Lease return excess wear & tear

[Lucidicrous]

ICYMI….”TheDrive.com” reached out to Lucid about these reports after a lease customer and forum member alerted us to the trend. Lucid responded with the following statement: “We are aware of some instances where our lease turn-in standards have not been interpreted consistently. We are collaborating with our banking partner to resolve disputes and sincerely apologize to those who have been inconvenienced.”

https://www.thedrive.com/news/lucid...glass-chips-on-lease-and-thats-just-the-start

 

[WildRide47]

I hear you. I was just clarifying the facts of what we know and what we don’t, that’s all. I also tire of lawyer speak, which is what I think this is, not “corporate doublespeak.”

A lot of things about what you can and can’t say change when you are public.

I understand what you are saying, even though I disagree with it. I am very concerned about Lucid's viability as a company. The stock is in the 2 range which speaks for itself concerning its present and possible future existence. Pretty much everyone agrees that a successful roll out of a mid priced (50K+) entry is essential for the company to survive. My Lucid is overall a superb automobile( even with some needed improvements). I want this company to be successful. but it seems to me that Lucid is doing everything in its power to piss off its owners, and discredit itself with its corporate doublespeak which nobody believes. The fact this this has now gone mainstream in the press and the number of Lucid owners that have stated on this forum that they will never purchase a Lucid ever again, demonstrates (at least to me) that Lucid is doing the wrong approach. I don't doubt that you say that there are things you can's say if you are public, but the way Lucid has been approaching this problem is a disaster and is just turning off more people to the brand. Another PR person could not possibly do any worse than the present person who was responsible for its latest comments which just antagonized all those Lucid owners who have had to deal with BOFA. I want Lucid to do well, but sometimes reorganization is necessary when the current team or person is making things worse, instead of better.

 

[JoshG]

I hear you. I was just clarifying the facts of what we know and what we don’t, that’s all. I also tire of lawyer speak, which is what I think this is, not “corporate doublespeak.”

A lot of things about what you can and can’t say change when you are public.

I'm one of the people involved here, and I'm the one that got the "in the interest of goodwill, we are going to WAIVE that charge on your lease" response. That's not lawyer speak. it is 100% corporate doublespeak, and that's a generous label for it. It's pandering, it's condescending, and insulting, and implies they are not going to even say that they are reviewing how this happened or that it even appeared to be a mistake in my case.

I'd have walked away understanding the difficult position they're in, if not outright pleased with their response, if they just said "that appears to be an error and we are going to be reviewing this with our partner. The charges have been taken off your account and collections actions against you will be halted immediately with no impact on your credit rating and we're sorry you've been put through this."

They chose not to do any of that... Not the original exec at Lucid Financial, not the CEO, not the CMO (those two were copied on my email expressing disappointment in their response), and not the Lucid person that is here on this forum who promised me personally they would get back to me (but never did) with an answer to how Lucid would be addressing this.

They just wanted me to go away with my $200 reversed after all they put me through and thought I should be happy with that response. I'm not.

 

[thyname]

I'm one of the people involved here, and I'm the one that got the "in the interest of goodwill, we are going to WAIVE that charge on your lease" response. That's not lawyer speak. it is 100% corporate doublespeak, and that's a generous label for it. It's pandering, it's condescending, and insulting, and implies they are not going to even say that they are reviewing how this happened or that it even appeared to be a mistake in my case.

I'd have walked away understanding the difficult position they're in, if not outright pleased with their response, if they just said "that appears to be an error and we are going to be reviewing this with our partner. The charges have been taken off your account and collections actions against you will be halted immediately with no impact on your credit rating and we're sorry you've been put through this."

They chose not to do any of that... Not the original exec at Lucid Financial, not the CEO, not the CMO (those two were copied on my email expressing disappointment in their response), and not the Lucid person that is here on this forum who promised me personally they would get back to me (but never did) with an answer to how Lucid would be addressing this.

They just wanted me to go away with my $200 reversed after all they put me through and thought I should be happy with that response. I'm not.

Josh my man: take the big W and walk out of this. You were even “waived” the contractual $450 lease termination fee. You paid zero dollars, and I appreciate you getting the next lease with LUCID. I wish my lease return is as lucky as yours in 33 months. Lucky is perhaps the wrong word here since you clearly did your homework

I sincerely appreciate your work for us next people who cannot purchase a Lucid in cash and need to lease one to make the financials work

 

[WildRide47]

I'm one of the people involved here, and I'm the one that got the "in the interest of goodwill, we are going to WAIVE that charge on your lease" response. That's not lawyer speak. it is 100% corporate doublespeak, and that's a generous label for it. It's pandering, it's condescending, and insulting, and implies they are not going to even say that they are reviewing how this happened or that it even appeared to be a mistake in my case.

