Lease return excess wear & tear

[BS8899]

I just leased a Gravity and watching how this plays out closely. If this thread is still going in 2 1/2 years time with the same issues then I’ll likely start to worry but I’m hoping Lucid/BoA figure it out WELL before then.

Just sucks the first round of people returning leased vehicles have to go through this headache.

I presume Lucid-lease is not the first auto leasing under-writing that BoA has done. So, have anybody reserach other BoA car leases and those terms/conditions? Are they similar to the Lucid lease deals or are the Lucid leases different? Are the other leesees satisfied or dissatisfied with their lease returns? Is there an "industry standard" on auto leases/lease-returns?

I don't pretend to know, but I am surprised to see that we "breaking new grounds"!!

 

[fisheral]

I presume Lucid-lease is not the first auto leasing under-writing that BoA has done. So, have anybody reserach other BoA car leases and those terms/conditions? Are they similar to the Lucid lease deals or are the Lucid leases different? Are the other leesees satisfied or dissatisfied with their lease returns? Is there an "industry standard" on auto leases/lease-returns?

I don't pretend to know, but I am surprised to see that we "breaking new grounds"!!

Lucid's own guidelines, which BoA pretends do not exist, are actually in line with industry standards.

Vehicle Lease End | Lucid Motors

Whether you want to purchase your current Lucid, lease or purchase a new one, or simply return your current vehicle, we’re here to help you understand all of your end of lease options so you can make an informed decision.

lucidmotors.com

 

[Leftlane]

The other nasty byproduct of a lot of unhappy customers turning in their leases and bailing on the brand instead of buying their car out is that values are about to get crushed with this first wave of expiring leases. The residuals are all going to be too high compared to the market, so why would you buy it out anyway? Now there will be a glut of used Airs for sale and customers that didn’t re-up with another Lucid because of this process - not good to support values at all. No matter how petty their return process and inspections are, BofA will never be able to recover the dollars they will lose from the delta between inflated residuals and real world values, and Lucid ends up losing their early adopter brand ambassadors to others makes. Good case study on how to tank your fledgling business by partnering with someone who doesn’t care one bit if you succeed or not, and maybe is even actively rooting for you to fail (if the shorting story is true).

 

[BS8899]

The other nasty byproduct of a lot of unhappy customers turning in their leases and bailing on the brand instead of buying their car out is that values are about to get crushed with this first wave of expiring leases. The residuals are all going to be too high compared to the market, so why would you buy it out anyway? Now there will be a glut of used Airs for sale and customers that didn’t re-up with another Lucid because of this process - not good to support values at all. No matter how petty their return process and inspections are, BofA will never be able to recover the dollars they will lose from the delta between inflated residuals and real world values, and Lucid ends up losing their early adopter brand ambassadors to others makes. Good case study on how to tank your fledgling business by partnering with someone who doesn’t care one bit if you succeed or not, and maybe is even actively rooting for you to fail (if the shorting story is true).

What percent of Lucid sales in the past couple of years are leases through BoA? I don't know the percentage , but I bet it was the majority of Lucid's business.

 

[audiojerry]

Based on what I've read in these lease threads, it seems like the first billing notice comes to a lessee from a collections agency. Can anyone confirm this?

If true, then BoA must have turned over inspections and billing to a 3rd party collector, who could be using all their nasty collection tricks to get as much as they can from the lessee. If so, I would withhold paying anything until formally disputing the charges.

Collection agencies are bound to follow federal law to resolve disputes by the FDCPA (Federal Disputes Collection Practices Act). As I understand it, a person can inform the collection agency in a written letter that they are disputing the charges and to stop contacting them, in which case the collection responsibility goes back to the debtor, BoA. The collection agency may then decide to remove the extra charges it has no way of substantiating and collect only the amount that it can legitimatley tie to the inspection.

If the collection agency won't budge, it may force BoA to deal with the lessee directly. In this case BoA may not want to deal with the hassle of a dispute and agree to a more reasonable turn-in charge. Either way, by moving forward with a dispute, it should protect you from a ding to your credit rating until it's resolved. I've had an interaction with a 3rd party collector in the past, and succeeded in getting a lower collection amount.

As a lessee myself, I hope this ugly situation is fixed in 2 years. If not, I will explain this all to a lawyer and gladly pay for his legal advice before just caving to BoA. Who knows, maybe the attorney can find a way to threaten BoA with a costly lawsuit that includes a hefty amount for pain and suffering inflicted on me by the nasty corporate banking giant. LOL

 

[fisheral]

Based on what I've read in these lease threads, it seems like the first billing notice comes to a lessee from a collections agency. Can anyone confirm this?

