Police Auctions

Acid_clown

I had a bad experience with bumblebeeauctions, and from what I have read, I am not the only one. The police are actively deceiving people with their auctions, from omitting obvious details, hiding damage in photos, and using misleading descriptions. These practices should be highlighted because as it stands, the police are using their own auction website to commit fraud.

I discovered bumblebeeauctions via MSE, and I'm shocked that MSE have run an article about it, despite the terrible reviews.
(See here: moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/police-auctions)
Jenny Keefe has not highlighted the fact that these police auctions are deceitful in her article, not a very money-saving information guide at all. The only people saving money here are the police, ripping off the general public.
I feel that a warning should be added to the article to make people aware that while they think they are getting a bargain, they are actually getting a piece of junk which the auctioneer can clearly see is not fit for sale.

It's not just this forum that people are expressing dissatisfaction, a quick Google search for "bumblebeeauctions reviews" throws up plenty of 1 star reviews.

I can't find any way to contact MSE directly about this issue, so if someone can help me get this across to them, we can help prevent others from losing money to this criminal racket.

RFW

Acid_clown wrote: »

I had a bad experience with bumblebeeauctions, and from what I have read, I am not the only one. The police are actively deceiving people with their auctions, from omitting obvious details, hiding damage in photos, and using misleading descriptions. These practices should be highlighted because as it stands, the police are using their own auction website to commit fraud.

I discovered bumblebeeauctions via MSE, and I'm shocked that MSE have run an article about it, despite the terrible reviews.
(See here: moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/police-auctions)
Jenny Keefe has not highlighted the fact that these police auctions are deceitful in her article, not a very money-saving information guide at all. The only people saving money here are the police, ripping off the general public.
I feel that a warning should be added to the article to make people aware that while they think they are getting a bargain, they are actually getting a piece of junk which the auctioneer can clearly see is not fit for sale.

It's not just this forum that people are expressing dissatisfaction, a quick Google search for "bumblebeeauctions reviews" throws up plenty of 1 star reviews.

I can't find any way to contact MSE directly about this issue, so if someone can help me get this across to them, we can help prevent others from losing money to this criminal racket.

You need to back this up with some facts rather than a general statement, no one at MSE would take the above seriously as it stands. A screen shot of something that would show that there is carelessness/deceit going on. A picture of a pair of jeans described as Levi's with a Primark label on would be an example.

My guess is that they aren't being deceitful, more that the people who do the listings are careless when listing speedily and no one is checking them.

Auctions, on and offline are not for everyone. One week you can sell a television for £10 and it's a bargain, the next week you can sell the same TV for £250 and it's a rip off. Usually it's buyers overbidding that cause things to not be a bargain.

Acid_clown

Have a read of this bunch of reviews for example..
reviewcentre.com/reviews142664.html

I bought something from there, the description was "HPI Racing Savage 25. With misc tools, parts and transformers. Used, has not been tested" and then a tiny photo of what appears to be an rc truck in good order with manual filling bottle, and everything you need.

When I collected it, the manual was like a solid block that had been soaked and dried out, it was unusable, and flaking into bits. All of the paper from the manual was stuck to the accessories, there was rust on all the parts, the engine was seized, the filler bottle was broken, the starter batteries had visibly leaked battery acid. Clearly this had been sat in a lot of water for some time, and they conveniently failed to mention any of this. By simply writing "untested" they have made a get out clause for selling items which there would be no doubt should be listed as "not working" - THAT is what is deceitful. And if you want to put it down to them "being careless when listing items speedily", that is also not a valid excuse. It is unacceptable behaviour for the police of all people to be a part of.

MSE should not just dismiss people's complaints in the forum, especially when they are supposed to be recommending these sites to us, how are we supposed to trust the advice from MSE if they don't have checks in place and listen to people's feedback?

George_Michael

Acid_clown wrote: »

I bought something from there, the description was "HPI Racing Savage 25. With misc tools, parts and transformers. Used, has not been tested" and then a tiny photo of what appears to be an rc truck in good order with manual filling bottle, and everything you need.

At any auction, whether online or in a face to face auction house, you must always assume that "untested" means that it doesn't work. If it does work then this is a bonus.

I wouldn't say that the photo used was tiny,
http://www.bumblebeeauctions.co.uk/XcAPViewItem.asp?ID=168182
but if you thought it was and that not enough info was given, why did you bid so high?

Acid_clown

One of these cars in running condition would be up to £150 after a quick clean and a tweak to get it going. I don't think I would have bid that much had it stated "water damage" or "parts missing and broken" Both of which would have been perfectly clear whilst carefully laying it all out for the photo.

My gripe isn't with how much I paid, I have got it running after a few hours of tinkering, but how clearly broken items are being listed as "untested".

RFW

Acid_clown wrote: »

My gripe isn't with how much I paid,

So if you'd paid £1 you'd still have the same problem?

Acid_clown wrote: »

clearly broken items are being listed as "untested".

As said above I'd always consider "untested" to mean broken. The person listing has probably little clue if the item they are listing will fetch £1 or £1000. In a bumblebee type sale it's speed in listing not accuracy that gets the job done. There are possibly some laws being broken depending on how the descriptions are, if you think there is a larger problem then refer to Trading Standards with your own purchase.

patman99

The Police don't have the time or resources to do fully-worded listings. They simply put what the item is, whether it is tested and working or not and add a photo.

Here in Essex, the Police just skip everything (except bikes which get donated to charity) as they do not have the time or manpower to actually sell stuff.

Btw, Bumblebee is run by one man.

RFW

patman99 wrote: »

Btw, Bumblebee is run by one man.

It doesn't surprise me. They used to contract out and ask for tender applications. My guess is that they would have earnt more money the old way but they probably don't have anyone who can see that.

Pound

I went to a proper auction house selling seized and stolen goods on behalf of bailiffs and the police. It was fun to watch but I think it would be hard to pick up a real bargain because lots of people were there thinking that because it was an auction, it meant everything was a bargain but really were driving the price beyond what it would cost to buy things brand new.

knightstyle

There is a weekly auction near me and I often go. Not Police but house clearances, bankrupt stock and a well known seller customer returns.
Recently I bought two electric chainsaws, £5.50 and £3.30 sold them for £25 the two, one perfect, the other had the trigger jammed off, easy fix.
I now have 9 LED outside floodlights that cost £8.80, if I get one working for my garden I am in profit, I recon to get at least 4 working to sell.
As I am retired I have time and enjoy the auction, meeting regulars etc.