Lease return difficulties

[kort6776]

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

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.

 

[marsarbu]

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.

I don't have an issue exposing such things. I am actually a big believer that this is how companies get better, by being pressured into doing things they wouldn't otherwise won't do. Same goes for individuals.

I just wanted to be clear that I am NOT advising/recommending anyone going this route. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what the consequences could be. I read about some companies going after whistleblowers. Personally, I have zero problems doing it, if by the time my lease is up this hasn't been fixed - I enjoy a good dust up

 

[jbawden]

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.

Man alive, you're taking Lucid's petty behavior to new heights!

My wife notwithstanding, the frustration from the oft complained about daily interactions FAR exceed a fine to get the car back to near showroom condition. If in 2 years the most fundamental daily interactions with the car are not 99.9% trouble free then I'm out AF.

 

[Miami_Lucid_Man]

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.

Given your particular demonstrable brand loyalty for such a young company, given the amount, they really could’ve and should’ve given you a “one time courtesy waiver” of the fee. Tesla did that for me on something similar but for 500 bucks because I was getting into another lease with them.

Sorry dude.

 

[JoshG]

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:

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.

 

[marsarbu]

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.

Good catch. Thank you for putting up a good fight, and indirectly helping everyone that is about to return their cars.