me back".

Desired Settlement: I want a full refund including shipping which totals to $150.56. I would like Liquidation.com to pay shipping costs to send their salvage electronics back to them.

Business Response:

November 5, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. *** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services,

Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** 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.

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

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

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

Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

The statement about shipping is incorrect. There was no window that pops up and warns you about them not being responsible for sending broken equipment. Plus its preposterous that they would cover damage with their shipping costs versus my own. I USED THE SAME **** SHIPPING COMPANY (*****). Above all their descriptions of items do not fully disclose all details. None of the items I received had power cords. Plus their customer service reps are incompetent the first time I called they said that I should have said something when I picked up the items. I live 2000 miles away and never picked up anything from their warehouse. On top of everything else. The items I bought did not even come from the warehouse stated in the description. They came from a totally different STATE!!. This company is horrible and although I received a refund other consumers should be made aware of the misrepresentation of the items they sell online. Absolutely horrible service and a horrible experience.

Regards,

***** ********








4/8/2014 Problems with Product/Service
4/8/2014 Delivery Issues
3/28/2014 Billing/Collection Issues
2/25/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues
2/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased items from Liquidity Services in mid-June. I received the items and, within the acceptable time frame laid out by the company, submitted a dispute on the grounds of quality. The items were designated as light use but came to me broken. I contacted the company's customer service office once to make sure the dispute was filed, on time, and everything was in order. I was told that it was by the customer service representative. I waited until the allotted ten business days were completed and contacted customer service again to wonder about the result of my dispute. I was told it was denied because I did not provide picture evidence. I informed the customer service representative that I submitted the dispute via my phone, several times in fact because of connection issues, and apologized that the time it went through didn't have photos and promptly submitted the photos again that same business day. The next day, I received an email that my dispute was automatically denied because I did not submit photos. I contacted my account manager and she informed me that the dispute department had erred; if there was a problem, they were to contact me to rectify it before closing the dispute. This is clearly stated on the company's dispute page. I was never contacted, and my continued attempts and that of my account manager to resolve the action were met with no reply. The account manager admits that the company is in the wrong.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for my faulty merchandise under LSI's policies.

Business Response: September 5, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. *** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied despite his belief that he filed a proper dispute claim.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three (3) light use digital cameras in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 21, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. ****** said that the merchandise he received was not “light use” as described, but heavy use with broken components. On July 11, he provided photo evidence in support of his claim.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ******’s and concluded that it would be denied because he had provided insufficient support during the inspection period. Therefore, the funds were released to the seller and no longer withheld for possible refund. The delivery was made to **. ****** on June 19, and while he filed a dispute claim, he did not provide the necessary supporting documentation in the 2-day inspection window during which the dispute and support both must be received in accordance with the User Agreement.

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

Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because: the response provided by the business is wholly inaccurate.  I submitted my dispute within the time frame and submitted proper photos.  I was never informed of the lack of photo evidence and further called customer support twice to inquire whether or not my photos had been processed through the system and if the claim was fine: both times I was informed that they had and it was.  Further, my account manager informed me that IF such a problem regarding lack of photos were to occur, proper company policy is to notify the buyer.  That never happened



Regards,

*** ******








Business Response:

February 10, 2014

 

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. *** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. *** ******. In his response, **. ****** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

**. ****** purchased an auction lot of three light-use digital cameras in Returns condition from Liquidation.com and believed the items he received were not in the condition advertised. **. ****** said that the cameras he received showed heavy use with broken components.

In our response, we said that the disputes team denied the claim because photo support for **. ******’s claim had not been submitted until well after the inspection period available for filing disputes had passed. While **. ****** filed a dispute form within two days, we had no record of additional supporting documentation (i.e. photos) until nearly a month later.

**. ****** disputed this characterization of his complaint dispute, stating that he had sent photos with his phone along with his dispute form. Further, he was never notified by our customer service personnel that his photos had not been received despite the obligation of our company to do so.

Therefore, upon further review, we have decided to provide a full refund of $402.05 to **. ****** upon return of the merchandise. We have sent a pre-paid return shipping label to **. ******. His full refund will be paid upon confirmation of the delivery of the cameras. He should let us know if there are any problems with the mailing/return of the merchandise.

We apologize to **. ****** for our error in the resolution of his original dispute and hope that the full refund will settle the matter in a satisfactory manner.

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/17/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently bought 15 lots from Liquidity Services inc . Upon pick up I checked to make sure that the item numbers match the manifest in the auction . 1 lot did not and I brought it up to there attention. The item number did not match the item in the manifest . After waiting an hour and half they wrote up a report and they told me it will be refunded. the next day I called the 800 number and they told me it will be taken care of . They refunded me for the lot that did not match what I paid for it which is $205.00 .then they turned around and send me an email that they suspended my account and they want $200 to reinstate it . When I called in to ask why they said that because I rejected the lot and even though its there mistake they are still charging me that . I then started opening up all the merchandise I bought from them . They where all suppose to be returned items or open box items. More than half the items are completely salvaged and should not been sold as returns. The company has auctions for returns and auctions for salvage items. I bought only return items and clearly those items are not and should have been sold as salvage. When I tried to contact them again about this issue they basically said you need to pay $200 to reinstate the account so I can look into it and they might suspend it again if I make a complaint.

Desired Settlement: I want my money refunded .

Business Response:

February 5, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: **. ***** *****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies. 

**. ***** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 34 home goods in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 16, he refused to accept a purchased lot from our warehouse personnel because he discovered upon inspection that one of the items was misidentified in the auction listing. A lantern that was part of the lot was listed in the auction advertising with the item number of an aluminum lantern with glass, but the lantern included in the lot was plastic. The lantern item number had been selected from an online search and both items look similar.

Afterward, the buyer was assessed a $200 cancelation fee for refusing pickup of the lot he had purchased. The buyer then filed 14 chargebacks on other transactions he had completed. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. When **. ***** registered as a User on Liquidation.com, he agreed to follow the dispute process detailed in our User Agreement. For this reason, **. *****’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

Upon further consideration, it was determined that **. *****’s outstanding $200 cancelation fee will be removed from his account. The warehouse personnel entered that the lot was refused and accounts personnel assessed the penalty per our standard procedure. However, the circumstances of this refusal fully justify a lifting of the cancelation fee. Regarding his Liquidation.com user account, **. ***** will need to withdraw all 14 of his chargeback disputes and confirm the withdrawals with our customer service department before his account can be reinstated.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. ***** and would appreciate his continued cooperation in settling this matter amicably.