I'd have walked away understanding the difficult position they're in, if not outright pleased with their response, if they just said "that appears to be an error and we are going to be reviewing this with our partner. The charges have been taken off your account and collections actions against you will be halted immediately with no impact on your credit rating and we're sorry you've been put through this."

They chose not to do any of that... Not the original exec at Lucid Financial, not the CEO, not the CMO (those two were copied on my email expressing disappointment in their response), and not the Lucid person that is here on this forum who promised me personally they would get back to me (but never did) with an answer to how Lucid would be addressing this.

They just wanted me to go away with my $200 reversed after all they put me through and thought I should be happy with that response. I'm not.

Is there anybody on this board that agreed with the way they handled the response to JoshG. It's time for some heads to roll and bring in some people who have some common sense. After all, Lucid only exists as a company because of those who took a chance and bought a car from an unknown brand new company. This was a risk on the part of those owners and the company should be grateful to them as most of those owners then spread the good word about their car. Is this any way to repay those helped the company remain in business and acted as good will ambassadors. No. Instead they let some lawyers dictate some condescending and insulting nonsense and expected the owners to accept it. All those in Lucid management who JoshG named above should apologize for the way he was treated. He and the other Lucid owners deserve better..

 

[JoshG]

Josh my man: take the big W and walk out of this. You were even “waived” the contractual $450 lease termination fee. You paid zero dollars, and I appreciate you getting the next lease with LUCID. I wish my lease return is as lucky as yours in 33 months. Lucky is perhaps the wrong word here since you clearly did your homework

I sincerely appreciate your work for us next people who cannot purchase a Lucid in cash and need to lease one to make the financials work

Thank you(?) But you are missing the fact that lucid sent my $200 invoice to their COLLECTIONS AGENCY on the FIRST DAY of the charge being "overdue", while we were already weeks and 10 emails/calls into the dispute... they didn't wait for it to be resolved, I was immediately turned over to debt collectors! WTF?!! Against a past, current, AND future customer and reservation holder with not a single late payment ever... it was not paused until the dispute was resolved, not even a normal wait until my account was 30 days "late", not 60 days "late"... boom, one day after the ORIGINAL (disputed) invoice was due I was informed by a collections firm that they were now attempting to collect a debt I owed to Lucid Financial!

And despite repeated attempts to get an answer, STILL no one at Lucid or LFS will yet confirm if the so-called "debt" has been not just cancelled on their books as well as the debt agency books, but that the initiation of collection action itself has been forever REMOVED from my records and/or credit report.

No one from Lucid will contact me and even answer me that.

So yeah, until I get a firm answer on that, I can't just "walk away from this". Not yet anyway. Waiting to hear something directly from Lucid about this.

 

[thyname]

Thank you(?) But you are missing the fact that lucid sent my $200 invoice to their COLLECTIONS AGENCY on the FIRST DAY of the charge being "overdue", while we were already weeks and 10 emails/calls into the dispute... they didn't wait for it to be resolved, I was immediately turned over to debt collectors! WTF?!! Against a past, current, AND future customer and reservation holder with not a single late payment ever... it was not paused until the dispute was resolved, not even a normal wait until my account was 30 days "late", not 60 days "late"... boom, one day after the ORIGINAL (disputed) invoice was due I was informed by a collections firm that they were now attempting to collect a debt I owed to Lucid Financial!

And despite repeated attempts to get an answer, STILL no one at Lucid or LFS will yet confirm if the so-called "debt" has been not just cancelled on their books as well as the debt agency books, but that the initiation of collection action itself has been forever REMOVED from my records and/or credit report.

No one from Lucid will contact me and even answer me that.

So yeah, until I get a firm answer on that, I can't just "walk away from this". Not yet anyway. Waiting to hear something directly from Lucid about this.

I stand by to what I said. You will be fine. Relax. You are paying zero dollars for your lease return fee. No?

Thanks for taking one for the team

 

[L-Dude]

ICYMI….”TheDrive.com” reached out to Lucid about these reports after a lease customer and forum member alerted us to the trend. Lucid responded with the following statement: “We are aware of some instances where our lease turn-in standards have not been interpreted consistently. We are collaborating with our banking partner to resolve disputes and sincerely apologize to those who have been inconvenienced.”

This is pretty much the best we are going to get for now, and honestly I am satisfied with this response. It def took too long coming, but they got there eventually. My background is marketing/advertising/PR, and I know that the first line of defense is to apologize without admitting guilt. Once you take responsibility for a problem, the money seekers will follow you relentlessly--that's just the way it works in the US. I would bet you a lot of dough that there are some very tough discussions being held between Lucid and BoA. Who knows what kind of deal Lucid had to agree to to gain a leasing partner. Clearly Lucid had to agree to some less-than-advantageous agreements with suppliers at startup in order to produce a car.