If true, then BoA must have turned over inspections and billing to a 3rd party collector, who could be using all their nasty collection tricks to get as much as they can from the lessee. If so, I would withhold paying anything until formally disputing the charges.

Collection agencies are bound to follow federal law to resolve disputes by the FDCPA (Federal Disputes Collection Practices Act). As I understand it, a person can inform the collection agency in a written letter that they are disputing the charges and to stop contacting them, in which case the collection responsibility goes back to the debtor, BoA. The collection agency may then decide to remove the extra charges it has no way of substantiating and collect only the amount that it can legitimatley tie to the inspection.

If the collection agency won't budge, it may force BoA to deal with the lessee directly. In this case BoA may not want to deal with the hassle of a dispute and agree to a more reasonable turn-in charge. Either way, by moving forward with a dispute, it should protect you from a ding to your credit rating until it's resolved. I've had an interaction with a 3rd party collector in the past, and succeeded in getting a lower collection amount.

As a lessee myself, I hope this ugly situation is fixed in 2 years. If not, I will explain this all to a lawyer and gladly pay for his legal advice before just caving to BoA. Who knows, maybe the attorney can find a way to threaten BoA with a costly lawsuit that includes a hefty amount for pain and suffering inflicted on me by the nasty corporate banking giant. LOL

Unfortunately, they snuck an arbitration provision into your reservation agreement.

 

[JoshG]

OK, more press interest in this story. Reporter seeking people here to interview.

I was contacted by a financial reporter who is currently working on a story about Lucid's lease difficulties and the number of people who feel they've been mistreated by the company and/or their lending partner BofA.

He's asked me not to post his email address or phone number, but asked me to get it to other individuals DIRECTLY experiencing something similar right now. This is not for those worried about what might happen to them in the future when they turn in the car.

If you've turned in a leased vehicle and been assessed what you see as unfair charges for excess wear and tear, and especially if you've tried to resolve this amicably with Lucid and/or Lucid Finanial or BofA, and been denied an appeal like me, then PM me here and I'll give you his name and email.

He'd like to hear from you ASAP for his story.

He's reaching out to the company as well, as he clearly should.

Again, don't request from me his contact info unless you're ALREADY experiencing this issue and have tried and failed to get it resolved by Lucid, Lucid Financial, or BofA.

 

[SonofaBish]

Outstanding! Fingers

 

[californiaboy935]

I can understand why some folks feel frustrated enough to want to go to the press, especially if they’ve hit a wall trying to resolve things directly.

That said, I personally don’t think escalating to the media is the most productive path forward at this stage. It could potentially make it harder to find a cooperative resolution with Lucid or BofA down the line, and sometimes press attention can oversimplify or distort the nuances of what’s going on.

I’m all for continuing to support each other and share info here, and if things remain unresolved through the proper channels, maybe public pressure will eventually be warranted but I’m not sure we’re quite there yet. Especially when people from Lucid have been reaching out to people on the forums and trying to make a solution possible. This is going to take time, no matter how quick you feel it needs to go, big corporations take time to diagnose errors like this.

I think if you file a dispute with the creditor, which many have said is a collections agency. They have to stop collection efforts and verify the debt. This likely will buy time for those people who have leases that have just ended: this would give Lucid a way to have the time to rectify this. Which I’m sure if (hopefully) in the works.

Just my take.

 

[marsarbu]

I can understand why some folks feel frustrated enough to want to go to the press, especially if they’ve hit a wall trying to resolve things directly.

That said, I personally don’t think escalating to the media is the most productive path forward at this stage. It could potentially make it harder to find a cooperative resolution with Lucid or BofA down the line, and sometimes press attention can oversimplify or distort the nuances of what’s going on.

I’m all for continuing to support each other and share info here, and if things remain unresolved through the proper channels, maybe public pressure will eventually be warranted but I’m not sure we’re quite there yet. Especially when people from Lucid have been reaching out to people on the forums and trying to make a solution possible. This is going to take time, no matter how quick you feel it needs to go, big corporations take time to diagnose errors like this.

I think if you file a dispute with the creditor, which many have said is a collections agency. They have to stop collection efforts and verify the debt. This likely will buy time for those people who have leases that have just ended: this would give Lucid a way to have the time to rectify this. Which I’m sure if (hopefully) in the works.

