Lease-End Costs: What We’re Doing to Improve Transparency

[tarator]

Ok boss, what exactly is the correct response that would satisfy you? Screw Lucid cuz they’re evil money grubbing lying bastards who somehow control Bank of America and are getting kickbacks and are doing this cuz they’re going bankrupt and could also end their contract with BofA financial services at any second if they wanted with no penalties? I probably missed it but surely you must also be getting a lawyer on retainer to go after these evil disappointing bastards and are awaiting a personal apology from Mark Winteroff? That’s about as reasonable as you sound. Go ahead, repeat again the cost discrepancy between BofA charges and Lucid charges for the same wheel, THAT is a legitimate complaint and the only legitimate complaint you have (which isn’t even your own but a borrowed one from another owner on Reddit???), and the entire rest of the conjecture and attitude and unwillingness to accept any behind the scenes possibility other than that Lucid hates their customers and is approaching bankruptcy is not legitimate. It’s this sort of childish foot stomping that reminds me why I was a ghost on here for the longest time until I decided to trade my Air for Gravity.

I said MULTIPLE times what the right response should be. Go back and read my posts.

 

[gaskiller]

Because, genius, the guidelines say that these damages are normal wear and tear. It is getting really annoying to reply to the same nonsense over and over.

Disagree, curb rash is not normal wear and tear….small scratches are ok but the damage in that skid plate looks excessive. If I traded in my car like that, I get dinged. Why shouldn’t those who lease?

You got those cheap leases, you should be happy about that instead of complaining about damage you caused.

Lucid came up with a reasonable solution. But there will always be those who complain against justified charges.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Also I hope more people say a “$100K” car shouldn’t do X Y and Z, that’s not been said enough either. Because if I search for only “$100K” it comes up with 10 pages. Search for bankruptcy and see how many results you get

 

[tarator]

And, BTW, I am pretty sure Lucid's contract with BoA has a clause that Lucid can revoke licensing their name and logo if their actions damage Lucid's good name. So, don't come with the excuse that Lucid can't do anything.

 

[tarator]

Disagree, curb rash is not normal wear and tear….small scratches are ok but the damage in that skid plate looks excessive. If I traded in my car like that, I get dinged. Why shouldn’t those who lease?

You got those cheap leases, you should be happy about that instead of complaining about damage you caused.

Lucid came up with a reasonable solution. But there will always be those who complain against justified charges.

Where EXACTLY did I mention any curb rash? Can you please stop with the hallucinations?

 

[gaskiller]

I’m glad I did not take those cheap leases. Leasing is always fraught with uncertainty during the return period. Mileage, taking off film, damages that you have to get fixed or pay up.

Much less stressful to buy.

 

[tarator]

Sorry dude, anyone who threatens “ going bankruptcy “ is a hater. You know Lucid is backed by the Saudi Gov. why spread such nonsense just because you are upset.

I am not threatening anything. I am stating a quite likely outcome of bad publicity and alienating the early adopters of your product. You think the Saudis will keep your company afloat long enough if you keep doing that? Do you think they like reading all the bad publicity about the company? You know that they are in for the money, right?

 

[fisheral]

If they didn't want responses, they wouldn't have posted a thread in a forum. I'd hope they want as honest responses as they can get without any sugarcoating.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

And, BTW, I am pretty sure Lucid's contract with BoA has a clause that Lucid can revoke licensing their name and logo if their actions damage Lucid's good name. So, don't come with the excuse that Lucid can't do anything.

I’m “coming at” you with exactly what I was told by a Lucid employee, they have looked into hiring a different financial services contractor due to MANY issues with LFS/BofA but are not able to do so at this time for contractural reasons. I’m going to take their word over your conjecture.

 

[tarator]

I’m “coming at” you with exactly what I was told by a Lucid employee, they have looked into hiring a different financial services contractor due to MANY issues with LFS/BofA but are not able to do so at this time for contractural reasons. I’m going to take their word over your conjecture.

I don't care about hearsay, if Lucid wants to say something to its customers, they can say it publicly. I am not going to take your word for it, because you are, no offense intended, practically nobody.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

So you’re telling me Lucid should violate terms of NDA they have with their business services partner and just open all the specifics about all the behinds the scenes conversations on this very topic to Reddit? Businesses need to coordinate these responses, messaging needs to be approved because the implications can go far far far beyond the messenger How is it you don’t understand this? Also, as it so happens, this “nobody” (Me) you’re talking about, is in the middle of a negotiation along with my other partners to prematurely end a business services contract and will have to pay out $2.5 million termination fee which even our lawyers were shocked we pulled off as they expected it would be next to impossible to do, and that sum is peanuts (less than 20 Gravities) compared to what a small new automaker could face when going after one of the biggest financial institutions in the world.

