Sierra Auction Management, Inc.

I had an incident the other week with this auction houseHad purchased vehicles, in person and paid balance in fullWent home to view other upcoming vehicles on live auction websiteI was searching for a specific vehicle and had inadvertently hit the purchase buttonBefore the bidding had stopped I was able to write in the message board that this was a mistake 2x
I was on the hook for the purchase of a vehicle I did not want!
I ended up speaking with the President of the auction facility and ended up paying $for that mistake
Never again will this facility get another penny from me, not at all pleased with the way business is performed thereI have the transcript's, but apparently that has little validity in this manner
Warning - I would NOT recommend conducting business with this auction house!!!!!!

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. Firstly, as mentioned in Sierra Auction Mgmt's response, the employees of Sierra Auction Mgmtare told not to communicate with the bidders at the auction However, the employee who was driving the Ford Explorer did just thatHe not only yelled at the plaintiff not to leave the company premises without bidding on one of their vehicles, however, he also told the plaintiff the Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and mockingly demonstrated a "fake" four wheel drive switch on the console of the Ford Explorer that he was driving towards the auction tentThis act, according to company president *** ***, is against company policy Pursuant to the doctrine of "respondeat superior", Sierra Auction Mgmtand president *** *** are liable for the employees breach of company policy and for the damage this caused to plaintiff *** ***. Secondly, the remedy offered by Sierra Auction president *** *** is not adequate to address the damage suffered by the plaintiff Sierra Auction is liable for fraud under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" because their employee, contrary to company policy, misrepresented an essential fact about the vehicle that the plaintiff eventually bid onThe plaintiff was told by one of Sierra Auction Mgmt's employees that the Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and in fact the vehicle is a two wheel drive vehicle Pursuant to Arizona Statute ***, Sierra Auction Mgmtis liable for fraudulent auction The remedy sought by the plaintiff is rescission or refund of total fees paid to Sierra Auction Mgmtand other damages or penalties deemed appropriate by the court or administrative system. Sincerely, *** *** *** telephone # ###-###-####

Don't do business with this placeI made a purchase was told it was ok to pick up days later, they charged my credit card and billed ANOTHER 3.5% on top of the 17% + all the other feesI came to pick up my purchase at 2:(they close at 4) and no one was hereI called and talked to the manager *** who assured me I could pick up at 8amCame to pick up at 8am and they weren't thereThis has been the most hassling experience with a "business" I have ever hadI would NEVER recommend them to anyone

I’ve attached a PDF containing two documents specific to Mr. [redacted]’s purchase.  First of all, he agreed to our terms by signing the bidder card on the back, which clearly states  “I have been specifically warned that I may not rely on any descriptions or written or verbal statements by SIERRA, or any party acting on SIERRA’S behalf.” The second document is the invoice.  Again, he signs the invoice on the 2nd page as a continuum to the first page where it states “I have been given ample opportunity to inspect all merchandise and or vehicles prior to the auction.  I have been advised NOT to purchase any item I have not fully inspected.  All vehicles and other items are sold “AS IS-NOT EXPRESSLY WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED”.   The statement goes on, but this condition is specific to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint.  I am asking that the Revdex.com close this case based on the above information and the fact that he agreed to these terms with his signature acknowledgement. Regards, [redacted]  |  President  |  Sierra Auction Management, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
 Firstly,  as mentioned in Sierra Auction Mgmt's response, the employees of Sierra Auction Mgmt. are told not to communicate with the bidders at the auction.  However, the employee who was driving the 2002 Ford Explorer did just that. He not only yelled at the plaintiff not to leave the company premises without bidding on one of their vehicles, however, he also told the plaintiff the 2002 Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and mockingly demonstrated a "fake" four wheel drive switch on the console of the 2002 Ford Explorer that he was driving towards the auction tent. This act, according to company president [redacted], is against company policy.  Pursuant to the doctrine of "respondeat superior", Sierra Auction Mgmt. and president [redacted] are liable for the employees breach of company policy and for the damage this caused to plaintiff [redacted].  Secondly, the remedy offered by Sierra Auction president [redacted] is not adequate to address the damage suffered by the plaintiff.  Sierra Auction is liable for fraud under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" because their employee, contrary to company policy, misrepresented an essential fact about the vehicle that the plaintiff eventually bid on. The plaintiff was told by one of Sierra Auction Mgmt's employees that the 2002 Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and in fact the vehicle is a two wheel drive vehicle.  Pursuant to Arizona Statute [redacted], Sierra Auction Mgmt. is liable for fraudulent auction.  The remedy sought by the plaintiff is rescission or refund of total fees paid to Sierra Auction Mgmt. and other damages or penalties deemed appropriate by the court or administrative system.      Sincerely,   [redacted]                       telephone # ###-###-####

