Liquidity Services Inc

Mr. [redacted],
 

size="3">
Please accept the attached response to the initial compliant
for [redacted], ID [redacted].
 
Thank You,
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services
 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. Mr. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that he had over fifty percent of the items missing from auction ID [redacted] and his account was inaccessible after his claim was approved by our customer relations department. Mr. [redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of tools-nailer kits, twin stack compressor on Liquidation.com. On August 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that over half of the items on the original manifest were missing. Mr. [redacted] requested the remainder of the items be made available to him instead of a partial refund. Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a full refund would be issued upon return delivery of the items. As such, his claim was honored, a [redacted] pickup was arranged and a bill of lading was sent to Mr. [redacted]. Our customer relations department communicated to Mr. [redacted] that his dispute had been honored and a full refund would be issued to his account upon return delivery. The pickup request was scheduled for August 19th between the hours of 12pm-5pm and would be picked up no later than August 20th if [redacted] was unable to pick up due to any unforeseen circumstances. A bill of lading was sent in a separate email for Mr. [redacted] to attach to the package for pickup. Our customer relations department also expressed to Mr. [redacted] once the seller had received the items, two days are allowed for inspection. We regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards, Amanda O[redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services

August 19th, 2015Dear [redacted],Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his most recent response, [redacted] states that he remains dissatisfied with the replies provided by our company to his initial complaint.[redacted] states that the Liquidation.com dispute team has ruled incorrectly in considering his claim and has does not agree that he received the value of the lot as listed on the auction description MSRP. He also says “there is no other information available on these auctions that can be used to judge their value”. Finally, he stated there is no other amount of research that can be performed to determine the value of these lots.The auction listing states “you will receive items similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured”. Also, Liquidation.com listed the condition of the items as shelf pulls and there was no detailed manifest included in the auction listing. The Manufacturer’s suggested retail price is a suggested price for when the items are sold in stores. Liquidation.com has sold the items in transaction 5176189 as shelf pulls, not new items. Liquidation.com is a reverse supply chain company where the retailer/seller sends the items back to a centralized warehouse.Accordingly, Shelf Pulls can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing. Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] does not find the MSRPs listed to be appropriate for the shelf pull items that he was awarded, but we hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our disputes process and current position.Regards,  Amanda OCompliance AssociateLiquidity Services

[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: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The first word on the auction was [redacted]. But not One [redacted] was in the box. The pictures show pictures of [redacted] and other items that could stand alone. The ones I received do not stand up. It was a classic case of bait and switch.  I believe that is why they will not take them back because if they listed them correctly, they would not sell.  I guess I learned an expensive lesson. I will no longer do business with this crooked company.
Regards,
[redacted]

January 7th, 2016Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase...

agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for one lot of 100 new selfies sticks & Mounts for [redacted] & More on Liquidation.com. On December 11th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units. [redacted] stated “I received through USPS today a [redacted] 18x13x13 carton containing 50 selfie sticks. I was expecting 100 selfie sticks as shown on the auction specification. I am expecting the rest sent to me ASAP or a refund of: half of the auction price ($114.50) plus half the shipping cost ($10.00) for a total of $124.50 I prefer receiving the balance of the selfies.”Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. The auction description clearly states the following: Lot includes: Selfie monopod telescoping stick (50 pcs) Universal phone mount (50 pcs). As such, his claim was denied.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

October 16, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

** with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.
Regarding transaction ID [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 200 new USB cables for [redacted]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 [redacted] 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. [redacted] provided photo support for his claim and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’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 [redacted] 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 [redacted] won a Liquidation.com auction for a lot of 250 new smart phone covers for [redacted] 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 [redacted] 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 [redacted] 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 [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that these matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

May 24, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear **. [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted]...

with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. [redacted] 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.
**. [redacted] purchased a refurbished [redacted] 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. **. [redacted] 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 **. [redacted] to arrange a solution. We agreed to provide a refund upon return of the unit. **. [redacted] 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 **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

June 24, 2015
Dear [redacted],
 
Please accept this response...

to the complaint filed by [redacted] * with the Revdex.com. [redacted] * described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services did not honor his bid for auction ID [redacted]. [redacted] * believes that our seller denied his bid due to his bid amount.[redacted] * bid on an auction for one lot of 7,750 [redacted] Bobblehead items on Liquidation.com. The sale closed on June 5th and [redacted] * contacted our customer service team the next business day to inquire about the sale as he had not yet received an invoice.
After a thorough review, [redacted] * was notified by our customer relations management that there was a listing error for auction ID [redacted] and unfortunately, the lot would not be sold and had been removed from the website. As such, an invoice was not generated as the items were not sold.
 
Due to this listing error, all bids from all buyers participating in the sale were voided. Per our terms and conditions, we reserve the right to review, edit or remove any Listing that we believe is inaccurate. Although listing errors are infrequent occurrences, Liquidity Services may immediately remove a listing to review and ensure accuracy.
 
