Lease return excess wear & tear

[kort6776]

This is the problem with leasing. You are borrowing the car, so the expectation is to return it in an undamaged condition. Nothing wrong in that.

That’s why it’s less stress free to just buy the car. No need to worry about a chip or a small scratch, or mileage that you put in.

your comment is correct for some people but I will always lease an EV because of the huge depreciations that hit EVs hard. the rapid changes of the tech is also a reason to lease vs. buying.
my first tesla model S, 2013, was functionally obsolete in a year after I purchased it, my second one had the flawed 90kw battery pack and my model 3 took a 50% hit in less than 2 years of owning it. my taycan, which I leased and turned in 18 months ago is still sitting in storage, my lease Ipace took a massive depreciation hit as well. when that lease was up I was will to buy that car but the residual was almost $20k over the current value of the car.
my take away is that if you can live within the mileage constraints leasing EVs is the way to go.

 

[tonybot]

your comment is correct for some people but I will always lease an EV because of the huge depreciations that hit EVs hard. the rapid changes of the tech is also a reason to lease vs. buying.
my first tesla model S, 2013, was functionally obsolete in a year after I purchased it, my second one had the flawed 90kw battery pack and my model 3 took a 50% hit in less than 2 years of owning it. my taycan, which I leased and turned in 18 months ago is still sitting in storage, my lease Ipace took a massive depreciation hit as well. when that lease was up I was will to buy that car but the residual was almost $20k over the current value of the car.
my take away is that if you can live within the mileage constraints leasing EVs is the way to go.

I agree a 100%. That is my approach as well. At the end of the lease, I will compare market value against buyout and a make a call. I bought out ICE leases in the past when it made sense but that may not hold true for EVs due to depreciation and tech changes. Automakers like BMW let you buy additional miles at a discount any time and if unused, refund the money at lease end. I think the point of this thread is excessive charges at lease return. At present, most of the EV transactions are leases and I hope Lucid and BoFA will figure out a way to make this experience more mainstream. It will also be interesting to see how the elimination of the $7500 lease loophole impact EV leasing going forward.

 

[JGard18]

The biggest reason to lease EVs currently is the tax breaks. If you're shopping Lucid, you likely make too much money to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit if you purchase, but if you lease, you get that. It's the main reason we leased my wife's XC40 Recharge as well as my Lucid. We're almost definitely buying the Volvo once the lease is up, and I'm likely going to buy out the Lucid before its lease is over, too (because I'm about to go WAY over mileage)

 

[fisheral]

This is the problem with leasing. You are borrowing the car, so the expectation is to return it in an undamaged condition. Nothing wrong in that.

That’s why it’s less stress free to just buy the car. No need to worry about a chip or a small scratch, or mileage that you put in.

I've leased many cars and never cared about nor stressed as much over the lease return process as Lucid's.

 

[dapellegrini]

This afternoon I decided that I simply don't have any more mental bandwidth for Lucid, or this lease turn-in fiasco. Still no call back, and they seem to be playing racquetball with my "Customer Care Ticket". So I called in to the collections team at BofA to pay their ransom, credit card in hand.

To my surprise, I got a collections agent very quickly, and they seemed confused. I said I was calling to pay my lease termination bill. They put me on hold "to confirm the amount due". When they came back on the line, they were still confused, and wanted to know again why I called. I thought this was odd, and I felt a little like Clint Eastwood in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", queue the music. At this point I thought perhaps they were seeing something different on their end, so I changed my tact slightly, and asked "to speak to someone about my lease termination bill". The collections agent seemed less confused at this point, and transferred me to Lucid Customer Care. A curious turn of events.

Hold with Customer Care was <30 mins.

Finally through to someone at Lucid, but alas, no update on the ticket. It is "with sales". I asked that they please update the ticket and ask whomever is going to settle this to leave a VM if I cannot pick up the call. Also please email me.

I know others have piled on here with opinions about leasing, and other turn-ins with what I would call at least "actual damage" if not excessive wear and tear. This thread is really about 3x <.1" pock marks on the very large windshield and a problem with the passenger visor that no one has been able to explain. No curbed rims, no marks in the paint, no low tread on the tires, damaged wheels or any such thing.

I suppose now I will reset my "1 week" clock, perhaps slightly more optimistic for a positive outcome... but only slightly.