In response to the subject case: Mr. [redacted], as with all of our buyers, was given an opportunity to preview the vehicles on the Friday before our Saturday auction.  All potential buyers are allowed to start the vehicles, check the engines, and bring experts in to go over the vehicle...

in great detail.  We encourage this, as we are a licensed Arizona Public Consignment Auction Dealer, meaning that we take vehicles on consignment and do not know of their condition.  Our particular licensing allows us to auction vehicles without any implied warranty of any kind or any sort of emissions testing requirement.  Mr. [redacted] apparently did not preview any vehicles nor did he read the Terms and Conditions of the auction, which explicitly state that there will be a 12% Buyers Premium with all purchases along with sales tax and a $40 title administration fee.  This is announced by the auctioneer, spelled out on our website, and posted internally at the auction site.   By placing a $500 deposit and signing a bidders card, he agreed to those terms. He was given a catalog that has these terms along with the description of the vehicle.  Had he researched the vehicle prior to buying it, the VIN # would have indicated whether this vehicle was a 2-wheel or 4-wheel drive.  Our description of the vehicle did not indicate 4-wheel drive, as we typically state that in a vehicle’s description because 4 wheel drive vehicles bring more money.  I’m not sure who he asked, but our employees (day laborers and others) are told not to make an opinion on any vehicle, as they are not experts.  It is up to the customer to decide what features are on the vehicle.  A customer should never rely upon an opinion of someone they do not know or trust.  This particular 2002 vintage vehicle had 192,000 miles on it when Mr. [redacted] bought it – for any car of that vintage and mileage, the chances that it is going to be a reliable car without some work are remote.  I am sorry that he had a bad experience with his purchase, as we sell thousands of cars per year to satisfied buyers. Had Mr. [redacted] taken a little time to research, he could have saved himself many of the headaches he mentions.  We had 300 cars in that auction, so there were other vehicles to choose from that may have satisfied his need for a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Unfortunately, we cannot refund or exchange based on the above conditions.  If he would like to re-consign the vehicle to the auction without a commission fee, we will accept it as long as he puts the title into his name.  Best regards, [redacted]  |  President  |  Sierra Auction Management, Inc.

I am responding to Mr. [redacted] complaint that he was a winning bidder on lot 91, a 1989 Ford Mustang for $325.00.  Mr. [redacted] does not understand the auction process as it relates to vehicles and did not read any of our terms and conditions when bidding on this vehicle.  First...

of all, we do not sell vehicles online only.  We are required by state law to auction vehicles via a live bid caller, which means the bids he was placing on this vehicle were only PRE-BIDS.  When the live auction starts, the highest Pre-bid is the starting bid for the live auction.  Since Mr. [redacted] did not participate in the live online simulcast auction, the vehicle was eventually sold to a live bidder onsite for $2,200.00.  The note in [redacted] system that states the item was “passed” is entered when the item does not sell online or does not have active online participation.  It is not meant to be the final disposition of the asset.  We record all auctions, so Mr. [redacted], for $20, can have an audio snippet of the vehicle being sold through our live auction process. He was not the winning bidder for this vehicle and thus this case should be closed.

I had an incident the other week with this auction house. Had purchased 2 vehicles, in person and paid balance in full. Went home to view other upcoming vehicles on live auction website. I was searching for a specific vehicle and had inadvertently hit the purchase button. Before the bidding had stopped I was able to write in the message board that this was a mistake 2x.

I was on the hook for the purchase of a vehicle I did not want!

I ended up speaking with the President of the auction facility and ended up paying $250 for that mistake.

Never again will this facility get another penny from me, not at all pleased with the way business is performed there. I have the transcript's, but apparently that has little validity in this manner.