Regards,

**** ** *****
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/16/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I've had several problems with this company and most recently I purchased several items from them on Jan 5 2014. The following day the transaction had been cancelled by the merchant. 8 days later I noticed my credit card billing statement with a $900+ charge still on the account. I checked the account online and $900+ is definitely still there. I have notified them of this with no response from the company.

Desired Settlement: I want a full refund

Business Response:

February 4, 2014 

**. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ** ** ****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ** ** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ** ** **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ** ** **** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because the transaction was canceled but not refunded. However, the refund has been provided in the time since his complaint filing.

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/16/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Bought a Saffire Gem through liquidationthe item was described as a NEW excellent cushion cut untreated saffire gem, upon recieving the item it had a crack running through the whole saffire I called to describe the matter and they stated a 48 hour clock is ticking for you to send a decent enough picture to support claim or we decline your dispute .. wow still shocked when I read that, anyway I sent pictures in of the damage only to come back saying the mailbox is full already of disputes and cant take my request at this time, multiple emails and mutiple phone calls with no resolve

Desired Settlement: a full refund shipping as well misrepresentation of product as well as a written apology because I pay for an item in good faith only to learn I have 48 hours to prove I am not a liar. An A+ rating by the BBB for this company is a clerical error or your not reading the repetitious reviews concerning the same matter written by numerous clients , Your core values you have set give me and all the consumers the impression that an A+ rating by the BBB is solid ground , I punctuate by saying a refund is not a is not a characteristic of Honor or impeccable business ethics if that business continues to burn clients year after year with the same issues as before .

Business Response:

February 4, 2014

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** *******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

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

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

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/8/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: The items are still here in the original shipping box. I want a full refund issued and then I will return ship the items. Also Liquidity needs to change their listing policy regarding "units".

Business Response:

January 27, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** *****, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******, 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

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

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

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

The lot consists of

6-7” Tablets

6-7” tablet cases

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

Total of 24 units.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

2/8/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased some earrings from this company. The ad stated that they were in "new" condition. When I received them several of the pairs had rust, chipped paint, and were not in the condition as advertised. The transaction ID is *******

Desired Settlement: I would like to return these items and receive a full refund.

Business Response:

January 27, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ********, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he was unhappy with his partial refund; however, we have since awarded a full refund.

**. ******** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 900 assorted fashion earrings in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 10, 2013, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items he received were grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He also said that he was missing 176 units from the shipment advertised. Of the merchandise received, **. ******** said that several earrings show defects such as rusting and chipped paint. He provided photos in support of his claims, requesting a full refund or else receipt of the remainder of the shipment if a full refund could not be provided. 

Our disputes team initially found that a partial refund for the missing earrings would be appropriate. After receiving notice that his partial refund would amount to $11.44, **. ******** expressed his displeasure with the outcome and requested further consideration. A secondary review resulted in the authorization of a full refund to **. ******** upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Upon confirmation of delivery, a full refund payment of $166.25 was processed to **. ********’s account on December 27, 2013. 

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. ******** and appreciate his cooperation in settling this dispute. We consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/8/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would like to get my money back and I will happily send the phones back to them.

Business Response:

January 27, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
*******, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** *******, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ******* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******* described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

**. ******* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 8 cell phones in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 8, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that some of the phones she received would more properly fit Salvage condition merchandise. **. ******* said that one phone would not charge and another would not power on. Also, the ******* she received was unable to connect to Wi-Fi. She provided photos and videos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

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

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

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

2/7/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: All I needed was the labels to return these products and get a full refund.

Business Response:

January 27, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 

RE: **. ****** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her refund has not been successfully issued. 

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

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

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

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

2/6/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues
2/2/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: Well this is probably our last experience with this company.They have to be honest and care for their customers.We don t even like to call them because their reps are so rude except *****.All of them were put you in a situation like you are stupid you have no idea whats going on.If you are running behind your money you have to do samething for other people too.

Business Response:

January 20, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** *****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that his sales tax had not been refunded for transaction IDs ******* and *******.

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

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

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

 Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

2/2/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Transaction ID: ******* The seller of this auction listed 21 ite** as returns. When the package arrived. Clearly several of the objects were broken and on the manifest did not state true condition of the merchandise. The 21 ite** and the main features ***** ******* DVR Indoor-Outdoor Security System, ******* **** Water Dancing Speakers - Original **RP $1,596.97 was grossly misrepresented. The DVR was missing and one camera was missing and that was not disclosed rather the mainafest reads not tested for functionality. Cleary the **** Water Dancing Speakers with the eye you can see the one speak has water and the other does not indicating it was broken as tested and it is broken. Liquidation.com allows the seller to misreprent ite** by labeling the merchandise "RETURNS" when in fact the seller can see ite** missing and or physically broken and does not disclose that information. 12 ite** out of 21 clearly are salvage and I fear the remaining 11 are also but have not been able to test them because of missing parts. the following is their description of Returns- Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these ite** may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these ite** are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing. No where do I read that in a DVR security camera the main component DVR or missing Camera would fall under this category. Nor the other featured ite** that were broken and visible to the eye. Looking into this company further I have found other buyers who have the same compliant that the resolution team sides only with the seller and not with or for the buyer. They will not give me the sellers contact information leaving me file a civil action directly against them if I choose to do so. You cannot talk to them by phone involving a dispute must be by email only. They have not responded to my re dispute other than to say ite** under $100.00 are not disputable, well the DVR security camera set well exceeds 1000.00 and their resolution is not ACCEPTABLE to me. I cannot sell the products to get a return on my money leaving me in a trouble economy with a negative amortization. Their practice in this dispute has been unfair and unjustified. I have spent approximately $3000.00 in less than 30 days with these people and regret each purchase as the pictures posted does not reflect the true and actual products shipped to the buyer. Another transaction they cancelled when not shipped within 4 days but allowed the seller to re-auction the body piercing jewelry I bought and paid for. I cannot and will not let this company get away with gross negligence in representation of ite** being auctioned. I pray for mercy and help from you. Thank you

Desired Settlement: I would like the company to apologize and to have their sellers be more honest and held accountable when they know for a fact that their merchandise is missing parts are broken and not disclosed. I would like a partial refund for the transaction amount of $407.00

Business Response:

January 20, 2014

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404

 RE: **. ***** ***********, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** *********** with the Better Business Bureau. **. *********** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. *********** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because her dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in her favor.

