Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The handgun was shipped on by UPS The tracking number is [redacted] The UPS website shows that it is scheduled to be delivered by the end of the day on Tuesday, I will accept the resolution of the complaint when I have physically received a refund check [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: GT contends that "officers could buy their issued firearm." However, the Mossberg shotguns sold, to my knowledge, were not issued to anyone but were available for purchase Several Officers submitted paperwork to buy Mossberg shotguns and did not receive the shotgun they agreed to purchase I know of at least two Officers that received shotguns in poor working order and with serial numbers that did not match the paperwork they submitted GT contends that "All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearmCondition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm." However, as is clearly shown on the Excel spreadsheet, the Glock sent to me bearing SN [redacted] had been issued to OFF [redacted] , not me, OFF [redacted] GT contends that "The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated." I do not know why my name does not appear on the Excel spreadsheet as provided However, as seen above, the firearm sent to me had not been issued to me and was not my gun I applied and provided paperwork to purchase the Glock bearing SN [redacted] If there was a discrepancy and I was unable to purchase the Glock bearing SN [redacted] I should have been notified in advance, not sent a firearm in poor condition that had never been issued to me and did not match the paperwork I submitted At the time of this writing (hours on 01.15.16) I do not know if OFF [redacted] has received a UPS Return Label to send back the Glock bearing [redacted] I will communicate with him to arrange the return of the firearm At that time I do request a check for $be immediately sent Regards, [redacted]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The item was not as described nor was I even notified that the item was going to incur feesAfter THREE phone calls I finally managed to get someone to START the return process after the pistol was receivedThe account used is an account that has not been used in quite some time so my contact information has since changed as those things typically do and I forgot to change it on this particular accountHOWEVER, I did leave a correct callback number the second to ime I called and was promised a call back which never happened and lead to my third phonecall to resolve the issueAt this point excuses are being made as my old number (which they were made aware of) has no merit as to why the item was “in better condition than described” and therefore was to be only credited back for less than I even initially paid for the item without shipping and so forthIt seems rather immoral to charge someone unknown fees especially without notifying them of the issuePlease also be aware that the platform in which I purchased this item has an e-mail correspondence in which I have used and spoken to their customer service so there are more ways to contact me than by phone so enough of that excuseYou also need to be aware that I emailed on three occasions on top of the three calls in an attempt to properly return the item with no responseI want every dime of my money returned as it should have been per the very first phone call and discussion with the returns clerk.
Regards,
*** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The handgun was shipped on 01.14.16 by UPS. The tracking number is [redacted]. The UPS website shows that it is scheduled to be delivered by the end of the day on Tuesday, 01.19.16. I will accept the resolution of the complaint when I have physically received a refund check.
[redacted]
As per my previous response, the check will be issued as soon as we are notified the firearm has been shipped. The return label was sent and repeated emails and phone messages to the armorer have not been replied to.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:1. GT contends that "officers could buy their issued firearm." However, the Mossberg 500 shotguns sold, to my knowledge, were not issued to anyone but were available for purchase. Several Officers submitted paperwork to buy Mossberg 500 shotguns and did not receive the shotgun they agreed to purchase. I know of at least two Officers that received shotguns in poor working order and with serial numbers that did not match the paperwork they submitted. 2. GT contends that "All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearm. Condition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm." However, as is clearly shown on the Excel spreadsheet, the Glock 19 sent to me bearing SN [redacted] had been issued to OFF [redacted], not me, OFF [redacted]. GT contends that "The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated." I do not know why my name does not appear on the Excel spreadsheet as provided. However, as seen above, the firearm sent to me had not been issued to me and was not my gun. I applied and provided paperwork to purchase the Glock 19 bearing SN [redacted]. If there was a discrepancy and I was unable to purchase the Glock 19 bearing SN [redacted] I should have been notified in advance, not sent a firearm in poor condition that had never been issued to me and did not match the paperwork I submitted.3. At the time of this writing (0850 hours on 01.15.16) I do not know if OFF [redacted] has received a UPS Return Label to send back the Glock 19 bearing [redacted]. I will communicate with him to arrange the return of the firearm. At that time I do request a check for $324.69 be immediately sent.
Regards,
[redacted]
He called saying that the photos on GunBroker were not accurate to the weapon on 1/18/18. As per the No Hassle Return Policy, we obliged and sent a shipping label.Upon receipt of the weapon on 1/23/18, we found that it was in good condition so we tried to call him to discuss this. The phone number...
on his account is incorrect and we could not reach him.(This is noted by another seller on yet another F review he received) We refunded the total amount minus the initial shipping and the cost of the shipping label.Link to the listing: [redacted] From auction: Condition: As pictured ,Caliber: .357 SIG.,Scratches and Wear on surface, Slide wear on barrel, Bore: Good Condition, Features include picatinny rail, Night Sight: Little to NO Glow, Ships with three (3) 12 round magazines, SERIAL NUMBER: UU614058, Email us for any questions regarding this piece, please include GunBroker Item Number:, [redacted]. Wear was noted in writing and photos. The wear was normal to light. 50% bluing or better on barrel. 90% or better on internals. Customer's reviews on the Gunbroker site are 4 F reviews out of 12. Link to GT policies- [redacted] We stand by our decision.