Warning - I would NOT recommend conducting business with this auction house!!!!!!

Don't do business with this place. I made a purchase was told it was ok to pick up 3 days later, they charged my credit card and billed ANOTHER 3.5% on top of the 17% + all the other fees. I came to pick up my purchase at 2:30 (they close at 4) and no one was here. I called and talked to the manager [redacted] who assured me I could pick up at 8am. Came to pick up at 8am and they weren't there. This has been the most hassling experience with a "business" I have ever had. I would NEVER recommend them to anyone.

I’ve attached a PDF containing two documents specific to Mr. [redacted]’s purchase.  First of all, he agreed to our terms by signing the bidder card on the back, which clearly states  “I have been specifically warned that I may not rely on any descriptions or written or verbal statements by SIERRA, or any party acting on SIERRA’S behalf.” The second document is the invoice.  Again, he signs the invoice on the 2nd page as a continuum to the first page where it states “I have been given ample opportunity to inspect all merchandise and or vehicles prior to the auction.  I have been advised NOT to purchase any item I have not fully inspected.  All vehicles and other items are sold “AS IS-NOT EXPRESSLY WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED”.   The statement goes on, but this condition is specific to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint.  I am asking that the Revdex.com close this case based on the above information and the fact that he agreed to these terms with his signature acknowledgement. Regards, [redacted]  |  President  |  Sierra Auction Management, Inc.

In response to Mr. [redacted]'s last correspondence:

As of today's date (December 30, 2013) I have not received any certified mail packages from Mr. [redacted] as promised.  It is difficult for me on behalf of Sierra to take any action in this case without knowing the full facts.  Those documents would help in this situation, as I could make a more concerted effort to work with our Mexican consulate office to release the unit. 

Sierra will continue to support Mr. [redacted] to the best of our ability in his efforts to regain possession of this unit, but his requested solutions of either a refund or replacement are just not realistic given our policies and procedures and the fact that we had no involvement in the exportation of this unit. Had Mr. [redacted] attempted to put the original title into his name in his home state of Texas prior to taking the unit to Mexico, the issue would have resolved itself.

It is truly unfortunate that this situation has occurred.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

 

Regards,

 I DISAGREE WITH THE BUSINESS RESPONSE SENT BY SIERRA AUCTION MANAGEMENT. I HAVE

PROVIDED AS MUCH DOCUMENTATION AS I POSSIBLY CAN.  AS I STATED BEFORE THE LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH

SOMEONE FROM SIERRA AUCTION MANAGEMENT WAS ON 10/9/2013. I WANTED TO FAX THE

LAST PAPERWORK I HAD RECEIVED FROM MEXICAN AUTHORITIES, BUT [redacted]

STATED MR. [redacted] HAD NO INTEREST IN ANYTHING ELSE REGARDING THIS MATTER AND

AS THAT HE SAID”DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO”(REFERING TO PROCEED WITH LEGAL ACTION

OR WHATEVER I FELT WAS NECESSARY). IN RESPONSE TO MR.[redacted]” To this day, he has not provided me with

“final certified” paperwork from the Mexican government nor have been given any

contact point within their government to explain the title issue to help Mr.

[redacted].” I WILL BE SENDING NOTARIZED TRANSLATIONS (SPANISH TO

ENGLISH) OF THE FINAL DOCUMENTS I RECEIVED FROM MEXICAN AUTHORITIES VIA

CERTIFIED MAIL.  ALSO MR. [redacted] CLAIMS

THAT THE STATEMENTS I MADE IN MY INITIAL COMPLAINT ARE FALSE, THEY ARE NOT BUT

I HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING SO AS THEY WERE PER A FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH

MR.[redacted] . AT THAT POINT I PLACED MY TRUST IN HIM AND SIERRA AUCTION

MANAGEMENT THINKING EVERYTHING WOULD BE RESOLVED.  MR.[redacted] ALSO STATES “THE DOCUMENTS I

SUBMITTED ARE “illegible document

that the unit was supposedly seized for improper titling” IN NO WAY ARE

THE DOCUMENTS ILLEGIBLE. HE ALSO STATED” All

I have to go on is Mr. [redacted]’s word “AND “Obviously there is something more to this story than what Mr.