**. *********** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 21 consumer electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 21, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. *********** said that several of the items she received were in Salvage condition, rather than Returns condition. She said that there were major components missing and broken items that disabled the performance of the merchandise. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a refund for the damaged items.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ***********’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the items appeared to fall into the broad definition of Returns condition merchandise. Then the buyer asked for further consideration, sending additional photos. Upon further review, a full refund was granted upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After confirmation of the return, a full refund of $406.77 was processed to **. ***********’s account on November 11, 2013.

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

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

1/29/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues
1/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service
1/23/2014 Billing/Collection Issues
1/14/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
12/28/2013 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Consumer Response: Thank you for your time and consideration.this company presently ignores me
I have engaged other means of pursuits
****** ***

Business Response:

December 13, 2013

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** ****** ***, ID# *******

 

Dear *** ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** *** with the Better Business Bureau. **. *** described concerns he had as a buyer from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

 

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicated that **. *** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on sale ****, lot **** (Tue Sep 15 16:53:56 2009) on Government Liquidation’s website.

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

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

 

 

9:A A schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale. You must remove all property awarded within this time limit. If for any reason removal cannot be completed within the time period, it is your responsibility to arrange with our site manager for an extension of time. We are not responsible for property that is not removed within the time allotted. If property is not removed within the specified removal period or scheduled for removal at a later date with our site manager, we will consider the property to be abandoned by you, and you will have abandoned all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property. We are not required to send abandonment or late removal letters to you prior to exercising the right of abandonment.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

12/28/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 5-31 i won 2274 fifty cal ammo cans on 25 pallets sale ***** lot **** from government liquidation.When we went to ****** ***** to pick up they would only give us 15 pallets or 1539 At a retail of 15.00 each this is a loss of 11,000.00.Site manager said he worded auction wrong .In 30 years of buying from the government the only two times I had trouble were through government liquidation at this same sit .Please see **** ***** experiance at ****** ***** for details. Came back to store and put a claim in 6-13-2013 It has now been 79 days as of 8-25-2013 I check with them severial times a week sometimes dailey always the same thing Managment is reviewing my case I try to make light of this I ask them if they are paying Managment by the hour,or if I die can i leave claim in my will so my grand childern may some day see these cans .Also I have sent 23 emails to Battle creek drmo who is suppose to be over Gl no responce there I also sent a certified packet to the commandant of the Marine Core being an old jarhead I did not want to bother his office but heading towards three month Iam losing my patiance this has been a lot of unnessary agravation. Thank you for allowing me to post this Government surplus is still a persons best bet just be ready for possible problems

Desired Settlement: I want my missing 735 ammo cans or 3.75 each in funds they are putting me off on this for one reason or another nothing could take this long thank you

Business Response:

December 13, 2013

 

**. ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: **. **** *****, ID# *******

 

Dear **. ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

 

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicated that **. ***** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on sale *****, lot **** (Fri May 31 16:59:07) on Government Liquidation’s website.

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

 

12/20/2013 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased an Acer Notebook from Liquidity Services through ****. On exactly the 3 month mark, the screen went bad. I have had numerous communications with the customer support. Sent them everything they requested and now they turn around and say they are not going to honor the warranty claim. My son paid for this Notebook with his own money and now has a non working item.

Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity contacted and told to honor the request for repair and/or replacement. Thank you

Consumer Response: From: ******* family <*************************>
Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM
Subject: complaint #*******
To: info@mybbb.org


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

 

Thank you for your assistance and happy holidays,

 

***** *******

12/18/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought 1824 ammo cans for $8,939.70 from gl description says may be missing some lids.Some lids turned out to be short 914 these cans are useless without the lids

Desired Settlement: I would like the missing 914 lids or close to it if I was a 100 short I would have ate it 914 is not acceptable or let me bring the 914 cans back and be given a credit of 4478.60 at 4.90 per can this same type thing happened on sale ***** we were 735 ammo cans short after 84 days gl gave us a credit of 2700.00 also i might add nothing happened on sale ***** until we contacted the BBB THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

Business Response:

December 13, 2013

 

*** ***** ******

Better Business Bureau

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

 

RE: *** **** *****, ID# *******

 

Dear *** ******,

 

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** **** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns he had as a buyer from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

 

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicated that **. ***** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on sale *****, lot **** (Fri Oct 4 17:13:58 2013) on Government Liquidation’s website.

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

On October 07, 2013, **. ***** was issued an invoice for his winning bid on sale *****, lot ****. Subsequently, the site records indicate **. ***** personally signed for and removed the property from the site. In accordance with Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions, purchasers are required to sign for all material prior to removing property, and if the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it. Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions are posted below for your reference and understanding.

 

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

 

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

 

In addition, as indicated in the lot description, some lids may be missing from the lot. The lot description is posted below for your reference and understanding.

 

M2A1 .50 Caliber ammunition cans with lids removed, Approx. 1,824 ammunition cans, Size 12"x6"x7", Cans are on 19 pallets, Some dents, rust or bent cans, May be missing some lids, Pallets may require re-stacking, re-banded or re-shrink wrapped prior to shipping, Recommend buyer screen item (s) prior to placing bid, GL will Provide Tail Gate Loading or Buyer may remove individually.

Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to honor **. *****’s request for a refund and/or additional property.

 

We encourage **. ***** to contact our Customer Service Department (###-###-#### – Ask for ****** ****), prior to future auction participation, to address any questions.

 

We regret that **. ***** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by GovLiquidation.com; however, we stand by our decision.

 

 

Regards,

**** ** *****

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

 

 

12/9/2013 Delivery Issues
11/17/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would like the BBB to properly monitor them because they should not be allowed to conduct business nationwide with these horrible basic customer service practices. I want to be refunded for the purchase and shipping costs. They are welcome to provide a shipping label to me to send their garbage back to them.

Business Response: November 5, 2013

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. *** ********, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. *** ******** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ******** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services,

Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ******** 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.