Customer’s Statement of the Problem: I work for the Topeka Police Department located in Topeka, Kansas. In mid-2015 we started the process of purchasing new firearms for the entire department. Our department uses Glock handguns and, as I understand it, GT Distributors is the Glock distributor for...
our region. Our department, along with our department armorer, made arrangements for GT Distributors to take our old Glock handguns as trade-ins and then provide us with new Glock handguns. It was also arranged that GT Distributors would take the departments used Mossberg 500 shotguns as part of the trade-in agreement. As part of this agreement all Officers of the department were eligible to buy back their service handgun and/or a shotgun [This is correct, the officers could buy their issued weapon] (or multiples if available stock existed.) [This is incorrect as officers were only extended the opportunity to buy a weapon they were issued, as a courtesy, at a price considerably below retail value. GT does not open up all police trade-ins received for purchase first by officers of that department. There is a window of time given to officers to purchase their issued weapons before we offer those items for public sale. That deadline as communicated by our Sales Representative in the area was October 15th, 2015.] As part of that process I submitted the formal paperwork required to purchase a new (older model) Glock 19 handgun bearing SN VVH###. I also submitted a personal check for $324.69. My personal check was cashed on 10.27.15. After waiting for several months the department finally received our firearms. However, instead of receiving the Glock 19 that I had agreed to purchase I received a heavily used Glock 19 bearing SN LEH###.[Again, we do not send or sell unissued firearms such as the VVHxxx firearm under our Buy Back Program, this firearm was listed by the Department Armorer as “NOT ISSUED” on his records sent to us via email on the final day before the deadline of Oct. 15th, and as such was not eligible for the buyback program.] I received this handgun on 01.05.16. I immediately notified our department armorer that this was not the handgun that I had agreed to purchase. He told me that several other Officers had ordered weapons (handguns and/or shotguns) but had received a different weapon(s) with a different serial number, often one in worse condition than the weapon they had agreed to purchase. The department armorer was compiling a list of said firearms and called GT Distributors. I understood, from past conversations, that the customer service he had received from GT Distributors had been inadequate and that it had been a difficult process to finally get the weapons shipped back to our department. [All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearm. Condition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm. Return shipment was delayed due to non-payment and declined payment of some officers, all guns were to be sent back in one shipment that couldn’t be sent until all payments had cleared. Additionally, many firearms were sold via public sale prior to officers getting their paperwork in, as the paperwork came in after the deadline expressed by our Sales Rep via Email to Officer [redacted] on Sept 22, 2015. ] The department armorer did speak with the representative he had been working with throughout the process, [redacted] (phone number [redacted]), and notified him of the discrepancies. As of Friday, 01.08.16, I had not yet heard from any representative from GT Distributors. On that date I made contact with [redacted]. He told me that all of the outstanding firearms had been located except for mine and that they were currently attempting to locate it. He told me that he hoped to have the situation resolved by the end of the day but did not know if that would be possible. I asked [redacted] to contact me the following Monday, 01.11.16, with an update. [redacted] agreed to do so. On 01.11.16, I did not receive a phone call from [redacted]. On 01.12.16, I again phoned [redacted]. I received no answer but did leave a message explaining to him that if I didn't hear from him by the end of the day I would be exploring other avenues, namely the Revdex.com and the Attorney General of Texas, to resolve the issue. On that day I received no reply from [redacted]. I again attempted to contact [redacted] on 01.13.16 but received no answer. [All correspondence as to firearms records and issued firearms being bought back was to be coordinated through Officer [redacted] (armorer, POC), while I have spoken with Officer Hayden about the gun, I told him I would be working out the logistics of a refund/exchange through the armorer, as he was in possession of the disputed firearm. UPS Return Labels will be sent to collect the firearm that Officer Hayden does not want, and upon receipt of a notification that the firearm has been shipped to GT by Officer [redacted], a check will be issued to the customer. While we strive to supply previously issued to the officers to whom they are issued, if the paperwork is not timely, or if the officer was never issued the firearm, we are often unable to fill that order, as the firearms are often already sold. The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated. By participating in the Buy Back program, officers receive the firearms back that they had carried. Upon receipt of the notice by Officer [redacted], we will expedite a check for the purchase price, to include KS tax, of $324.69. All “ATF Paperwork” is correct.