[redacted] is sharing”. I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED BY THESE STATEMENT AS I HAVE

A LONG HISTORY OF BUYING AND SELLING WITH SIERRA AUCTION MANAGEMENT AND THERE

HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY PAST ISSUES ON MY PART. I AM A SERIOUS BUSINESS PERSON WITH

CREDIBILITY.  MR. [redacted] STATED “If he provides us with the vehicle and

the title, we will happily refund his purchase price in full” IF IT WAS

AS SIMPLE AS THAT I WOULD NOT BE WASTING MY TIME OPENING A COMPLAINT WITH THE ARIZONA

Revdex.com. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THAT SIERRA AUCTION MANAGEMENT HAS NO DESIRE

IN HELPING ME RESOLVE THIS MATTER AS THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE DONE THEIR PART. I

HOPE THAT ONCE MY FINAL PAPERWORK IS RECEIVED BY SIERRA AUCTION MANAGEMENT THE

COMPANY STEPS IT UP AND ASSISTS ME IN RESOLVING THIS AS THEY ARE A LARGE

COMPANY WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTING ME.

Incredibly poor customer service and responsiveness.

In response to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint:

underline;">

 

Mr. [redacted] participated in an “as is, where is” auction of assets at our Tucson location on 6/15/13.  He has a long history of buying from us and understands that he is responsible for his own due diligence when buying at auction.  It is my understanding that he also knows what Mexico’s customs look for when importing vehicles into their country.  I agree with the fact that our Tucson location initially gave him the wrong title and had he discovered this AT ANY TIME before he took the vehicle across the border, we would have fixed the issue as a priority and he would have had the proper paperwork to cross the border. 

 

I personally provided him with notarized letter explaining what had happened and that he now has the correct title from which to obtain his confiscated vehicle.  I gave this letter to him on 9/12/13 and told him that his title can be picked up in our Tucson office on his way back to El Paso, since he had “no time to spare”.  He told me that he prefer we just mail it to him.  He complains that the title arrived by mail almost a month later, but he appeared to have very little urgency in picking up the existing title to shave 4 days off of his waiting time.

 

Mr. [redacted] has made several statements in his complaint that are simply not true.  He claims that I made a statement that “the company would be held liable for [our] mistake unless the 09 Honda had been seized for criminal activities not related to the title.  At no time did I state we should or would be held liable.  Mr. [redacted]’s mistake was not checking the VIN of the vehicle against the title.  He is familiar with auction terms and conditions as well as the import rules into Mexico and should have done his homework.  To this day, he has not provided me with “final certified” paperwork from the Mexican government nor have been given any contact point within their government to explain the title issue to help Mr. [redacted].  All I have to go on is Mr. [redacted]’s word and an illegible document that the unit was supposedly seized for improper titling.   Mr. Equivel also claims that I “assured [him he] would have no problem getting the 09 Honda back.”  In no way could I be certain that this would happen – I would have no reason to make this assurance.  What I said was that the notarized letter is the only way I know that could possibly help him get his vehicle back.   Finally, he claims he made one last attempt on 10/09/13 to resolve this issue with Sierra, but all he did was make a phone call demanding his money back.  At no point did he share any new information with me or my assistant. 

 

Mr. [redacted] had a vehicle that he owns confiscated by the Mexican authorities.  He has the correct title for this vehicle.  Sierra has fulfilled its obligation.  Mr. [redacted]’s issue is, as stated in his complaint, with the Mexican authorities.  Obviously there is something more to this story than what Mr. [redacted] is sharing.  If he provides us with the vehicle and the title, we will happily refund his purchase price in full.

 

[redacted]  |  President  |  Sierra Auction Management, Inc.