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

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

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

Regards,

11/16/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased an auction lot (Transaction ID *******) of 'returns' condition DVD players. They shipped via UPS Ground, arriving 8/15/2013 in a large box. The players had no protection on the box bottom below the loose jumbled players, or on any sides. They were all in the bottom of the box with a wad of Kraft paper on top. The box was also crushed due to its weight (46lbs) and the absence of any substance or strength above the crammed players. The players were subjected to significant slamming during shipping. They have rattles inside and now should be characterized as 'salvage'. I opened a dispute 8/15/2013 with Liquidity Services (Liquidation.com) and it was closed 8/21/13. My claim was rejected since these were 'returns' condition, and 'returns' condition can be broken/used, etc. Also, there was insufficient evidence in the photos I submitted. I was never called, or emailed for additional details or information. The absence of protection of any kind in the shipping packaging was never addressed. Damaged caused during shipping was never addressed. I emailed Liquidity Services 8/21/13, stating not to close the dispute and gave my reasons, that my original issue with packaging was not addressed, that there is a obligation of the seller/shipping entity to properly package my merchandise, and that this did not happen. I escalated a Paypal claim on 8/22/13. On 8/26/13 I attempted to log in to my Liquidation.com account. It would not allow me and I could not reset my password. I emailed Liquidation.com, and was notified my account was terminated for breach of contact. I never received an email notifying me of this. I also have several open transactions. After several email correspondences 8/26/13, I have been requested to cancel the charge-back request with ******, before I can submit evidence to 'back up your claim for damaged goods. Support that can be submitted with your dispute that assist the Disputes department would be pictures, video and you can also compare your manifest of items received in the package to that of the manifest online' . As is evident, I cannot do this since during the email correspondences today, there is still a lack of understanding that my issue is with the lack of packaging protection, not with the advertized condition. This is for a total of $200. Since it seems neither Liquidity Services, nor the seller is responsible for packaging the merchandise, just for pre-shipped condition. I am immensely thankful I did not purchase 20 new Dell laptops for $10,000 and have them arrive in a box with zero protection, with resultant rattles and damage. It would have been tough cookies for me.

Desired Settlement: Common sense policy changes: - read dispute claims and not send boiler plate responses to disputes. Do not be Great Benefit from The Rainmaker. - contact buyers for more information on claims if it seems evidence is lacking. - contact account owners before terminating accounts, email them when you do so as well - have dispute staff and customer service staff provide names in correspondences. And for me, a refund and reopen my account.

Business Response: See Attachment

11/16/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased 200 dvds described as Return DVDs including: Ice Age, Spiderman, Robin Hood & More - Original MSRP $2,028.00 This auction is part of a global inventory direct from one of the world's largest computer & electronics retailers. Many of the dvds had cases and stickers identifying them as rentals. Basically I received a bunch of used rental movies not returned dvds.SOme of the dvds and cases had names written on them.

Desired Settlement: I am open as to how to handle this. I do not believe I should be responsible for the return shipping fees of $56.00.I would like to either get a replacement order with actual returns as advertised or get a full refund and prepaid shipping for the return postage.At the very least I feel a partial refund is in order.

Business Response: See Attachment

10/26/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I posted an auction on the website liquidation.com. This was my first auction with this company. Title: "50 Designer Handbags, Purses, Totes" Auction ID ******* The description was not my original description but was changed by the company to read as follows: "Included in this wholesale lot are 50 new arrival gorgeous fashion designer handbags/purses/totes. All are brand new with tags and wrapped individually. There are various style and color combinations included in this auction. They are made from quality hardware, faux leather materials. Most have exterior pockets/zippers as well as interior pockets/zippers." The pictures posted included a pictures of each style represented in the lot. Never at any time was my intent to be deceitful as to the items the buyer would receive. After the buyer received the auction ***** filed a 'dispute' with liquidation.com claiming that they thought they were receiving 50 handbags and there were only 16 handbags and the rest were assorted other items including coin purses. (There were no coin purses in this auction) I received this email from the company: "Dear ********, Liquidation.com has received a dispute claim from the buyer for transaction ******* (auction *******). Until this dispute is resolved, a temporary hold has been placed on the funds from this transaction. No further action is required at this time on your part. We will review the dispute to determine it's validity and notify you of the details if we do not deny the dispute upon first review. You will be provided two business days to provide a counter response or offer a resolution. Thank you, Liquidation.com Customer Support" I then sent a copy to my contact person from liquidation and here was here email to me: "These two links are for pictures that are in this auction: https://www.liquidation.com/shared/auction/images/photos/*****/********.jpg https://www.liquidation.com/shared/auction/images/photos/*****/********.jpg Both of these pictures match the buyer’s support, therefore the buyer received the items that were pictured. The auction very clearly says “There are various style and color combinations included in this auction.” The auction did not say all items would be large handbags, and the auction did not list a style breakdown. The buyer should not have assumed that they would get 50 large designer looking handbags, that is the buyer’s fault, not the sellers. Please deny this dispute and code it as buyers remorse. " A few days later I received an email saying I had lost the dispute. I then received a letter in the mail stating the items were being returned and I would have to pay a fee to the company plus the shipping charges to and from the buyer. My complaints are as follows: 1. If the description was not adequate then that should have been caught when the company CHANGED the wording of the description from what I originally sent them. 2. The buyer received all of the items pictured. There were no sneaky items sent that were not in the pictures 3. Never once was I asked to dispute or state my position in this situation. 4. Listed in the title of the auction are the words: Handbags, Purses and Totes. The buyer should not have assumed there were only Handbags according to the title of the auction and the pictures posted. The description also states that, but the description was the words of liquidation.com and not me. My last email to liquidation was: "A dispute is usually a 2 sided thing and is debated. I was never given the chance to 'dispute'. The title of this auction was Handbags/Totes and Purses. There were NO coin purses. The various styles were all pictured. I was in no way trying to deceive anyone. This was my first auction and maybe it should not have been listed without further direction and advice from your company as to the pictures, descriptions, etc... This is REALLY not setting well with me. I know that me not doing business with your company doesn't matter, but I am going to report this to BBB and I will not be doing business with your company again. Sorry *******! Nothing personal. Just a shady practice when something like a 'dispute' takes place and one side is not allowed to rebuttal." Here is the return email I received: " Totally understand how you feel, trust me you’re preaching to the choir on this one. I only manage sellers. That means I don’t agree with 99% of the things buyers say. You’ve seen my tips and instructions on your auction listings firsthand – I want to do everything possible to avoid these disputes. Unfortunately buyers don’t have account managers the way sellers do, so they’re not nearly as educated. My advice to you is to just take it with a grain of salt. Don’t spend any time focusing on it. The Disputes Department Continue looks at all of the information and tries to make the best decision possible – they’re not in DC with me, I’ve never met any of them face to face (and I’m not exactly nice to them because of decisions just like this one so they don’t like me). For the most part they do a very fair job on their resolutions. Trust me, your doing business with us does matter. Our entire company was built on private seller accounts and the department I am a part of. Let me know if there’s anything I can do on my end to help convince you to stay selling.