Just my take.

The higher the pressure, the quicker the fix. That's how progress works. If this wouldn't have blown up on this forum and in the media, everything would have been business as usual.

 

[fisheral]

I can understand why some folks feel frustrated enough to want to go to the press, especially if they’ve hit a wall trying to resolve things directly.

That said, I personally don’t think escalating to the media is the most productive path forward at this stage. It could potentially make it harder to find a cooperative resolution with Lucid or BofA down the line, and sometimes press attention can oversimplify or distort the nuances of what’s going on.

I’m all for continuing to support each other and share info here, and if things remain unresolved through the proper channels, maybe public pressure will eventually be warranted but I’m not sure we’re quite there yet. Especially when people from Lucid have been reaching out to people on the forums and trying to make a solution possible. This is going to take time, no matter how quick you feel it needs to go, big corporations take time to diagnose errors like this.

I think if you file a dispute with the creditor, which many have said is a collections agency. They have to stop collection efforts and verify the debt. This likely will buy time for those people who have leases that have just ended: this would give Lucid a way to have the time to rectify this. Which I’m sure if (hopefully) in the works.

Just my take.

I'll disagree. After the Carbuzz article was the first time Lucid even acknowledged in any way that an issue exists. People shouldn't have to sit there and hope someone from Lucid reaches out. Clearly ratcheting up the pressure brought this issue to the forefront.

Big corporations don't change when something can be swept under the rug as it drifts out of the news cycle. No one will give two shits until people in meaningful places with even a modicum of power start getting questions from reporters.

As for disputing a debt, even being sent to collections alone can be disastrous for a credit score.

Don't give up and walk away now that Lucid has finally begun to acknowledge the problem exists.

 

[SCPure]

My lease doesn't end until September '26 and this is still causing an unnecessary amount of anxiety. I'm sorry to everyone dealing with this and I hope Lucid course corrects very soon.

 

[californiaboy935]

The higher the pressure, the quicker the fix. That's how progress works. If this wouldn't have blown up on this forum and in the media, everything would have been business as usual.

Running to the press in less than 30 days might feel satisfying, but it rarely speeds up a resolution.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t share their experiences here. In fact, the forum is exactly the place to talk about frustrations, compare notes, and help each other get results. But let’s not pretend media escalation is a silver bullet.

Once the press gets involved, legal teams on both sides (Lucid and BofA) have to get looped in. What happens next? Everything slows down. Communications get lawyered. PR responses get vetted, then shelved. The companies go into risk mitigation mode, not problem-solving mode.

Instead of fixing the issue internally and improving the system holistically, resources get diverted to damage control.

To give a real-world example: My mom was legal counsel at a major utility company. One day, someone put out a “funny” sign in the cafeteria - Homer Simpson tripping in a nuclear plant on some green ooze with the caption “Be Safe in the Workplace.” Innocent enough? Not to legal. Because if anything ever went wrong at the actual nuclear site, that sign would’ve become an exhibit in court or a headline in the media.

It took five meetings, three law firms, and twenty lawyers to remove that sign from a breakroom table. Millions of dollars and countless hours were wasted not because it wasn’t important, but because the legal loop is slow, expensive, and reactive by design.

Just something to think about before escalating publicly. The better fix might be through persistent internal advocacy - advocacy on this forum, which by Lucid showing up here and contacting people directly shows that they were in this process.

A PR battle that turns every issue into a liability solves nothing.

Just my two cents.

 

[californiaboy935]

As for disputing a debt, even being sent to collections alone can be disastrous for a credit score.

If I dispute a debt, how does that show up on my credit report? | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

If you contact a credit bureau and dispute the validity of a debt, the credit reporting company will put a note on the account that it is in dispute and then investigate your dispute.

www.consumerfinance.gov

 

[californiaboy935]

I'll disagree. After the Carbuzz article was the first time Lucid even acknowledged in any way that an issue exists.

Clearly not true.

Seriously

 

[fisheral]

Clearly not true.

View attachment 31123
View attachment 31124
Seriously

I think you'll see here that Lucid's reaching out to people was absolutely meaningless until after the article was published. But yes, I should be more precise.

 

[fisheral]

Running to the press in less than 30 days might feel satisfying, but it rarely speeds up a resolution.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t share their experiences here. In fact, the forum is exactly the place to talk about frustrations, compare notes, and help each other get results. But let’s not pretend media escalation is a silver bullet.