I am encouraged by the steps Lucid has taken, and I think they will get this right eventually. I feel badly that so many Lucid leaseholders had to get steamrolled before action was taken.

If I were a C-suite Lucid exec, I would be reaching out to each of these early lease holders to make things right. Hell these were the people that took a huge risk buying a Lucid early on. Without them, Lucid wouldn't be around right now. Just my 2 cents. What would it cost Lucid to reimburse the guys who got screwed? $100,000? $200,000? That's peanuts compared to what is at stake here. And wouldn't that be a fantastic message to the Lucid base and the marketplace?

 

[WildRide47]

Thank you(?) But you are missing the fact that lucid sent my $200 invoice to their COLLECTIONS AGENCY on the FIRST DAY of the charge being "overdue", while we were already weeks and 10 emails/calls into the dispute... they didn't wait for it to be resolved, I was immediately turned over to debt collectors! WTF?!! Against a past, current, AND future customer and reservation holder with not a single late payment ever... it was not paused until the dispute was resolved, not even a normal wait until my account was 30 days "late", not 60 days "late"... boom, one day after the ORIGINAL (disputed) invoice was due I was informed by a collections firm that they were now attempting to collect a debt I owed to Lucid Financial!

And despite repeated attempts to get an answer, STILL no one at Lucid or LFS will yet confirm if the so-called "debt" has been not just cancelled on their books as well as the debt agency books, but that the initiation of collection action itself has been forever REMOVED from my records and/or credit report.

No one from Lucid will contact me and even answer me that.

So yeah, until I get a firm answer on that, I can't just "walk away from this". Not yet anyway. Waiting to hear something directly from Lucid about this.

Lucid just reported results and CEO just stated one of the things they want to do is "brand building". If the way they treated JoshG above is brand building then Lucid is going to be in some deep trouble in the future. I think it is only fair that the members on this board support Josh and we should sign a petition to 1. get him an apology and 2. to assure him that his credit rating was not ruined because of Lucid's inaction on his numerous attempts to resolve the issue. It's the least we can do. After all, I consider the members on this board to be part of the Lucid family and family members help each other out if one is treated poorly. Maybe if we get some traction on this, Lucid will do the right thing. Josh deserves too know if his credit rating is restored or not. Ghosting him on this is a poor way for Lucid to treat him.. I would hope that I would get some support on this by the moderators because the whole point of this board is to help each other out. I would be glad to be the first one to sign the petition.

 

[Leftlane]

A lot of people think the viability of Lucid long term hinges on a successful rollout of the $50k version - a lot of people also said that about the Gravity launch. I think what is way more important is the continued backing and patience of the Saudis - if they decide to pull the money lifeline, Lucid is done immediately. If you don’t think it could happen, look at Fisker - not the same, but all the Ocean owners have now is an expensive paperweight. Don’t know what the Saudis do over time but Lucid is doing itself zero favors to be able to stand on its own right now and has signed several totally crappy contracts that are biting it in the butt (Here maps, fob vendor, BofA as a financial partner). Great product and engineering from the beginning, but run terribly as an actual business. The market clearly agrees.

 

[L-Dude]

The Saudi PIF isn't known for "pulling the plug". Have they pulled the plug on any significant investment in the US or Europe? I don't know.

 

[californiaboy935]

Lucid just reported results and CEO just stated one of the things they want to do is "brand building". If the way they treated JoshG above is brand building then Lucid is going to be in some deep trouble in the future. I think it is only fair that the members on this board support Josh and we should sign a petition to 1. get him an apology and 2. to assure him that his credit rating was not ruined because of Lucid's inaction on his numerous attempts to resolve the issue. It's the least we can do. After all, I consider the members on this board to be part of the Lucid family and family members help each other out if one is treated poorly. Maybe if we get some traction on this, Lucid will do the right thing. Josh deserves too know if his credit rating is restored or not. Ghosting him on this is a poor way for Lucid to treat him.. I would hope that I would get some support on this by the moderators because the whole point of this board is to help each other out. I would be glad to be the first one to sign the petition.

I think @JoshG has lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)

Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"

Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

 

[Jstaal]

I think @JoshG has lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)
View attachment 31440
Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"
View attachment 31441
Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

I can concur, i recently had to call lucid financial to make my lease payment ( my credit union system was down) , and even though i was early, the customer service agent disclosed to me that this is an attempt to collect a debt.. it is also in the call tree voice recording when routing to make any type of payment.

 

[californiaboy935]

I can concur, i recently had to call lucid financial to make my lease payment ( my credit union system was down) , and even though i was early, the customer service agent disclosed to me that this is an attempt to collect a debt.. it is also in the call tree voice recording when routing to make any type of payment.