Desired Settlement: I would like liquidation to take responsibility for this mistake they have made. I do not want to be responsible for the shipping charges either way or the 'fee'. The pictures were correct as stated by myself and a representative of this company. The description may have not been complete to their satisfaction but it was edited and changed by liquidation.com. I do not know the amount of the shipping charges or the fee. This was not disclosed to me.

Business Response: July 28, 2013

Dear **. ******,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

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

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

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

 1. ALL items were pictured. 

2. There were NO "coin purses". 

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

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

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

Regards,

**** *******








Business Response: October 15, 2013


Dear **. ******,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

10/26/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had bid on an auction and won where one of the items in the auction was listed a an "all-in-one" Apple Desktop. After receiving the items, the item that was listed as an Apple Desktop was just a 27" Apple Monitor. I contacted Liquidation.com and they agreed for me to send the item back. I had mistakenly thought that they wanted me to return everything in the auction. However, they only wanted me to return the 27" Apple Monitor. However, I had returned all three items that where in the auction. I only received credit for the 27" Apple Monitor. Liquidation.com claimed that I did not return everything, only the monitor. They based there claim on the prepaid shipping label. The prepaid shipping label was for 15 lbs, however their claim is not valid because the 27" Apple monitor weighs more than 20 lbs. I have contacted UPS to check if they had weighed the package at anytime during shipping, UPS said they did not weight the package because it was prepaid and the package was actually billed based on a dimensional weight of 30 lbs. I believe that the two items that were returned accidently, were stolen after arriving at liquidation.com's warehouse in Arizona because they were not supposed to be returned and therefore were not accounted for. Which gave someone the opportunity to steal the items without being noticed. Please note that the box that I shipped the items back in was the original box that Liquidation.com shipped the items to me in, and it was a very large box. The box was to big for just the 27" monitor.

Desired Settlement: I would like the additional amount be refunded back to me, because I had returned all the items but only received a refund for the 27" Apple Monitor.

Business Response: July 28, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ********* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ********* described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ********* believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

**. ********* was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three Apple and HP brand computers in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 14, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the Apple All-In-One desktop computer received consisted of the monitor only. **. ********* provided photos in support of his claim.

After receiving additional information from **. *********, our disputes team reviewed his claim and concluded that a partial refund for one unit at unit price was appropriate. Prepaid shipping labels were sent to the buyer for the return of the monitor. Following confirmation of receipt, a partial refund of $277.45 was processed to **. *********’s account on May 21.

At that time, **. ********* said that he had expected a full refund since he returned all three items. Our warehouse confirmed to our disputes team that only one item was received, and therefore our disputes team did not authorize an additional payment. **. ********* maintains that he did actually send all three items and would like a full refund or a return of the two items not authorized for a return. He also provided an argument supported by data from UPS delivery to back his claim.

The Liquidation.com legal department will follow up with the disputes team and warehouse regarding the matter; however, we cannot guarantee a change in resolution. **. ********* neglected to follow the instructions that only the monitor be returned, so delays in resolution rest with that fault.

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

Regards,

Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:
It is not acceptable that Liquidation.com cannot issue a full refund based on a false claim that their warehouse in Indiana is making. All three items were returned at the same time in the same box. There is no reason why Liquidation.com has the right to keep the other two items or refuse to refund the full amount because I accidently shipped all three items instead of only one item. I was willing to pay for the shipping of the items back, which was communicated in the e-mail sent to their dispute team. I would like to state again that their defense that the prepaid shipping label was paid for only 15lbs, so all three items could not have been returned is false. The Apple 27" Thunderbolt weighs greater than 15 lbs and UPS has stated that the shipment was billed based on dimensional weight. I understand that this dispute needs time to be investigate, however this claim has been filed well over two months ago. The amount of time that Liquidation.com has taken to respond to my claim only states that they did not take my claim seriously or simply refuse to put their customers fist.   

Regards,

******* *********








Business Response: October 14, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. ******* *********. In his response, **. ********* states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

**. ********* claimed that one of the items he purchased from Liquidation.com was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. His claim was awarded a partial refund upon return of the problem item. However, once the partial refund was processed, **. ********* said that he had sent all three items from the lot and that he was therefore entitled to a full refund. We only had a record of the one problem item being received so the partial refund remained the decision of our disputes team.

In his most recent response, **. ********* states that our warehouse is making a false claim about the items received from him. However, we have been unable to locate the other two items that **. ********* claims that he sent, and no discussions with our warehouse personnel have resulted in the discovery of the items. **. *********’s return shipping label was prepaid and thus not weighed. We are left with no way to determine whether or not the other items were removed during the shipping process or simply not sent. Since our instructions were to return only the problem item, the burden falls upon **. ********* and with no concrete evidence to the contrary, we cannot refund him in full.

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

Regards,

10/26/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I placed 3 orders for women's panties, bras to sell on ebay. All 3 orders were to be NEW products. Numerous items are badly stained! I cannot sell these things. I opened 3 disputes as they instructed me. I sent some sample pictures on the first dispute and told them the other 2 were in the same condition. They responded at one point and told me actually a video rather than pictures is better. This sounds to me like they are making it too difficult for people to return things. They sent me a return label to send back the first order but are denying my dispute for the other 2 orders. They are in the same stained condition. All I want to do is return a horrible product and get my money back.

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

Business Response: July 28, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******** ***** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ***** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs *******, ******* and *******. **. ***** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because two of her disputes were denied.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:


Regards,

******** *****

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


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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Email sent to liquidation.com on 6/6l:

This refers to all 3 of my orders.

Auction ID *******                Trans ID *******

Auction ID *******                Trans ID *******

Auction ID *******                Trans ID *******

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

Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

Hello,

Please provide the transaction ID that this message is in reference to.
Thank you again for using Liquidation.com, your source for business surplus.

