- Report: #823458
Complaint Review: RCI Auctions
| RCI Auctions 4115 Howlett Ave
ClevelandInternet, Ohio United States of America |
|
RCI Auctions Items sold on line auction and were picked up.I was not paid. Cleveland Internet, Ohio
*UPDATE EX-employee responds: RCI IS Negligent!!
*Author of original report: rebuttal responce
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Reply from RCI
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/16/2012 12:13 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/RCI-Auctions/ClevelandInternet-Ohio-44113/RCI-Auctions-Items-sold-on-line-auction-and-were-picked-upI-was-not-paid-Cleveland-Int-823458. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on RCI Auctions
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Search Tips#1 UPDATE EX-employee responds
RCI IS Negligent!!
AUTHOR: Truth - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 18, 2012
He put in charge by his own admission someone who did not have any experience at all with conducting this type of business he did not train him on what to do and failed to give him the information needed to successfully carry out the pick up of the items on the day of pick up. He never told them what items were to be shipped and allowed for mass confusion on the pick up day. The labor then attempted to call customers to verify which items were to be shipped but then Dan called and told them to stop as he said they were causing confusion with his girl in the office and that they would be letting them know what to do, THEY NEVER DID. This resulted in items being left at the bar and then subsequently Dan refused to come back and pick them up for shipping and he claims refunded the purchasers money. Why did Dan Stanton and RCI not make sure the items were loaded properly by supplying the labor a list of what invoices were to be shipped? Why once they found out the items were not brought back did they not arrange for alternative shipping? There is another email that supports that alternatives were given to RCI to ship those items but they choose not to do so and instead with out speaking to "Stan" choose to refund customers. This is not "Stan's" fault it is 100% RCI yet they are holding Stan responsible for the mistakes they readily agree they made. Regardless the customer always should come first and if mistakes were made by RCI or the people that RCI placed in charge those mistakes should be assumed by RCI and not by STAN.
#2 Author of original report
rebuttal responce
AUTHOR: Stan - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 18, 2012
#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company
Reply from RCI
AUTHOR: Memyself&i - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The above post/complaint is not accurate and the poster of this report knows this which is why this is disappointing to read. We do have proof, in writting, to back up this reply Stan.
The story is that Stan, the owner, got a full breakdown of the end auction results mailed to him with a remittance check for the exact amount owed.
After receiving this breakdown and check from RCI, the owner mailed a letter to RCI demanding an additional payment for $674 and change with a breakdown of what they felt they were owed. So the truth is - the owner agreed with the breakdown and check mailed to him by RCI except for $674. We have this letter as proof.
So while the owner here tries to make it look like he is owed thousands of dollars in this complaint, RCI has it in writing that the owner is only asking for $674.
We have emailed back the owner in response to their letter regarding this arbitrary $674 balance but have yet to hear back from him as of this posting. I believe this report to be intentionally misleading because Stan previously received the information mentioned above from RCI and did not reply to us but instead put this post on this website.