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The handgun was shipped on by UPS The tracking number is [redacted] The UPS website shows that it is scheduled to be delivered by the end of the day on Tuesday, I will accept the resolution of the complaint when I have physically received a refund check [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: GT contends that "officers could buy their issued firearm." However, the Mossberg shotguns sold, to my knowledge, were not issued to anyone but were available for purchase Several Officers submitted paperwork to buy Mossberg shotguns and did not receive the shotgun they agreed to purchase I know of at least two Officers that received shotguns in poor working order and with serial numbers that did not match the paperwork they submitted GT contends that "All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearmCondition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm." However, as is clearly shown on the Excel spreadsheet, the Glock sent to me bearing SN [redacted] had been issued to OFF [redacted] , not me, OFF [redacted] GT contends that "The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated." I do not know why my name does not appear on the Excel spreadsheet as provided However, as seen above, the firearm sent to me had not been issued to me and was not my gun I applied and provided paperwork to purchase the Glock bearing SN [redacted] If there was a discrepancy and I was unable to purchase the Glock bearing SN [redacted] I should have been notified in advance, not sent a firearm in poor condition that had never been issued to me and did not match the paperwork I submitted At the time of this writing (hours on 01.15.16) I do not know if OFF [redacted] has received a UPS Return Label to send back the Glock bearing [redacted] I will communicate with him to arrange the return of the firearm At that time I do request a check for $be immediately sent Regards, [redacted]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The item was not as described nor was I even notified that the item was going to incur feesAfter THREE phone calls I finally managed to get someone to START the return process after the pistol was receivedThe account used is an account that has not been used in quite some time so my contact information has since changed as those things typically do and I forgot to change it on this particular accountHOWEVER, I did leave a correct callback number the second to ime I called and was promised a call back which never happened and lead to my third phonecall to resolve the issueAt this point excuses are being made as my old number (which they were made aware of) has no merit as to why the item was “in better condition than described” and therefore was to be only credited back for less than I even initially paid for the item without shipping and so forthIt seems rather immoral to charge someone unknown fees especially without notifying them of the issuePlease also be aware that the platform in which I purchased this item has an e-mail correspondence in which I have used and spoken to their customer service so there are more ways to contact me than by phone so enough of that excuseYou also need to be aware that I emailed on three occasions on top of the three calls in an attempt to properly return the item with no responseI want every dime of my money returned as it should have been per the very first phone call and discussion with the returns clerk.
Regards,
*** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The handgun was shipped on 01.14.16 by UPS. The tracking number is [redacted]. The UPS website shows that it is scheduled to be delivered by the end of the day on Tuesday, 01.19.16. I will accept the resolution of the complaint when I have physically received a refund check.
[redacted]
As per my previous response, the check will be issued as soon as we are notified the firearm has been shipped. The return label was sent and repeated emails and phone messages to the armorer have not been replied to.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:1. GT contends that "officers could buy their issued firearm." However, the Mossberg 500 shotguns sold, to my knowledge, were not issued to anyone but were available for purchase. Several Officers submitted paperwork to buy Mossberg 500 shotguns and did not receive the shotgun they agreed to purchase. I know of at least two Officers that received shotguns in poor working order and with serial numbers that did not match the paperwork they submitted. 2. GT contends that "All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearm. Condition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm." However, as is clearly shown on the Excel spreadsheet, the Glock 19 sent to me bearing SN [redacted] had been issued to OFF [redacted], not me, OFF [redacted]. GT contends that "The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated." I do not know why my name does not appear on the Excel spreadsheet as provided. However, as seen above, the firearm sent to me had not been issued to me and was not my gun. I applied and provided paperwork to purchase the Glock 19 bearing SN [redacted]. If there was a discrepancy and I was unable to purchase the Glock 19 bearing SN [redacted] I should have been notified in advance, not sent a firearm in poor condition that had never been issued to me and did not match the paperwork I submitted.3. At the time of this writing (0850 hours on 01.15.16) I do not know if OFF [redacted] has received a UPS Return Label to send back the Glock 19 bearing [redacted]. I will communicate with him to arrange the return of the firearm. At that time I do request a check for $324.69 be immediately sent.
Regards,
[redacted]
He called saying that the photos on GunBroker were not accurate to the weapon on 1/18/18. As per the No Hassle Return Policy, we obliged and sent a shipping label.Upon receipt of the weapon on 1/23/18, we found that it was in good condition so we tried to call him to discuss this. The phone number...
on his account is incorrect and we could not reach him.(This is noted by another seller on yet another F review he received) We refunded the total amount minus the initial shipping and the cost of the shipping label.Link to the listing: [redacted] From auction: Condition: As pictured ,Caliber: .357 SIG.,Scratches and Wear on surface, Slide wear on barrel, Bore: Good Condition, Features include picatinny rail, Night Sight: Little to NO Glow, Ships with three (3) 12 round magazines, SERIAL NUMBER: UU614058, Email us for any questions regarding this piece, please include GunBroker Item Number:, [redacted]. Wear was noted in writing and photos. The wear was normal to light. 50% bluing or better on barrel. 90% or better on internals. Customer's reviews on the Gunbroker site are 4 F reviews out of 12. Link to GT policies- [redacted] We stand by our decision.