 

[JoshG]

This afternoon I decided that I simply don't have any more mental bandwidth for Lucid, or this lease turn-in fiasco. Still no call back, and they seem to be playing racquetball with my "Customer Care Ticket". So I called in to the collections team at BofA to pay their ransom, credit card in hand.

To my surprise, I got a collections agent very quickly, and they seemed confused. I said I was calling to pay my lease termination bill. They put me on hold "to confirm the amount due". When they came back on the line, they were still confused, and wanted to know again why I called. I thought this was odd, and I felt a little like Clint Eastwood in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", queue the music. At this point I thought perhaps they were seeing something different on their end, so I changed my tact slightly, and asked "to speak to someone about my lease termination bill". The collections agent seemed less confused at this point, and transferred me to Lucid Customer Care. A curious turn of events.

Hold with Customer Care was <30 mins.

Finally through to someone at Lucid, but alas, no update on the ticket. It is "with sales". I asked that they please update the ticket and ask whomever is going to settle this to leave a VM if I cannot pick up the call. Also please email me.

I know others have piled on here with opinions about leasing, and other turn-ins with what I would call at least "actual damage" if not excessive wear and tear. This thread is really about 3x <.1" pock marks on the very large windshield and a problem with the passenger visor that no one has been able to explain. No curbed rims, no marks in the paint, no low tread on the tires, damaged wheels or any such thing.

I suppose now I will reset my "1 week" clock, perhaps slightly more optimistic for a positive outcome... but only slightly.

I'm having a REMARKABLY similar experience.
Turned in my 2023 Air Touring after end of my 18-month lease + 2-month extension, turned in on 6/9/25 when revised lease end date was 6/10/25. I was (barely) below my mileage limit. Car was 100% perfect, not a single door ding, no curb rash, video shot of everything at turn-in (Millbrae) with closeups of every inch of car and each tire/wheel, everything inside, etc. for my own security (based primarily on what I've read here on this thread).

So I expected and hoped to get a bill for the $450 termination fee that I knew was part of my lease.

Got letter 6/16 with a $200 excess Wear & Tear charge... not bad, but I was curious what that was actually for since I believed car was perfect. Total bill was for $709.31 ($450 known & agreed termination charge + $200 wear & tear + tax). Fine, again not bad, but curious what the $200 was for. Logged in to retrieve the inspection report at provided URL, system wouldn't produce it - just said "contact your leasing company".

Called Lucid Financial, not to argue, just to inquire about that charge. Just like @dapellegrini the agent I finally reached was confused about me calling to pay the bill. She said "your account shows closed, paid off in full, no balance due." She said she didn't even have a way to take a payment on that lease as there's no balance due.

She investigated further and could access the photos and the report shows nothing wrong with the car inside or out but "the tires showed 'wear' for a charge to me of $200." Not sure why they'd have excess wear on a car with 9100 miles on it and 19" wheels (always should be less wear on a car with smaller wheels)... I suspect it was just all they could find to try to charge me something. Whatever, I can live with it, curse BofA and this 3rd party lease inspection companies, but life too short to get upset over $200.

But they now can't take any payment from me, despite this letter saying I had 30 days to make the requierd payment! No way to pay online on my LFS account... says account closed, $0 balance. No way phone agent can take a payment for same reason.

I suspect one of 3 things:

• their system is slow, and soon the $709 due will be posted to my LFS account. (been 3 weeks now, and letter received weeks ago, so not sure why it's not showing on my account). I'll make payment with mild grumbling, but will still request seeing the photos of those "excessively worn tires".

or

• I'll now get turned over to a bill collector with potential serious damage to my credit for not paying the bill by 30 days from date of letter, despite my TRYING today to do just that and LFS saying there's no way for them to process a payment! That will begin a big fight for sure. I've documented every call, letter, photo, video, and document in case a fight is to start.

or

• POSSIBLE: I leased a new 2025 Lucid Air right around turning in the 2023. Maybe, like some other luxury brands, Lucid took a look and just cancelled out these minor charges as a courtesy since I was leasing a brand new expensive car from them. I hope this is true, i'll be so impressed if that's the case, and will post deserved kudos for Lucid here for that generous dispensation. Would be nice to see a complimentary post about LFS here on this thread!