We regret that [redacted] * was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
 
Regards,
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

[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.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[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: [redacted]
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,
[redacted]

May 21st, 2015Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for...

transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for 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. [redacted] 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 [redacted]’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 [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards, Amanda O Compliance Associate

May 2, 2014Dear [redacted],We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with [redacted]’s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction'procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well...

as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicate that [redacted] 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 [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Tue Jan 7 18:43:48 2014) and when he placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Wed Jan 8 01:07:47 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. Subsequently, on January 09, 2014, [redacted] was invoiced for both lots, and Government Liquidation received payment in full, $747.54, via his [redacted] account. A copy of the paid invoice is enclosed with this letter.[redacted] then corresponded with site personnel in an effort to schedule an appointment to pick-up the property associated with Lot [redacted] and Lot [redacted] from Sale [redacted]. [redacted] 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, [redacted] contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service . Department. [redacted] explained the situation to a Customer Service Representative, and the Customer Service Representative advised [redacted] to outline his concerns in writing by replying to a claim form that we would send to him.Subsequently, on January 19, 2014, [redacted] initiated a charge-back, as the claim form had not been sent to him. On January 20, 2014, the Customer Service Department verbally informed [redacted] 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 [redacted]’s [redacted] account and a written confirmation was e-rnailed to [redacted]. 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, [redacted] cancelled the charge-back with [redacted], as his dispute with Government Liquidation was resolved.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,

March 23, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted]...

described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for 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, [redacted] 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 [redacted]’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 [redacted] 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 [redacted], the claim remained denied.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc..

Mr. [redacted],
 
Please accept the attached response to the initial compliant
for [redacted], ID # [redacted].
 
Thank You,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Better...

Business Bureau. Mr. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied. Mr. [redacted] was the winning bidder of one lot of cordless circular saw kits on Liquidation.com. On August 7th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. Mr. [redacted] stated “the item was listed as circular saw KIT, but they are “circular saw” tool only which affects the price of the unit by 40 percent”. Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be verified as Mr. [redacted] arranged his own shipping and inspection is required during pick-up. Per our terms and conditions, you or your agents are responsible for unit count of the assets and verification of assets purchased at the time of removal. If the assets are not acceptable for any reason, do not remove them. If you have picked up the merchandise from our warehouse, you have waived your right to file a dispute as you or your agent has already physically handled the merchandise at this point. Our disputes team informed Mr. [redacted] that his dispute claim could not be honored as they were unable to validate the claim since the items had been removed. As such, his claim was denied. We regret that Mr. [redacted] as 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.

[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: [redacted]
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. [redacted] referred too, however, Mr. [redacted] 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. [redacted]’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 Revdex.com, [redacted] and The Federal Trade Commision reqarding their business policies and practices.  
Regards,
[redacted]

June 10th, 2015
 
Dear [redacted]...

[redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. 
[redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating
that Liquidity Services wrongfully normalized his bid.  [redacted] believes that our company is in
breach of this contract because his bid was normalized and his account was suspended
temporarily.On May 28th, [redacted] was placing a bid on an
auction for one lot of 100 items, including [redacted] transmission part kits,
purchased via Govliquidation.com and he placed an auto-bid in the amount of
$20,188.00. Government Liquidation’s auction monitoring team found [redacted]’s auto-bid amount to be an error as it was a drastic jump in bid
amount. The monitoring team normalized [redacted]’s bid, temporarily suspended
his account and sent him an email to inform him that his account was
temporarily suspended and he needed to reply back to the bid retraction email
with the information requested to have his account activated again.[redacted] replied to the bid retraction email stating he
had every intention of bidding $20,188.00, however, the sale was closed at that
time. The customer service team activated [redacted]’s account. [redacted]
then sent an email to the management team explaining the situation and
requested to have the property relisted. Management replied to [redacted]
stating “Based on the bid amount and sequence of the bids, this was determined
to be an error and was normalized. Property will not be relisted”.Per our terms and conditions, Liquidity Services may limit,
suspend, restrict or terminate our Services, your account, your access to our
Site and your activities on our Site with or without notice to you. We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction
services provided by Govliquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was
handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Govliquidation.com
marketplace.Regards,Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate

September 11th, 2015
Dear [redacted],
 
Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.
 
[redacted] purchased an auction lot of toy figurines items in new condition from Liquidation.com and believes that the sizes are not appropriate as they are smaller then what he thought they would be. [redacted] said that the items he received do not stand up.In our initial response, we said that the disputes team denied the claim because they determined the auction listing was properly listed. Neither the auction listing nor the manifest specified specific sizes/dimensions of the toys. Also, the manifest did not list individual figurines to be received, it only stated the quantity. The auction listing states each lot contains an assorted mix.
 
In his most recent response, [redacted] said that he did not receive any [redacted] minifigurines and the toys he received do not stand up. In deciding this matter, our disputes team relied upon the objective measures given in the auction listing
 
We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided. We hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our current position.
 
Regards,
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

March 20th, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Better...

Business Bureau.  [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for one lot of thirty (30) items, including designer and brand bags (used), purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 10th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units. [redacted] stated there were 30 purses in the lot; however, these brands were not in the lot. [redacted] submitted pictures to support her dispute and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she was missing items. The auction manifest clearly states “Designer and Brand bags, Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted]: A collection of Classic and durable designer & Brand handbags. 30 bags total in lot, highlights include: Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] [redacted] by [redacted]. Designer inspired bags, used condition; you will receive items similar to the ones show in the pictures”. The auction did not list that all brands would be included.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

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

[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: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Regards,
[redacted]
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

October 14, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] 
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted]...

[redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer of a laptop under warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.
On May 19, [redacted] purchased a recertified laptop computer via [redacted].com with a 90-Day Warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. The laptop experienced intermittent issues where it would power down when running on battery. On September 4, [redacted] contacted our warranty service personnel to submit a warranty claim. He said that he had evidence that the power problems had occurred during the 90-day period after purchase.
Our warranty personnel denied service to [redacted] because the 90-day warranty period concluded on August 17. Therefore the unit was no longer eligible for repair service under the warranty. When [redacted] questioned his eligibility, he was informed that the 90-day warranty expired 90 days after purchase and that any claim needed to be initiated prior to the expiration. He was then advised to seek local repair for his laptop instead.
We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.