Customer’s Statement of the Problem: I work for the Topeka Police Department located in Topeka, Kansas. In mid-2015 we started the process of purchasing new firearms for the entire department. Our department uses Glock handguns and, as I understand it, GT Distributors is the Glock distributor for...
our region. Our department, along with our department armorer, made arrangements for GT Distributors to take our old Glock handguns as trade-ins and then provide us with new Glock handguns. It was also arranged that GT Distributors would take the departments used Mossberg 500 shotguns as part of the trade-in agreement. As part of this agreement all Officers of the department were eligible to buy back their service handgun and/or a shotgun [This is correct, the officers could buy their issued weapon] (or multiples if available stock existed.) [This is incorrect as officers were only extended the opportunity to buy a weapon they were issued, as a courtesy, at a price considerably below retail value. GT does not open up all police trade-ins received for purchase first by officers of that department. There is a window of time given to officers to purchase their issued weapons before we offer those items for public sale. That deadline as communicated by our Sales Representative in the area was October 15th, 2015.] As part of that process I submitted the formal paperwork required to purchase a new (older model) Glock 19 handgun bearing SN VVH###. I also submitted a personal check for $324.69. My personal check was cashed on 10.27.15. After waiting for several months the department finally received our firearms. However, instead of receiving the Glock 19 that I had agreed to purchase I received a heavily used Glock 19 bearing SN LEH###.[Again, we do not send or sell unissued firearms such as the VVHxxx firearm under our Buy Back Program, this firearm was listed by the Department Armorer as “NOT ISSUED” on his records sent to us via email on the final day before the deadline of Oct. 15th, and as such was not eligible for the buyback program.] I received this handgun on 01.05.16. I immediately notified our department armorer that this was not the handgun that I had agreed to purchase. He told me that several other Officers had ordered weapons (handguns and/or shotguns) but had received a different weapon(s) with a different serial number, often one in worse condition than the weapon they had agreed to purchase. The department armorer was compiling a list of said firearms and called GT Distributors. I understood, from past conversations, that the customer service he had received from GT Distributors had been inadequate and that it had been a difficult process to finally get the weapons shipped back to our department. [All firearms shipped to officers were the ones the armorer indicated were issued to the officer who was purchasing the firearm. Condition should be known as they were the one carrying and maintaining the firearm. Return shipment was delayed due to non-payment and declined payment of some officers, all guns were to be sent back in one shipment that couldn’t be sent until all payments had cleared. Additionally, many firearms were sold via public sale prior to officers getting their paperwork in, as the paperwork came in after the deadline expressed by our Sales Rep via Email to Officer [redacted] on Sept 22, 2015. ] The department armorer did speak with the representative he had been working with throughout the process, [redacted] (phone number [redacted]), and notified him of the discrepancies. As of Friday, 01.08.16, I had not yet heard from any representative from GT Distributors. On that date I made contact with [redacted]. He told me that all of the outstanding firearms had been located except for mine and that they were currently attempting to locate it. He told me that he hoped to have the situation resolved by the end of the day but did not know if that would be possible. I asked [redacted] to contact me the following Monday, 01.11.16, with an update. [redacted] agreed to do so. On 01.11.16, I did not receive a phone call from [redacted]. On 01.12.16, I again phoned [redacted]. I received no answer but did leave a message explaining to him that if I didn't hear from him by the end of the day I would be exploring other avenues, namely the Revdex.com and the Attorney General of Texas, to resolve the issue. On that day I received no reply from [redacted]. I again attempted to contact [redacted] on 01.13.16 but received no answer. [All correspondence as to firearms records and issued firearms being bought back was to be coordinated through Officer [redacted] (armorer, POC), while I have spoken with Officer Hayden about the gun, I told him I would be working out the logistics of a refund/exchange through the armorer, as he was in possession of the disputed firearm. UPS Return Labels will be sent to collect the firearm that Officer Hayden does not want, and upon receipt of a notification that the firearm has been shipped to GT by Officer [redacted], a check will be issued to the customer. While we strive to supply previously issued to the officers to whom they are issued, if the paperwork is not timely, or if the officer was never issued the firearm, we are often unable to fill that order, as the firearms are often already sold. The firearm that was sent was believed to be the firearm that Officer Hayden was issued as the list provided by Officer [redacted] indicated. By participating in the Buy Back program, officers receive the firearms back that they had carried. Upon receipt of the notice by Officer [redacted], we will expedite a check for the purchase price, to include KS tax, of $324.69. All “ATF Paperwork” is correct.