Time will tell...

 

[fisheral]

I'm having a REMARKABLY similar experience.
Turned in my 2023 Air Touring after end of my 18-month lease + 2-month extension, turned in on 6/9/25 when revised lease end date was 6/10/25. I was (barely) below my mileage limit. Car was 100% perfect, not a single door ding, no curb rash, video shot of everything at turn-in (Millbrae) with closeups of every inch of car and each tire/wheel, everything inside, etc. for my own security (based primarily on what I've read here on this thread).

So I expected and hoped to get a bill for the $450 termination fee that I knew was part of my lease.

Got letter 6/16 with a $200 excess Wear & Tear charge... not bad, but I was curious what that was actually for since I believed car was perfect. Total bill was for $709.31 ($450 known & agreed termination charge + $200 wear & tear + tax). Fine, again not bad, but curious what the $200 was for. Logged in to retrieve the inspection report at provided URL, system wouldn't produce it - just said "contact your leasing company".

Called Lucid Financial, not to argue, just to inquire about that charge. Just like @dapellegrini the agent I finally reached was confused about me calling to pay the bill. She said "your account shows closed, paid off in full, no balance due." She said she didn't even have a way to take a payment on that lease as there's no balance due.

She investigated further and could access the photos and the report shows nothing wrong with the car inside or out but "the tires showed 'wear' for a charge to me of $200." Not sure why they'd have excess wear on a car with 9100 miles on it and 19" wheels (always should be less wear on a car with smaller wheels)... I suspect it was just all they could find to try to charge me something. Whatever, I can live with it, curse BofA and this 3rd party lease inspection companies, but life too short to get upset over $200.

But they now can't take any payment from me, despite this letter saying I had 30 days to make the requierd payment! No way to pay online on my LFS account... says account closed, $0 balance. No way phone agent can take a payment for same reason.

I suspect one of 3 things:

• their system is slow, and soon the $709 due will be posted to my LFS account. (been 3 weeks now, and letter received weeks ago, so not sure why it's not showing on my account). I'll make payment with mild grumbling, but will still request seeing the photos of those "excessively worn tires".

or

• I'll now get turned over to a bill collector with potential serious damage to my credit for not paying the bill by 30 days from date of letter, despite my TRYING today to do just that and LFS saying there's no way for them to process a payment! That will begin a big fight for sure. I've documented every call, letter, photo, video, and document in case a fight is to start.

or

• POSSIBLE: I leased a new 2025 Lucid Air right around turning in the 2023. Maybe, like some other luxury brands, Lucid took a look and just cancelled out these minor charges as a courtesy since I was leasing a brand new expensive car from them. I hope this is true, i'll be so impressed if that's the case, and will post deserved kudos for Lucid here for that generous dispensation. Would be nice to see a complimentary post about LFS here on this thread!

Time will tell...

Yet another disastrous lease return story.

The inability to pay the bill and the risk of being sent to collections really concern me. I've spent years building up perfect credit, and I will be next-level frustrated if something like this happens.

I've never seen a lease return process handled so poorly, and I've leased from at least half a dozen auto makers. At most, there were a few minor charges (definitely reasonable), and the ability to access an inspection report and pay the bill online.

 

[JoshG]

I'm having a REMARKABLY similar experience.
Turned in my 2023 Air Touring after end of my 18-month lease + 2-month extension, turned in on 6/9/25 when revised lease end date was 6/10/25. I was (barely) below my mileage limit. Car was 100% perfect, not a single door ding, no curb rash, video shot of everything at turn-in (Millbrae) with closeups of every inch of car and each tire/wheel, everything inside, etc. for my own security (based primarily on what I've read here on this thread).

So I expected and hoped to get a bill for the $450 termination fee that I knew was part of my lease.

Got letter 6/16 with a $200 excess Wear & Tear charge... not bad, but I was curious what that was actually for since I believed car was perfect. Total bill was for $709.31 ($450 known & agreed termination charge + $200 wear & tear + tax). Fine, again not bad, but curious what the $200 was for. Logged in to retrieve the inspection report at provided URL, system wouldn't produce it - just said "contact your leasing company".