Sincerely,

Customer Support Department Liquidity Services, Inc.
Phone: ###-###-####
http://www.liquidation.com/c/buyer/index.html

:::******************:::

On Thu, 6 Jun, 2013 11:09:10 AM EDT, asked:
I sent it yesterday. I will resend.

This is ridiculous. All I want to do is return to you the BAD
MERCHANDISE you sent me. Please advise a RMA # and I will send it back.

IF NOT, I will be reporting this to the following agencies and filing a
dispute with my credit card company. I do not plan to spend any more
of MY TIME dealing with this BAD MERCHANDISE.



* *DC Attorney Generals Office*: (www.oag.dc.gov) Click on the
Consumer Complaint Form link under Services.
* *Federal Trade Commission*: (www.ftc.gov) Select the "Consumer
Protection" tab and then the File a Complaint tab.
* *Better Business Bureau*: (www.bbb.org) Under the "FILE A COMPLAINT"
heading, select "Business" and follow the steps to file your complaint.
* *National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA)*:
(www.consumeraction.gov/state) They have links to consumer
protection agencies in other states. Just search for your city and
state.
*



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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










Business Response: October 15, 2013

Dear **. ******,

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

10/26/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i ordered 101 pairs of designer jeans that stated various sytles and sizes. when i recieved them they where various stles but out of 101 pairs of jeans 90 where size 27 which is not that common a size. i filed a dispute after talking to a manager at liquidations who agred over the phone that 90 of one size was not various sizes. i sent pictures and documentation of the listting and my dispute was denied by liqidadaters saying that ther was various sizes. i think that 11 different pairs of jeans and 90 the same size was very decieitfull and product dumpping , i exspected many diggerent sizes 30 and over. i told them i would be happy with the exchange of 50 pairs of jeans for sizes 30 and above and a equal mixture.. i feel they did not stand behind there policy of disputes and i was ripped off and very unhappy with there business. i also had to ask to speak to someone in mgt. several times and told i could not , until i buged them every day and finally was able to speak to some one in mgt. who would not give there name. again 90 pairs out of 101 the same size is not assorted various sizes to any normal thinking person

Desired Settlement: would like a replacement of 50 pairs at various sizes 30 and above assorted equally. company needs to change there policy and list exactly how many of each size is in lot not say assorted and send 90 out of 101 the same size

Business Response: September 5, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ****** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 101 pieces of new designer jeans purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. **. ****** said that he expected a greater range of sizes but that 90 of 101 jeans were size 27. He said that he had no problem with the quality, but that the jeans would be difficult to sale because so many were the low-demand size.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ******’s and concluded that it would be denied because the support he provided validated that the Seller complied with the auction listing. Even though there is little diversity of sizes, there are some different sizes. There was no detailed manifest representing that there would be a wide range of sizes. This was an assumption of the buyer which was incorrect, but it is not grounds for overturning a transaction.

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

Regards,

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:  I dont feel that 90 pairs of jeans out of 101 pairs  is varies sizes. i feel that this was very deceptive and liquadations should require a manifest, with a complete listing of all sizes for its auctions so this wont happen, i do not belive this is fair to the consumer and compannys can take advantage.

 
 


Regards,

****** ******








Business Response: October 15, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. ****** ******. In his response, **. ****** states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

**. ****** claimed that the jeans he purchased via Liquidation.com were grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that 90 of the 101 pairs of jeans were the same size 27. Our disputes team decided that the seller did not misrepresent the merchandise and allowed the transaction to stand.

In his most recent response, **. ****** states that he does not believe that 90 pairs of jeans out of 101 pairs being the same size constitutes “assorted sizes” as claimed in the advertising. Unfortunately, there is no technical threshold for the amount of diversity required to meet the definition of assorted. There were multiple sizes in the lot of jeans; therefore they are “assorted.” Since there was no manifest breakdown of the sizes, **. ****** should not have had an expectation regarding the distribution of sizes in the lot. If he was uncomfortable with the uncertainty, he could have elected not to bid upon the jeans, which he acknowledges are an acceptable quality. While the buyer expressed displeasure with the many size 27 jeans, there is no reason to believe that this size is any less in demand than any other size to be sold. A person would need to pass through size 27 to reach sizes 30+.

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

Regards,

10/23/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: They listed New Playboy Jeans. MSRP $150 each & I can't even get $12 for them on ****. I am out $198.00. They also listed Brand New Fashion Turquoise Gemstone Bracelets - MSRP $5,000 for 100 of them . This auction contains 100 pcs of Brand New Fashion Turquoise Gemstone Bracelets. The total Retail Value is $5,000 I can't sell for $4 each. Paid $164.41 for these. Total lost $362.41 They also Misrepresented some jeans I bought but I'm selling one here and there but still stuck with 30 or so of them. (for a total of $667.17)

Desired Settlement: They can come pick up this junk. They need to be more reasonable with the MSRP prices.

Business Response: September 5, 2013

**. ***** ****** Better Business Bureau 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she is unhappy with the resale of the product she received.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of two auctions, one for a lot of 22 new Playboy jeans, and the other for a lot of 100 new turquoise bracelets, purchased via Liquidation.com. In her complaint, she states that she was having trouble recouping the value via resale that she paid for the merchandise. She says that the listed MSRP for the auctions needed to be more reasonable.

Our transaction detail shows that no disputes were filed with our customer service department regarding either transaction. Without a properly filed dispute with support, we were not allowed the opportunity to evaluate **. ******’s claims and respond to them. When she registered with Liquidation.com, she agreed to our User Agreement which provides a process for disputing unsatisfying transactions. **. ****** elected not to follow this process and now it is beyond the period allowed for disputes to be filed so nothing more can be done unfortunately.

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

They give ONLY 48 hours to dispute anything with a order.  I found this out by getting some used jeans in 1 order where they were suppose to be new and it was over the 48 hour *rule* so they did nothing. It takes more then that to realize you have been scammed.  These Playboy jeans have NEVER sold for $150 - I cant get $12 bucks for them and the same for the bracelets.  They claim they are worth $50 each and I cant sell them for under a buck.  They scam the buyers with false advertising on the titles and in their auctions.

