The measure of an online auction is how they handle problems and arbitration, especially when an auction employee is listing the vehicle on behalf of the selling dealer.
I purchased a vehicle that had no photos or written disclosure indicating there was a significant amount of pet hair throughout the interior. It is difficult to understand how this condition was not identified or disclosed during the inspection.
I submitted photos showing the actual condition of the vehicle and simply requested a buy fee credit as goodwill for what I believe was an oversight in the listing. Instead, I was advised by the arbitration manager that a thorough interior detail would resolve the issue and that the condition was not subject to arbitration.
My concern was not how the issue could be resolved, but rather that the vehicle’s true condition was not disclosed so buyers could make an informed purchasing decision.
Following this dispute, my Otolane account was banned after I continued to pursue the matter.
I am sharing this experience to encourage greater transparency and accountability in the online auction process.
Asaad, I had a similar experience. Following a dispute, my account was restricted, and I felt my concerns were not given fair consideration. Based on my experience, I was disappointed with how the situation was handled and the lack of support provided throughout the process.
I believe auctions should prioritize transparency, consistency, and open communication when resolving dealer concerns. Unfortunately, that was not my experience in this case. I encourage dealers to perform their own due diligence and review feedback from multiple sources when deciding where to do business.
I purchased a vehicle for $500 through Openlane from Gus Brown Hyundai. The vehicle was listed as “as-is” with no mechanical disclosures.
After picking up the vehicle, it overheated within approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles), pegged the temperature gauge, entered limp mode, and left me stranded on the side of the road. After allowing it to cool, I returned it directly to the selling dealer and requested that the sale be cancelled due to the severity of the mechanical issue.
I then opened an arbitration claim with Openlane. My position was that the vehicle had significant engine-related problems that were not disclosed, including no cabin heat, an overheating condition, and a vehicle that could not be reasonably driven without risk of further damage. Had these conditions been disclosed, I would not have purchased the vehicle.
Openlane declined to cancel the sale, citing its policy regarding as-is vehicles. Despite the vehicle overheating almost immediately after leaving the dealership and being returned to the seller’s lot, the arbitration request was denied.
I also raised concerns regarding Ontario’s Motor Vehicle Dealers Act disclosure requirements, specifically provisions relating to material mechanical defects that could reasonably influence a buyer’s purchasing decision.
Based on this experience, I was disappointed with both the handling of the arbitration process and the outcome of the claim. I encourage other dealers to carefully review vehicle disclosures and fully understand the limitations of arbitration protections when purchasing as-is vehicles.
The measure of an online auction is how they handle problems and arbitration, especially when an auction employee is listing the vehicle on behalf of the selling dealer.
I purchased a vehicle that had no photos or written disclosure indicating there was a significant amount of pet hair throughout the interior. It is difficult to understand how this condition was not identified or disclosed during the inspection.
I submitted photos showing the actual condition of the vehicle and simply requested a buy fee credit as goodwill for what I believe was an oversight in the listing. Instead, I was advised by the arbitration manager that a thorough interior detail would resolve the issue and that the condition was not subject to arbitration.
My concern was not how the issue could be resolved, but rather that the vehicle’s true condition was not disclosed so buyers could make an informed purchasing decision.
Following this dispute, my Otolane account was banned after I continued to pursue the matter.
I am sharing this experience to encourage greater transparency and accountability in the online auction process.
Asaad, I had a similar experience. Following a dispute, my account was restricted, and I felt my concerns were not given fair consideration. Based on my experience, I was disappointed with how the situation was handled and the lack of support provided throughout the process.
I believe auctions should prioritize transparency, consistency, and open communication when resolving dealer concerns. Unfortunately, that was not my experience in this case. I encourage dealers to perform their own due diligence and review feedback from multiple sources when deciding where to do business.
I purchased a vehicle for $500 through Openlane from Gus Brown Hyundai. The vehicle was listed as “as-is” with no mechanical disclosures.
After picking up the vehicle, it overheated within approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles), pegged the temperature gauge, entered limp mode, and left me stranded on the side of the road. After allowing it to cool, I returned it directly to the selling dealer and requested that the sale be cancelled due to the severity of the mechanical issue.
I then opened an arbitration claim with Openlane. My position was that the vehicle had significant engine-related problems that were not disclosed, including no cabin heat, an overheating condition, and a vehicle that could not be reasonably driven without risk of further damage. Had these conditions been disclosed, I would not have purchased the vehicle.
Openlane declined to cancel the sale, citing its policy regarding as-is vehicles. Despite the vehicle overheating almost immediately after leaving the dealership and being returned to the seller’s lot, the arbitration request was denied.
I also raised concerns regarding Ontario’s Motor Vehicle Dealers Act disclosure requirements, specifically provisions relating to material mechanical defects that could reasonably influence a buyer’s purchasing decision.
Based on this experience, I was disappointed with both the handling of the arbitration process and the outcome of the claim. I encourage other dealers to carefully review vehicle disclosures and fully understand the limitations of arbitration protections when purchasing as-is vehicles.