Called Lucid Financial, not to argue, just to inquire about that charge. Just like @dapellegrini the agent I finally reached was confused about me calling to pay the bill. She said "your account shows closed, paid off in full, no balance due." She said she didn't even have a way to take a payment on that lease as there's no balance due.

She investigated further and could access the photos and the report shows nothing wrong with the car inside or out but "the tires showed 'wear' for a charge to me of $200." Not sure why they'd have excess wear on a car with 9100 miles on it and 19" wheels (always should be less wear on a car with smaller wheels)... I suspect it was just all they could find to try to charge me something. Whatever, I can live with it, curse BofA and this 3rd party lease inspection companies, but life too short to get upset over $200.

But they now can't take any payment from me, despite this letter saying I had 30 days to make the requierd payment! No way to pay online on my LFS account... says account closed, $0 balance. No way phone agent can take a payment for same reason.

I suspect one of 3 things:

• their system is slow, and soon the $709 due will be posted to my LFS account. (been 3 weeks now, and letter received weeks ago, so not sure why it's not showing on my account). I'll make payment with mild grumbling, but will still request seeing the photos of those "excessively worn tires".

or

• I'll now get turned over to a bill collector with potential serious damage to my credit for not paying the bill by 30 days from date of letter, despite my TRYING today to do just that and LFS saying there's no way for them to process a payment! That will begin a big fight for sure. I've documented every call, letter, photo, video, and document in case a fight is to start.

or

• POSSIBLE: I leased a new 2025 Lucid Air right around turning in the 2023. Maybe, like some other luxury brands, Lucid took a look and just cancelled out these minor charges as a courtesy since I was leasing a brand new expensive car from them. I hope this is true, i'll be so impressed if that's the case, and will post deserved kudos for Lucid here for that generous dispensation. Would be nice to see a complimentary post about LFS here on this thread!

Time will tell...

Just to follow-up on my own post, I just received a call from a manager at Lucid Financial, "Demetrius" who was very kind, patient, and sympathetic. He pulled up my inspection report and agreed the car was in excellent shape, but there was one VERY slight blemish on one wheel. I hadn't noticed it it was so tiny. That's the only thing they're wanting to charge me for - $200 for this wheel damage.

It's described in the report as a 1x7.0" gouge. I assume it's a typo and they meant to say 1.7" gouge, as shown in the photo, but calling this a "gouge" rather than a blemish seems a bit over the top to me, but you be the judge.

Here's the picture...

and the relevant report section:

OK, I guess if my agreement is to turn in the car pristine in every way, then I missed this one tiny thing. No idea if $200 is reasonable, but given all the other pictures backing up how perfect I've kept this car, you'd think they'd let that one go. Seems 100% legal and in accordance with what I signed, but in practice just seems petty. I've turned in probably 10 leased cars with FAR more nicks, true wheel curb rash and they have always just decided it fits in with reasonable wear and tear, especially if I'm buying or leasing a new one from the same company.

So, I've asked for an appeal, and Demetrius is going to work on it and get back to me, and I'll report back.
But let me add to the warnings and advice in this thread. Lucid (or their leasing partners) are unbelievably picky about anything at all wrong with the car and seemed determined to get money out of lease returnees. If this is the only thing they could find, they should celebrate how well I treated this leased car but instead, BOOM - $200 please or your account gets transferred to a debt collector.

AND, this is when i leased a new $100k Lucid from them the same day! No allowance for that either.

Be ready to get charged for incredibly minor things...

 

[wa_lucid]

Wheel rash costs $150-250 per wheel to fix in the Bay Area. I know because I’ve had three fixed.

They charged me $900 per wheel for road rash.

 

[borski]

They charged me $900 per wheel for road rash.

That would be the cost for replacement, not repair.

 

[RDaneel]

What I don't understand is why anyone is accepting charges for curb rash when the Lucid website states:

Lucid Excess Wear and Use Guidelines​

Wheels: Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size). Wheels that weren't originally equipped with the vehicle at the time of delivery.

A little curb rash is not a "cracked," "bent," or "broken" rim. I don't think BoA has any basis to charge for any of this and is just being predatory...

 

[fisheral]

What I don't understand is why anyone is accepting charges for curb rash when the Lucid website states:

Lucid Excess Wear and Use Guidelines​

Wheels: Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size). Wheels that weren't originally equipped with the vehicle at the time of delivery.