Regards,

***** ******








10/8/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i have won an auction on liquidation.com ...here is the the description of the auction i won :Auction Title: Samsung Blu-Ray Players, Portable DVD Players & More - Original MSRP $1,619.53 Transaction ID: ******* Auction ID: ******* Total: 256.00 Buyer's Premium: 20.48 Shipping costs: 40.25 Total Amount: 316.73 after i received the shipment and opened the boxes to check the items i find out there was five items are broken and defected and not as described in the manifest . emailed them and explained to them the problem and they emailed me back to file a dispute which is i did but their web site wont let me do it for some reason . this is the second time happened to me because it happened to me first a week ago and had the same problem with them . hopefully someone will put the stop to this dishonest business practice .

Desired Settlement: to get a refund for the defected useless items i had to pay for .

Business Response: September 5, 2013

**. ***** ****** Better Business Bureau 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ***** ****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. **** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

**. **** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 21 Samsung Blu-Ray players, portable DVD players and other consumer electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 25, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he was missing one Insignia portable DVD player and that two of the Blu-Ray players were missing remote controls.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ****’s claim and concluded that a partial refund for the missing portable DVD unit would be appropriate. The partial refund offer for one item as 10.5% of the MSRP of the lot plus prorated shipping and fees was calculated. On July 26, a partial refund of $29.02 was processed to **. ****’s account. The missing remotes are allowable under the definition of Returns condition merchandise so no refund was provided for that portion of **. ****’s dispute.

Subsequent to his initial dispute, **. **** attempted to file additional disputes on the transaction; however, only one dispute claim is allowed per transaction. That dispute should be comprehensive of all claims made on the transaction. Therefore, no additional claims could be evaluated for settlement.

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because: this company is a fraud and they sale their customers nothing but trash items . very unethical business practice . this company should be out of business .


Regards,

***** ****








9/20/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Purchased product from a Liquidity Services company, GovernmentLiquidation.com. On three occasions we sent a trucking company to the GL facility at our cost. Product was not released to trucking company. We had to pay for the trucking company to show up on each occasion. Upon taking the issue up with GL's customer service department, we were told our only option was to file a "claim" (as defined by their website). The result was almost 6 months without product or money back. GL's response was basically too bad. GL never offered any additional assistance in making sure business went well, and in fact told us that we can spend more money to send in another truck to pick up product (with no promise of actually loading it the fourth time) or to wait out the default period at which time my company will be issued a refund but our account will be canceled and we will be fined over $500.00 dollars. At no point did GL actually offer to help resolve the problem they simply responded that we signed a contract and we can roll the dice or not. They had no preference either way. Additionally, customer service amounts to nothing as the contract reads plainly that any "said" by a GL employee does not count and GL will only be responsible for what a GL employee provides in writing. By this standard no customer service actually exists only a facade of one. We provided written documentation, e-mails, and call logs to GL supporting our claim that the product was not loaded onto the selected trucking companies assets by the choice of GL employees. All of this was disregarded and GL took the position that we were lying and signed a contract so we were not entitled to a refund. Had the dollar amount been larger we would have sued them and most likely would have won. But as it stands it would cost more to litigate the issue than to just take it on the chin. The way these folks operate and handle customer issues is wrong. They messed up and because the dollar amount was only $2,600.00, plus or minus a dollars, they simply pull up and hide behind a contract. They are cheating people regularly.

Desired Settlement: We would like a refund without penalty. If no refund is given then we would like to the BBB act accordingly and lower Liquidity Services Inc. BBB rating.

Business Response: September 6, 2013

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ******** ***, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******** *** with the Better Business Bureau.

**. *** described concerns he had as a buyer from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. **. *** agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and again when he placed his bids on the property.

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

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

9: A schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale. You must remove all property awarded within this time limit. If for any reason removal cannot be completed within the time period, it is your responsibility to arrange with our site manager for an extension of time. We are not responsible for property that is not removed within the time allotted. If property is not removed within the specified removal period or scheduled for removal at a later date with our site manager, we will consider the property to be abandoned by you, and you will have abandoned all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property. We are not required to send abandonment or late removal letters to you prior to exercising the right of abandonment

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

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

9/17/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I provided the reason and several pictures on 3 different orders I received, that the majority of the product I received was either defective, missing, or misrepresented and nothing was done about. I called customer service to try to explain and the customer service act as if they didn't even care.

Desired Settlement: Partial Refund for Damage Goods. I will ship back the damaged goods for proof

Business Response: September 6, 2013

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. **** ******, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** ****** with the Better Business Bureau. **. ****** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *******. **. ****** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. ****** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 200 assorted consumer electronics accessories in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 9, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. He said that 75 of the 200 units in his shipment should have been identified as Salvage condition merchandise.

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

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal

9/15/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I win two bids for transaction #******* and #******* from the same seller ********** on June 20, 2013.These transactions consist most of the ******* cosmetics. However when I receive these two parcels, I found all the ******* cosmetics,including the blush, the pressed powder, the value set and the body cream, all are counterfeits.-They look quite the same like the real ones, however when you compare them with the REAL ONES, the ones I purchased from ******* Store, an authorized seller of ******* cosmetics, they are totally not the same in many details like smell, color, packages and printings. I called the Liquidation.com customer service at the first time and submit the disputes of these two transactions within 2 business days, the required reasonable time of this website. Since I was told by the customer service manager that the proof are the most important part of the disputes, so I updates all the Powerpoint slides including the pictures of the comparison of the fake ones I received and real ones from *******. I pointed out all the visible differences such as color, printing and package. However the Liquidation.com still denied my disputes and claimed that my disputes were lack of supporting documents,I emailed them to reopen these unclear disputes but no one answered my email. Since it is from the same seller and all the ******* cosmetics are fake, the whole order are not reliable. So I need to return the 2 orders and get the full refund.

Desired Settlement: I deserve the transaction totals and shipping totals. There are two transactions fee including shipping, and the total are 617.75+229.25=$847

Business Response: September 5, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. **** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. **. **** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.

**. **** was the winning bidder of two auctions, one for a lot of 20 assorted cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition, and the other for a lot of 100 assorted cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 1, he filed disputes with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received from both auctions were grossly misrepresented by the same seller in the auction listings. **. **** said that the merchandise he received appeared to be counterfeit. He said that he had purchased some product from a local store and compared to his shipment. He found that the received items had a different color, smell and texture from the confirmed, purchased product. There were also packaging and printing issues which caused him to believe that he had received counterfeit goods. **. **** said that he then sent a PowerPoint presentation detailing his findings so that his claim could be evaluated. He requested a full refund for both transactions.