Once the press gets involved, legal teams on both sides (Lucid and BofA) have to get looped in. What happens next? Everything slows down. Communications get lawyered. PR responses get vetted, then shelved. The companies go into risk mitigation mode, not problem-solving mode.

Instead of fixing the issue internally and improving the system holistically, resources get diverted to damage control.

To give a real-world example: My mom was legal counsel at a major utility company. One day, someone put out a “funny” sign in the cafeteria - Homer Simpson tripping in a nuclear plant on some green ooze with the caption “Be Safe in the Workplace.” Innocent enough? Not to legal. Because if anything ever went wrong at the actual nuclear site, that sign would’ve become an exhibit in court or a headline in the media.

It took five meetings, three law firms, and twenty lawyers to remove that sign from a breakroom table. Millions of dollars and countless hours were wasted not because it wasn’t important, but because the legal loop is slow, expensive, and reactive by design.

Just something to think about before escalating publicly. The better fix might be through persistent internal advocacy - advocacy on this forum, which by Lucid showing up here and contacting people directly shows that they were in this process.

A PR battle that turns every issue into a liability solves nothing.

Just my two cents.

I feel bad for the hundreds of lease returns that don't post on this forum and have no voice. Heck, most Lucid lessees probably don't even know this forum exists. If people wait for Lucid to cherry pick a few unhappy people in the forum, then the issue dies. I may be misremembering, but there were some people that had serious issues that did not receive any reach out from Lucid.

 

[fisheral]

If I dispute a debt, how does that show up on my credit report? | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

If you contact a credit bureau and dispute the validity of a debt, the credit reporting company will put a note on the account that it is in dispute and then investigate your dispute.

www.consumerfinance.gov

View attachment 31122

"Generally" does not fill me with confidence.

 

[californiaboy935]

I think you'll see here that Lucid's reaching out to people was absolutely meaningless until after the article was published. But yes, I should be more precise.

What about them reaching out is meaningless? Not sure what @marqie can do other than report it to relevant teams and await a response. Sure it’s not the instantaneous everything is solved solution. But if Lucid is working with BofA (which they clearly are) they would need to reach out to the team at BofA, BofA would then reach out to the collection company, then the inspection company, then get a response. This isn’t going to take 3 days and it’s a Sunday.

You’re asking for something that no company could achieve except a small business with the ability to say “sure”. It’s a crappy situation, I don’t agree with some of the charges (ones that aren’t outlined in the wear and use guidelines or are miss-measured), but to say Lucid is doing nothing, and would have done nothing unless your CarBuzz article came out is absolutely incorrect.

Don’t keep moving the goal post, please:

After the Carbuzz article was the first time Lucid even acknowledged in any way that an issue exists.

I think you'll see here that Lucid's reaching out to people was absolutely meaningless until after the article was published.

Which one of your statements is true?

Either they communicated before the press involvement, and were thus rectifying this issue internally. Or the press caused them to rectify the issue.

The timing of the messages makes it pretty clear to me Lucid was listening. To this forum and perhaps, as you later pointed out, people who are not on this forum. Who of course have a voice because they reach out to customer care, bofa or talk to SA’s, etc.

 

[fisheral]

What about them reaching out is meaningless? Not sure what @marqie can do other than report it to relevant teams and await a response. Sure it’s not the instantaneous everything is solved solution. But if Lucid is working with BofA (which they clearly are) they would need to reach out to the team at BofA, BofA would then reach out to the collection company, then the inspection company, then get a response. This isn’t going to take 3 days and it’s a Sunday.

You’re asking for something that no company could achieve except a small business with the ability to say “sure”. It’s a crappy situation, I don’t agree with some of the charges (ones that aren’t outlined in the wear and use guidelines or are miss-measured), but to say Lucid is doing nothing, and would have done nothing unless your CarBuzz article came out is absolutely incorrect.

Don’t keep moving the goal post, please:





Which one of your statements is true?

Either they communicated before the press involvement, and were thus rectifying this issue internally. Or the press caused them to rectify the issue.

The timing of the messages makes it pretty clear to me Lucid was listening. To this forum and perhaps, as you later pointed out, people who are not on this forum. Who of course have a voice because they reach out to customer care, bofa or talk to SA’s, etc.

I think we can agree to disagree on our preferred approach to the situation, but I respect the points you've made.