 

[tarator]

So you’re telling me Lucid should violate terms of NDA they have with their business services partner and just open all the specifics about all the behinds the scenes conversations on this very topic to Reddit? Businesses need to coordinate these responses, messaging needs to be approved because the implications can go far far far beyond the messenger How is it you don’t understand this? Also, as it so happens, this “nobody” (Me) you’re talking about, is in the middle of a negotiation along with my other partners to prematurely end a business services contract and will have to pay out $2.5 million termination fee which even our lawyers were shocked we pulled off as they expected it would be next to impossible to do, and that sum is peanuts (less than 20 Gravities) compared to what a small new automaker could face when going after one of the biggest financial institutions in the world.

Wait, didn't you just say that a Lucid employee told you that? Did they violate the terms of NDA?

You don't need to make yourself look big, I don't really care. You are just somebody spreading gossip on a random website.

 

[Leftlane]

I’m “coming at” you with exactly what I was told by a Lucid employee, they have looked into hiring a different financial services contractor due to MANY issues with LFS/BofA but are not able to do so at this time for contractural reasons. I’m going to take their word over your conjecture.

That’s not a great argument because it says that they signed a crappy contract with BofA, know it is a crappy contract, and now clearly know that their own (Lucid’s) customers are the ones getting the short end of the stick - but they can’t do anything about it. If I was a prospective customer this would be all I need to hear to go elsewhere.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Wait, didn't you just say that a Lucid employee told you that? Did they violate the terms of NDA?

You don't need to make yourself look big, I don't really care. You are just somebody spreading gossip on a random website.

You’re confused, my accurate truthful pertinent information I’m giving here has nothing to do with looking big, but if the facts make you look small, I’ll happily take responsibility for that. A Lucid employee saying the company has had issues with their current financial services partner but not able to get out of a contract at this moment is part of an NDA how? NDAs are for potential deals being negotiated, or revealing confidential terms of a contract (no terms were revealed, only that finding an alternative financial services partner due to these and other issues was investigated but not feasible at this time). Saying “it’s not feasible to get out of a contract”, or acknowledging the customers and the company itself has some issues with the financial services provider is not even in the realm of any enforceable NDA. NDAs are most important before a business signs a letter of intent to negotiate a sale of a company, because a competitor could come in and sabotage to negotiation. Again this isn’t big talk, it’s just how these things often go behind the scenes. Which is quite a bit different than saying a company is probably going bankrupt because their leasing company charged a customer $900 for a $400 wheel.

 

[hydbob]

Official update from @marqie

UPDATE - Oct. 14, 2025
Thank you to everyone for your valuable feedback—it plays an important role in helping us improve the Lucid ownership experience. We are taking the following steps, in addition to those announced in earlier communications:

1. Fair & Transparent Evaluations -- We continually review our lease-end process and excess wear guidelines with our inspection partner, who is the industry leader in lease inspections, to ensure fairness and transparency.
2. Updated Wear & Tear Charges -- Based on ongoing internal reviews and customer feedback, we have made several revisions to our excess wear guidelines over the past few months, including recent updates that remove or reduce charges across multiple categories.
3. Front Bumper Charge Review -- We are reviewing all customer accounts charged for damage to the underside of the front bumper to ensure that we are only charging customers for significant damage that is beyond what would be considered normal wear and tear. Significant damage includes broken, missing or severely damaged parts on the underside of the vehicle. Any charges that would not have applied under the updated guidelines for the underside of the front bumper will be considered and customers will be notified of any charges that are reduced or removed.
4. Inspection Discrepancy Checks -- Lucid is also now reviewing, on an interim basis, any post-return inspections that show an increase in identified damage compared to what was identified on the pre-return inspection. This ensures customers are not charged for damage they were not aware of or did not have the opportunity to repair. As a reminder, Lucid offers all lease customers a complimentary pre-lease end inspection. Customers are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity. The same inspection partner performs all inspections to ensure consistency.

We truly appreciate your input—it helps us move closer to our goal of delivering the best cars and ownership experience in the world. We launched a lease return survey this week that will help us to proactively capture your feedback.