Lease Charges for Damage

[borski]

I also think dealers are more forgiving if you upgrade to another vehicle vs just walking away.

Correct. This is how the wear and tear, 6000 excess miles, and two months left on the lease all magically went away... I bough a new Mazda.

 

[borski]

Is this report still unavailable?

That would seem to be the bigger issue. There should definitely be a report.

 

[borski]

So, with all due respect to one of our esteemed moderators(!), I disagree that the tire is unsafe. I did drive this car, and I drove my family about in it. As soon as that tire damage occurred (soon after I got the car) I went to the tire shop to get it replaced. Bear in mind the tire shop has an economic incentive to say the tire is dangerous even if it isn't. But they stated that sidewall damage is not dangerous unless the metal belts can be seen, which clearly they cannot. In support of the tire shop's contention, I drove on that tire without any further deterioration or other issues for 20 months.

I'm actually with you on this. One of my rear tires has two gashes in the sidewall like this (you try running into a rockslide on 21s) and have been perfectly fine for thousands of miles since. I similarly had them checked out at an AT and run a dunk test, etc. Unless the cords/belts are showing, it's safe, afaik.

Also, as I mentioned to Mr. Batteryman, I am not required to redeliver an "as new" car. I am not selling the car back to lucid, I am concluding the period where I paid them handsomely to use the car. Therefore, regular wear and tear is allowed. "Give me back a car I can immediately sell" is not the appropriate standard when assessing the condition of a lease return.

You're right that you don't have to return it in as-new condition, but the rash does look very bad; that's much worse than any rash I've ever tried to turn in. I can see them charging for that. The tire they should probably waive.

The scratch is actually longer than a credit card, in your photo, though not by much. Either way, the test I've always seen used is a nickel or quarter, not a credit card, so I could see them charging you for that.

The tire though, I think you're right.

 

[borski]

Accoridng to KBB:

What is Acceptable Wear and Tear?​

Most leases provide for acceptable wear and tear. Contracts often spell out the precise items you’ll either get a pass on or pay for. In making this determination, the dealership where you turn in the car will inspect it. Items they will be looking for include the following:

• Dents and other collision damage
• Scratches and scrapes longer than 3 inches
• Wheel scrapes larger than 2 inches or longer
• Windshield cracks or chips larger than a quarter
• Tire wear with less than 1/8-inch remaining tread depth

By those metrics, the wheel scrape for sure would be excess wear and tear, and the scratch is right on the edge.

 

[BerkeleyLeaser]

Accoridng to KBB:

By those metrics, the wheel scrape for sure would be excess wear and tear, and the scratch is right on the edge.

Thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate it.

 

[Leftlane]

No way any of that costs Lucid $4k (sales tax? On what?) to recondition. That scratch probably buffs out, the wheel can be refinished for $200 retail, and the tire maybe $500 if it indeed needs to be replaced. Max should be $1000 but I am in the camp that this is all super minor on a 3 year old car and aside from refinishing the wheel it should be accepted as is.

 

[pyle112]

I've never been charged for wear and tear but also have leased or bought a new car from the same dealer afterwards. Let's see how my gravity impacts the extent of my wear and tear charges.

 

[BerkeleyLeaser]

I've never been charged for wear and tear but also have leased or bought a new car from the same dealer afterwards. Let's see how my gravity impacts the extent of my wear and tear charges.

Hehehe good luck !