Our disputes team could not view the attachments sent by **. **** and sent the following correspondence to him via two e-mails, one for each transaction, on July 2: “Your support for the dispute of transaction (*******/ *******) could not be viewed. Please provide support within the next 24 hours to validate the claim. If you are sending photos please provide the photos in JPEG format.”

After receiving no response from **. ****, our customer service department determined that it could not properly evaluate the claim and that the inspection period had then expired. Therefore, the disputes team had to deny the claim.

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal

9/10/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Bought some laptops that wasn't properly restore to manufacture refurbish. Laptop lags/freezes a lot. From HOLES to glue marks and other variety of things (which doesn't matter to me). Some has the mouse keypad sticking out from the laptop. One has a broken sticking out keyboard. I want to return these merchandise and get my money back for these two Auction ID Trans ID ******* ******* ******* *******

Desired Settlement: 3 laptops in each box and there's two box. Original serial number, battery, charger, cords and box it came with. I want to return these merchandise to get my money back. Items not as describe.

Business Response: August 29, 2013

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ***** **** with the Better Business Bureau. **. **** described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs ******* and *******. **. **** believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.

On June 14 and June 17, **. **** was the winning bidder of two auctions, each for a lot of three (3) **** laptop computers in Refurbished condition purchased via Liquidation.com. Then on August 9, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. **** said that the merchandise had several defects including lags and freezes in operation, holes and glue marks, one broken keyboard, and one mouse keypad that stuck out from the frame of its unit. He requested a full return and refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. ****’s claim and concluded that his dispute would be denied because it was filed 30+ days after the close of the inspection period. When he registered with Liquidation.com, **. **** agreed to abide by our User Agreement which outlines the inspection period of three days for disputes. His dispute could not be evaluated for settlement because the funds had long since been released to the seller. Furthermore, based on **. ****’s description, the items would have met the definition of Refurbished merchandise, given on our website, as follows:

Refurbished assets are used but have been inspected, tested, and restored to full working condition. They rarely come in original packaging and seldom contain any documentation or any additional parts and/or accessories. Due to their operational history, refurbished assets possess noticeable cosmetic defects and blemishes, including but not limited to dents, scratches, and signs of age.

This is distinguished from our definition for “Refurbished—like new” merchandise which was also provided for the buyer as: “Products that are like new, and retail-ready. A small percentage of units have light scratches and minor cosmetic blemishes. These units are fully tested and operational, with no functionality issues.” When evaluating the merchandise received, it clearly fits the Refurbished definition and not the Refurbished—like new definition.

We regret that **. **** 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,

9/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Last year I purchased a refurbished **** A100 tablet at **** **** online store. The 90 day warranty has long expired. The unit has stopped charging. I replaced the wall charger, reset and cleared everything of tablet. Called customer care at Corporate office only to be told that there is nothing they can do. I called the **** online **** store at ********** and person hung up. After many tries calling back I gave up. I called the Company which holds the warranty ***********. Lady was nice but could not help. I did some research on line. I goggled:**** a100 tablet is not charging. It directed me to this *****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Apparently there are quite a few unhappy **** customers with same problem. Forwarded the web site to Secondipity. I received a phone call and email from Customer Support Lead Liquidity Services, Inc. (LQDT) PHN: ###-###-#### EML: ***************************** SKYPE: ************* ******************* The email I received is: Thank you for contacting me about the matter again. I did speak to management about the matter. They advised that we can’t address the issue of the item that you purchased. But we could offer a discount on a future purchase in case you wanted to replace the item. It doesn’t have to be the same modeled unit. It could be a laptop. Please let me know. After extensive research with knowledgeable people I was advised that the **** Iconia Tab A100 Tablet's "AC DC Power Jack Plug Socket Cable Harness needs to be replaced". Apparently the part itself is not expensive but the labor is. I was also told that this is most likely a manufacturer default for wish was the cause of the refurbishing. No one wants to take responsibility.

Desired Settlement: With so many complaints the company should do a recall and a complete refund.

Business Response: September 5, 2013

**. ***** ****** Better Business Bureau 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ******* *********, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ******* ********* with the Better Business Bureau. **. ********* described concerns she had as a buyer using the **** **** store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. ********* believes that our company was in breach of this contract because she could get no assistance for her product failure.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

From: <******************>
Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the BBB of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #*******.
To: "info@mybbb.org" <info@mybbb.org>


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

Thank you.******* *********  

Regards,

******* *********








9/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would like for the company to remove the fees from my account and give me access to a different account since that one has been compromised.

Business Response: August 29, 2013

**. ***** ******
Better Business Bureau
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. ********* *****, ID# *******

Dear **. ******,

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. ********* ***** with the Better Business Bureau.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

**** ** ***** Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

8/31/2013 Problems with Product/Service
8/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: refund

Business Response: See Attachment

8/9/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

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

Desired Settlement: I would either like a replacement product or a refund for the entire auction I purchased.

Business Response: See Attachment

8/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service
8/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service
7/30/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was bidding on auction ID ******* for $124. I was not aware or told about the shipping and logistics fee of $615.32. I believed that the website company intentionally deceived me into buying the item without letting me know how much money I have to pay in total.

Desired Settlement: I want to warn other people about joining Liquidation.com. The website is not what it seems. It is a major ripoff. Also, the company may try to charge an unauthorized amount of $749.24 (grand total) from my account if they still have my debit card information. I do not trust them. I hope that the payment does not process at all.

Business Response: See Attachment 

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

Better Business Bureau:

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

Regards,

****** ******

6/19/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I won an auction that had 6 items listed of the 6 only 3 were delivered and of those 3 received 1 item was completely wrong. Instead of an American Made Peavey Guitar Amplifier they substituted a chinese made Traynor Bass Amp. They made no effort to recover the other items that were not shipped nor exchange this amplifier for the correct one. I filed a dispute and they closed it in favor of the seller.

Desired Settlement: Partial refund of the resale value of what was never shipped, Return the Traynor Amp and ship the Peavey send a shipping call tag at their expense.

Consumer Response: From: ********************
Date: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the BBB of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #********
To: info@mybbb.org


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


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

6 Customer Reviews on Liquidity Services Inc
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Fusion Chart
Fusion Chart