[redacted]  |  [redacted]

c:  [redacted]  |  f:  [redacted]  |  o:  [redacted] 

 

 

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
 Firstly,  as mentioned in Sierra Auction Mgmt's response, the employees of Sierra Auction Mgmt. are told not to communicate with the bidders at the auction.  However, the employee who was driving the 2002 Ford Explorer did just that. He not only yelled at the plaintiff not to leave the company premises without bidding on one of their vehicles, however, he also told the plaintiff the 2002 Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and mockingly demonstrated a "fake" four wheel drive switch on the console of the 2002 Ford Explorer that he was driving towards the auction tent. This act, according to company president [redacted], is against company policy.  Pursuant to the doctrine of "respondeat superior", Sierra Auction Mgmt. and president [redacted] are liable for the employees breach of company policy and for the damage this caused to plaintiff [redacted].  Secondly, the remedy offered by Sierra Auction president [redacted] is not adequate to address the damage suffered by the plaintiff.  Sierra Auction is liable for fraud under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" because their employee, contrary to company policy, misrepresented an essential fact about the vehicle that the plaintiff eventually bid on. The plaintiff was told by one of Sierra Auction Mgmt's employees that the 2002 Ford Explorer was a four wheel drive vehicle and in fact the vehicle is a two wheel drive vehicle.  Pursuant to Arizona Statute [redacted], Sierra Auction Mgmt. is liable for fraudulent auction.  The remedy sought by the plaintiff is rescission or refund of total fees paid to Sierra Auction Mgmt. and other damages or penalties deemed appropriate by the court or administrative system.      Sincerely,   [redacted]                       telephone # ###-###-####

I am responding to Mr. [redacted] complaint that he was a winning bidder on lot 91, a 1989 Ford Mustang for $325.00.  Mr. [redacted] does not understand the auction process as it relates to vehicles and did not read any of our terms and conditions when bidding on this vehicle.  First...

of all, we do not sell vehicles online only.  We are required by state law to auction vehicles via a live bid caller, which means the bids he was placing on this vehicle were only PRE-BIDS.  When the live auction starts, the highest Pre-bid is the starting bid for the live auction.  Since Mr. [redacted] did not participate in the live online simulcast auction, the vehicle was eventually sold to a live bidder onsite for $2,200.00.  The note in [redacted] system that states the item was “passed” is entered when the item does not sell online or does not have active online participation.  It is not meant to be the final disposition of the asset.  We record all auctions, so Mr. [redacted], for $20, can have an audio snippet of the vehicle being sold through our live auction process. He was not the winning bidder for this vehicle and thus this case should be closed.

In response to the subject case: Mr. [redacted], as with all of our buyers, was given an opportunity to preview the vehicles on the Friday before our Saturday auction.  All potential buyers are allowed to start the vehicles, check the engines, and bring experts in to go over the vehicle...

in great detail.  We encourage this, as we are a licensed Arizona Public Consignment Auction Dealer, meaning that we take vehicles on consignment and do not know of their condition.  Our particular licensing allows us to auction vehicles without any implied warranty of any kind or any sort of emissions testing requirement.  Mr. [redacted] apparently did not preview any vehicles nor did he read the Terms and Conditions of the auction, which explicitly state that there will be a 12% Buyers Premium with all purchases along with sales tax and a $40 title administration fee.  This is announced by the auctioneer, spelled out on our website, and posted internally at the auction site.   By placing a $500 deposit and signing a bidders card, he agreed to those terms. He was given a catalog that has these terms along with the description of the vehicle.  Had he researched the vehicle prior to buying it, the VIN # would have indicated whether this vehicle was a 2-wheel or 4-wheel drive.  Our description of the vehicle did not indicate 4-wheel drive, as we typically state that in a vehicle’s description because 4 wheel drive vehicles bring more money.  I’m not sure who he asked, but our employees (day laborers and others) are told not to make an opinion on any vehicle, as they are not experts.  It is up to the customer to decide what features are on the vehicle.  A customer should never rely upon an opinion of someone they do not know or trust.  This particular 2002 vintage vehicle had 192,000 miles on it when Mr. [redacted] bought it – for any car of that vintage and mileage, the chances that it is going to be a reliable car without some work are remote.  I am sorry that he had a bad experience with his purchase, as we sell thousands of cars per year to satisfied buyers. Had Mr. [redacted] taken a little time to research, he could have saved himself many of the headaches he mentions.  We had 300 cars in that auction, so there were other vehicles to choose from that may have satisfied his need for a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Unfortunately, we cannot refund or exchange based on the above conditions.  If he would like to re-consign the vehicle to the auction without a commission fee, we will accept it as long as he puts the title into his name.  Best regards, [redacted]  |  President  |  Sierra Auction Management, Inc.