Evidence-led purchaser documentation
KK13 Excavator Chassis Failure After Approximately 40 Hours
This website documents one purchaser’s experience of buying a new KK13 mini excavator from Shandong Gaohe J.M. Machinery Co., Ltd, also promoted as United J.M. Machinery. The machine suffered a serious structural failure after approximately 40 operating hours. The evidence includes order details, supplier messages, photographs and a local engineering invoice.
Case summary
- Product
- KK13 Mini Excavator
- Supplier
- Shandong Gaohe J.M. Machinery Co., Ltd
- Alternative name
- United J.M. Machinery
- Purchase price
- US$9,070
- Failure point
- Approximately 40 operating hours
- Repair cost
- £652.50
- Main issue
- Structural welding and chassis failure
- Outcome
- Reimbursement disputed
What happened
This website documents one purchaser’s experience. A KK13 Mini Excavator was ordered from Shandong Gaohe J.M. Machinery Co., Ltd, also promoted as United J.M. Machinery. The order screenshot shows a price of US$9,070.
According to the purchaser, the machine completed approximately 40 operating hours of light-to-moderate work before a serious structural failure occurred. The purchaser described the machine as separating around the welded structural section joining the track assembly to the main body. The purchaser also stated that the failure damaged internal components and left the machine unable to start.
Supplier messages stated that the machine would be repaired and that local repair and logistics costs would be covered. A local engineering company later completed repair work. A repair invoice was submitted. According to the purchaser, reimbursement was not received.
Readers should review the evidence and reach their own conclusions.
The machine and order
The order concerned a KK13 Mini Excavator. The machine was described as using a Kubota D902 engine. The purchase price shown on the order screenshot is US$9,070.
The purchaser stated that early use involved light-to-moderate work including trenches, shallow foundations, mud and aggregate loading.
Structural failure
The chassis or welded structural section failed after approximately 40 operating hours. The purchaser described the machine as separating around the welded structural section joining the track assembly to the main body.
The repair invoice later described defective welding on the section joining the tracks to the main cab body. According to the purchaser, the structural failure also damaged internal components and left the machine unable to start.
This site does not claim that the entire chassis detached unless photographs clearly show that. The photographs and invoice wording are the primary references.
Purchaser-supplied video still of the cracked welded joint. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
What the supplier promised
The following short extracts are taken from supplier messages supplied by the purchaser. They are presented as statements shown in those messages, not as independent verification of later payment.
“We will definitely repair it for you.”
Shows an initial commitment to repair the machine.
“You can find a local repairman to re-weld the welds, and we’ll cover all costs.”
Directs the purchaser to local repair and states that costs would be covered.
Local repair and invoice
A local engineering company completed the work. The repair invoice total was £652.50 including VAT (invoice 7603, dated 28 December 2025).
The invoice described defective welding on the section joining the tracks to the main cab body. Work included removing and replacing the weld, preparing the joint, adding a gusset strip and repairing damage associated with the original weld failure.
Private residential address, telephone numbers and banking details from the invoice are not published on this website.
What happened after the invoice
The supplier acknowledged receiving the repair bill and said it had been forwarded to the after-sales department. Further messages referred repeatedly to waiting for after-sales. The supplier also discussed the possible purchase of another machine or flail mower.
According to the purchaser, the promised reimbursement was not ultimately received.
Source: Supplier messages / purchaser account
Alibaba order protection experience
This section concerns the purchaser’s experience of the marketplace process. It does not state that Alibaba collaborated with the supplier or deliberately prevented a refund.
The Alibaba order page indicated that the order had been automatically completed 60 days after shipment because no delivery tracking details were recorded. The page said the buyer had run out of time to write a review. According to the purchaser, supplier discussions about a remedy influenced the decision not to escalate sooner, and the complaint did not produce reimbursement.
Evidence gallery
Selected items from the archive. Every item remains available as indexable HTML on the evidence page.
Order screenshot showing the KK13 mini excavator at US$9,070, Kubota D902 configuration and completed status. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Purchaser-supplied video still showing a crack at a welded structural joint on the blue chassis, indicated by a pointing finger. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Invoice 7603 totalling £652.50 including VAT. Same image as the repair invoice page. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Message stating the factory was determining the cause of the crack and that the machine would definitely be repaired. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Message stating a local repairman could re-weld the welds and that the supplier would cover all costs. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Message stating customers normally find a repair factory and the supplier would bear all costs. Screenshot or photograph supplied by the purchaser.
Advice for potential buyers
Based on this experience, the following practical steps may help other buyers protect themselves. This is general guidance drawn from one case, not legal advice.
- Obtain the legal company name and keep a copy of the product listing.
- Save the full message history from the outset.
- Verify warranty terms in writing before relying on them.
- Check marketplace dispute deadlines and treat them as strict.
- Open a formal dispute early, even while a supplier promises a remedy.
- Commission an independent inspection after a serious structural failure.
- Verify parts availability and obtain written repair approval.
- Confirm in writing who pays logistics and repair costs.
- Do not accept verbal promises alone.
- Redact personal data before publishing evidence.
Right of reply
This website welcomes a factual response from Shandong Gaohe J.M. Machinery Co., Ltd, United J.M. Machinery, Alibaba or any authorised representative. Any response should identify the disputed statement and provide supporting documentation. Submissions are not published automatically.
Submit a right-of-reply statement or supporting documents for review.
Right of replyDisclaimer
This website documents one purchaser’s experience. It presents order details, supplier messages, photographs and a repair invoice. It distinguishes documented facts, statements shown in supplier messages, the purchaser’s account and the purchaser’s personal opinion.
It does not claim that the supplier committed fraud, ran a scam, deliberately deceived the buyer or intentionally sold an unsafe machine. Readers should review the evidence and reach their own conclusions. Based on this experience, the purchaser would not buy from this supplier again.