Lease return difficulties

marsarbu said:

Obviously, I do not recommend nor condone such a thing. But it is an option for those who are pissed off enough.

Click to expand...

kort6776 said:

do you have a moral issue to exposing and publicizing outrageous corporate policies? IMHO I think it is almost an obligation to report and expose the misdeeds of a monolith sized business that is seemingly off of the rails.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

Unfortuantely, we know the answer already. I appealed my terrible treatment and unfair charges to Lucid Financial, NOT BofA. Lucid management ("Demetrius") offered to take my appeal, and he called back in 5 days with the answer: "Management at Lucid reviewed this... Denied... photos prove the case, you now must pay or we turn this over to collections". And I've leased TWO $100k+ Lucids, have a current order for a Gravity, (actually just now cancelled as a result of this), and 24,000 referral points for 3 verified true referrals i made to friends and 2 relatives.
I'm done with them unless they address the terrible issues with BofA and their internal Lucid Financial people.
Issues with my car have been understandable, and there are some great people at Lucid, but Lucid Financial is an embarassment and they've turned me from avid supporter and repeat purchaser to detractor who now will look elsewhere for my electric SUV purchase.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

Hadn't considered this, but maybe I should. It's not the $200 I'm out... it's insignificant in the actual amount. It's the principle and in getting management at Lucid to pay attention to what's happening here.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

View attachment 30705
Here's the official word from Lucid's website about what qualifies as Excess Wear when it comes to wheels: "Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size)."

Here again is the picture of what they are claiming on my wheel is excess wear:
View attachment 30708

I thought it was petty before I read their description, but now I'm really angry. Under even the most generous definition possible, this does NOT qualify as "cracked or bent". There is NO mention of scuffs or even, as they claim in my report, a "gouge". Normal usage of a car is expected to incur a little bit of cosmetic damage to wheels, and they claim as much in their written guidelines.

Clearly, they have no justification to charge me anything on wear and tear on my wheels. Now I'm more deteremined to fight this... it's not the $200, it's them violating their own guidelines and expecting that a lease return vehicle must be essentially a brand new vehicle without ANY normal wear and tear. That's not right.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

Good luck with that part. I'd put my recently returned (20 months) 2023 lease up against anyone's... perfect inside and out, i even had the floormats in untouched/never used condition in a bag since I was afraid of getting them dirty (santa cruz white color). Not a single door ding, windshield chip, or curb rash. Lucid employee walked around it and said it looked perfect inside and out, but his judgement was irrelevant, it was up to their 3rd party inspectors. That (and these forums) convinced me to document every inch of the car with video AT the lucid studio drop off, showing date/time, lucid studio, and walk around of the car.

FULLY expected zero charges. Well, they found this tiny blemish on one wheel and have now assessed me $200 and marked it as "replacement" for the wheel. They also called it a 1" x 7" gouge... when the photo clearly shows it's a 1.5" scuff. That's the only damage they found or charged me for.

You be the judge. (their photo, not mine)
View attachment 30489

View attachment 30490

That was all they could find, but apparently that "gouge" as they call it necessitates a completely new replacement wheel?

If I bought a USED Air Touring and it was pristine in every way except that tiny scuff on one wheel after 20 months and 9100 miles, I'd have said I found a gem.

Lucid's 3rd party inspectors must be paid bonuses to find things like this to disallow the entire wheel and charge an "excess wear" charge. After leasing proably 10 vehicles, I've never had an experience like this... turned in nice cars with a few door dings, bumper scuffs, and actual wheel curb rash and those other companies assessed nothing for "expected" minor things like that. Not so Lucid.

Will be eager to hear how it goes for you, maybe my inspector was having a very bad day.

Terrible turn-in experience. Yeah, it's just $200, but given the pristine state of my car, if this is all they can find after looking with magnifying glass everywhere, then you'd think they'd let it go, especially on the day i was leasing the NEXT $100K Lucid. Petty!

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

View attachment 30705
Here's the official word from Lucid's website about what qualifies as Excess Wear when it comes to wheels: "Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size)."

Here again is the picture of what they are claiming on my wheel is excess wear:
View attachment 30708

I thought it was petty before I read their description, but now I'm really angry. Under even the most generous definition possible, this does NOT qualify as "cracked or bent". There is NO mention of scuffs or even, as they claim in my report, a "gouge". Normal usage of a car is expected to incur a little bit of cosmetic damage to wheels, and they claim as much in their written guidelines.

Clearly, they have no justification to charge me anything on wear and tear on my wheels. Now I'm more deteremined to fight this... it's not the $200, it's them violating their own guidelines and expecting that a lease return vehicle must be essentially a brand new vehicle without ANY normal wear and tear. That's not right.

Click to expand...

fisheral said:

I was thinking about getting my wheels refinished right before turning in the lease, but if that's the policy I doubt I can get them as perfectly factory minty as Lucid wants. Honestly, could probably pick up enough "damage" to trigger excess wear and tear driving directly from the refinishing to the lease turn-in.

Click to expand...

L-Dude said:

I have been working with an attorney on correspondence asking for specific information regarding Lucid's policy on what constitutes normal wear and tear for a car that is three years old. I also have him looking at the contract for clarification on what arbitration options are available, if any.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

Great. As I officially appealed the decision about my tiny scuff on one wheel directly to Lucid and then was officially denied on this appeal, I'm ready to go to small claims court case to get it resolved. I tried doing it the official way by appealing to Lucid management, and they officially replied to me that no, the excess damage claim is valid, despite this not even being close to what is stated on their official wear-and-tear guidelines on wheels. I don't see any other choice. It's not the money, it's the unfair treatment, the violation of their own stated policy, and the precedent it sets for others who will continue to be mistreated this way by either Lucid Financial or this horrible third party inspection company.

3 images tell the whole story... I've posted them already in this thread and elsewhere. (will just attach rather than inline post them for like a 5th time).

And for those who say I should have given them a chance to resolve this, I did. And then got an official denial on my official appeal from Lucid management. Their claim of damage stands, they cite that photo as their "evidence" and I must pay that fee or face having it go to debt collections.

In one last appeal to reason, I then emailed this guy:
Kurt Cornell
Senior Manager, Remarketing Services
Lucid Financial Services
[email protected]

politely describing what I am going through, and got no reply after a week...

so two official appeals, one offial denial and then silence from the other exec. Enough is enough...

Click to expand...

Leftlane said:

I’d love to see some real life pics of pre-owned or demo cars sold directly by Lucid. What are the odds you see this kind of minor, tiny imperfection on all of them? I would put it at 100%.

Click to expand...

JoshG said:

THAT is an excellent question. Leads me to wonder if we can find a case where Lucid charged a lessee for minor damage but then sold the car to someone else and didn't actually fix it since it was so minor.

like my ridiculous example:
View attachment 31042

Click to expand...