See, a different perspective is super important. Thanks for this @Jstaal

 

[L-Dude]

I think @JoshG has kinda lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)
View attachment 31440
Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"
View attachment 31441
Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

I see what you are saying, and you make some valid points. But JoshG (whom I don't know) was an early and avid supporter of Lucid. He endured the Lucid in "the early years" and I think bought a second Lucid (I could be wrong). This is your corporate evangelist. This is the guy that sells your brand on your behalf. This is what every company wants to create. You if you are a savvy company, you take care of your JoshGs. Lucid didn't, but I feel like they are starting to understand this.

If you are a company that wants to increase sales, your path of least resistance is to sell more product to your current customers. Your current customers know about the quality of your product and they have bought into your brand, so it is an easy sale to get them to buy more. The next best thing you can do is create evangelists--advocates for your company. As a high dollar manufacturer, Lucid defaults to creating evangelists (no one is going an extra Air no matter how much they love it). Your evangelists sell your brand and convince people who would never even consider your product to actually take a look. And that's all marketing can do: get people to consider your product.

JoshG was an evangelist, until he wasn't. Lucid needs to take care of their early adopters. It's not hard to do. It doesn't coast a lot of money. You just need your management to understand the importance of this.

 

[tarator]

We absolutely do know this. As they've been responsive here, and to Josh directly. Before any media came into the picture as I explained here:

Did you see what Josh said? "and not the Lucid person that is here on this forum who promised me personally they would get back to me (but never did) with an answer to how Lucid would be addressing this."

Again, this kind of fanboyism is not helping Lucid.

 

[californiaboy935]

Did you see what Josh said? "and not the Lucid person that is here on this forum who promised me personally they would get back to me (but never did) with an answer to how Lucid would be addressing this."

Again, this kind of fanboyism is not helping Lucid.

I grow weary of being labeled a "fanboy", in fact I believe name calling is against the forum rules. I have publicly criticized Lucid on this very thread. But what you and Josh seek could never be done by any corporation. The person (@marqie) promised to get back with a DM, I think @JoshG received that DM, and then a solution materialized.

Thank you for sharing. I just sent you a DM.

Not sure what else @marqie would say other than its been fixed, via the solution already given to @JoshG via LFS (the servicer of the contract he signed) note: not "Lucid". Perhaps they shouldn't have even put the DM 'thing' in the open forums to limit this kind of shooting the messenger attitude displayed by you.

It's great Lucid has people here to monitor the forum and let us know our comments are being heard. Please do your best to respect this open line of communication we all share and be constructive. Calling people fanboys is not constructive and isn't aimed at the brand whatsoever.

 

[merveille07]

I think @JoshG has lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)
View attachment 31440
Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"
View attachment 31441
Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

I am with you here. I 100% understood and supported @JoshG but I think he has pushed this enough and should allow Lucid sometimes to try and resolve the issue especially since the issue isn't really Lucid to begin with. It is BofA, and they have said multiple times they're working on the issue. @marqie even send you a PM and also made a note on this thread but people continue to act like Lucid is doing nothing. Even the reply to your email is not as bad as you're making it to be if you take out all hoops you have to jump for things to get here. I understand where you're coming from @JoshG but I think you (and everything making it looks like nothing is being done) need to give Lucid some slack. It was interesting that BofA missed the earnings call. This is a legal issue and lucid has to be careful what they say or do; BofA isn't a newcomer.

 

[WildRide47]

I think @JoshG has lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)
View attachment 31440
Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"
View attachment 31441
Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

In my opinion, the way Josh was treated and ghosted, he deserves a diamond crusted apology. It's not the $200. It's the way Lucid ignored his concerns and the way he was treated when he appealed to upper management. He only got results when the mainstream media got a hold of his story. If not for that, he would still be in collection.

 

[Impatient7536]

i'll never understand grown ass people getting all up worked up in their feels about an email's choice of words when the resolution resulted in them coming out on top. lucid's email responses were cold, boilerplate, and legally cautious, but not even close to disrespectful. just because the "tone" wasn't as pampering and white glove as what the lessees wanted, they preceived it as a slight.

what word should they have used or chosen? if lucid had used the preferred choice of word, what would be the implications? once leaked, would that unofficially bind them to new standards or precedent that may backfire and legally complicate things? all so some lessees can feel "respected" before lucid can came out with an official statement and reworked policy?

at the end of the day, we don't know the exact lease return agreement between lucid and BoA, but clearly BoA is handling it in a way that's not the industry norm, and lucid has little say or any part of. with lucid's recent statement, we know that they are now working with BoA to rework things. if there is a reworked lease return agreement, and until it's finalized, the early adopters most likely will have to suck it up and be at the whims of BoA, while hoping lucid will review their lease case by case to provide exemptions.