A little curb rash is not a "cracked," "bent," or "broken" rim. I don't think BoA has any basis to charge for any of this and is just being predatory...

I think BoA will argue that Lucid's guidelines are not binding on it.

 

[suchluke]

I am not leasing myself but reading all these stories makes me think it is not Lucid fault but BoA (Lucid Financial Services) coming up with these bogus charges. My guess they are losing too much on lease returns due to higher than expected depreciation and trying hard to get some extra money from people to cover their loses.

I am not entirely sure how the process works when someone leases the car. Is the owner Lucid or Bank of America? I am guessing Lucid sells the car and BoA becomes the owner. They do make money from lease payments but I am not sure if that will cover the difference from the price paid vs what a vehicle will sell for at the auction after the lease return.

 

[RDaneel]

I think BoA will argue that Lucid's guidelines are not binding on it.

Then what are they for? One could see them as a way to induce people to lease cars. If those guidelines are not true, then that is a perfect example of consumer fraud. BoA is begging for some kind of class action claim if they are applying standards that are directly contradicted by the manufacturer's public statements and lease agreements.

I would argue that my leasing agreement, which is silent on wheel wear, should be interpreted based on Lucid's public description of what constitutes normal versus excessive wear and tear. If BoA wants to read a totally different standard into the contract that is not supported by the language, Lucid's site, or any parol evidence, they are going to get a lawsuit from me.

 

[fisheral]

Then what are they for? One could see them as a way to induce people to lease cars. If those guidelines are not true, then that is a perfect example of consumer fraud. BoA is begging for some kind of class action claim if they are applying standards that are directly contradicted by the manufacturer's public statements and lease agreements.

I would argue that my leasing agreement, which is silent on wheel wear, should be interpreted based on Lucid's public description of what constitutes normal versus excessive wear and tear. If BoA wants to read a totally different standard into the contract that is not supported by the language, Lucid's site, or any parol evidence, they are going to get a lawsuit from me.

BoA are a bunch of sharks and will do anything to deal with their upside down residuals.

 

[L-Dude]

What I don't understand is why anyone is accepting charges for curb rash when the Lucid website states:

Lucid Excess Wear and Use Guidelines​

Wheels: Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size). Wheels that weren't originally equipped with the vehicle at the time of delivery.

A little curb rash is not a "cracked," "bent," or "broken" rim. I don't think BoA has any basis to charge for any of this and is just being predatory...

I have been saying this for a while now. I don't understand why this isn't getting traction.

 

[JoshG]

What I don't understand is why anyone is accepting charges for curb rash when the Lucid website states:

Lucid Excess Wear and Use Guidelines​

Wheels: Wheels that are cracked or bent. Rims that are bent or have breaks (regardless of size). Wheels that weren't originally equipped with the vehicle at the time of delivery.

A little curb rash is not a "cracked," "bent," or "broken" rim. I don't think BoA has any basis to charge for any of this and is just being predatory...

Thank you. I've already filed a dispute with Lucid and having this info handy will help my case if they don't remove the charge from my bill.

 

[William Nation]

I visited the Pasadena studio for pre turn evaluation. In short, Bank of America evaluates the car and charges what they want after you sign it over at lease end so a fresh Lucid lease isn’t going to help.
Wheel scuffs along with any scrapes on the front air dam will be noted for examples.
Lesson is to get it looked over before returning it to remedy what you can using your own body shop or mobile wheel repair company to control the cost.
I do love my 23 Pure AWD. It’s been trouble free, just gotta decide to buy or turn it in come September.

 

[mxp]

To save the headache and unknown outcomes of the Lucid lease return, wouldn't it be better to pay out the car and sell it on the open market?
Just sell it later, or do a trade on Carvana or Carmax.

 

[kort6776]

To save the headache and unknown outcomes of the Lucid lease return, wouldn't it be better to pay out the car and sell it on the open market?
Just sell it later, or do a trade on Carvana or Carmax.

sure, you could try to sell it on your own but there isn't much demand out there for a big, expensive EV sedan. the huge depreciation hit makes your idea financially unsound and it is the reason for leasing. if Bof A is shaking you down for $200, consider it a win.

recently a BMW dealership flat out refused to take my air gt in on a trade.