Lease return excess wear & tear

[BS8899]

From 2022 to current, what percentage of Lucid's sales are leased?

 

[JoshG]

---

Well, I have an update and official reply from Lucid, and unfortunately, it doesn’t suggest the company is making any meaningful effort to review or revise its policies, or the actions of its financial partners.

I wrote a summary of my lease-end dispute, explaining how Lucid or its partners are violating Lucid’s own written standards for what constitutes excess wear and tear. More importantly, I described the brand damage this is causing and referenced these forum discussions. I sent it privately to a single Lucid Financial executive, hoping he might offer some assurance that this issue is being taken seriously. (I understand I can’t mention his name or title on this forum, so I won’t.)

After 12 days with no response—not even a simple acknowledgment—I followed up, this time copying a select few Lucid Motors executives (again, I guess I can't name them here, but it was appropriate members of Lucid's executive team, not a blast to everyone I could think of or find on the website).

I want to be clear: I gave the original recipient nearly two weeks to reply privately before escalating. I would have preferred to keep the discussion one-on-one, but silence for 12 days felt like a dead end.

Interestingly, after I copied the Lucid Motors execs, the Lucid Financial exec responded quickly—replying-all to the full group.

Here’s his reply, verbatim:

Hello {my full name},
Thank you for reaching out to Lucid regarding your concerns related to the excess wear charges on your former Lucid lease vehicle. Lucid has reviewed your lease end inspection and has decided to waive the charges that are in question. We hope that this goodwill will encourage you to continue to be a customer of Lucid. We appreciate your support for Lucid.

That 's it. I'm not truncating or editing the email.

(For context for those who don't recall or aren't tracking my personal issue: I was charged $200 for excess wear on my wheels due to a single small blemish—photo here (their photo from the official inspection, not mine):

Lucid’s own published standards define unacceptable wheel damage at a lease return as wheels that are "cracked, bent, or broken." That's it, that's the complete description of what can be assessed as excess wear and tear. Look at the image: which of those three terms applies?)

To say this email response was disappointing is an understatement. My issue was never about the $200 they were charging me. It was about how Lucid and its finance partners are applying charges that directly contradict Lucid’s stated policy, and how that’s affecting many of us, as echoed in this forum.

By labeling this a “goodwill” gesture and saying they’ve “decided to waive” the charge, Lucid is signaling that the fee was valid, their policy was properly applied, and no internal changes are under consideration. There was no apology, no admission of error, and no mention of any review—either by Lucid Financial or their inspection partner.

I had hoped for at least a line acknowledging the issue, like “Thanks for raising this. We’re looking into it.” Instead, the message was clear: if you make enough noise and escalate high enough, you might get your charge waived. Otherwise, you're out of luck. In essence, in my own view, they’re saying, “We’ve heard you, and because you were loud enough, we’ll drop this charge for you. But we’re not changing anything.”

It’s hard not to conclude that no changes are planned. If they were even considering it, I’d expect some hint in the response, especially knowing I’m sharing updates publicly and speaking with a journalist about the issue.

So good luck to others still fighting this... or to those who soon will be. I have to assume every single lease return will face this issue as my car was as close to perfect as I can imagine.

I deeply regret that I’m now locked into a second Lucid lease (which was finalized before I even got the absurd inspection report from the first).

Lucid has lost me as a customer and as an advocate.

Like all of us, I get compliments on my car on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I no longer rave about the company or the product. I now state that the car has some technical issues, but overall is nicely built, has class-leading interior packaging and comfort, and has great performance and overall driving feel, but that I do not recommend doing business with the company and I've had a terrible personal experience as a two-time owner. I walk away and leave it at that. It's happened twice this week, and it will keep happening for the remaining 17 months on this unfortunate lease that I have.

 

[Nitemist]

This thread legitimately upsets me and I'm no longer a proud owner and advocate for lucid. My wife wanted to demo Gravity and I told her don't bother. They better figure this out before I return my lease in two years. Meanwhile, I don't even want to drive my AT with all the stress and anxiety about incurring stupid charges. Extreme? Maybe. But the anxiety is real and it kills any good vibe driving the car now. What a bummer.

 

[Leftlane]

I understand the frustration but would look at it as a small victory. It’s hard to not make other peoples problems your problems, but you did get a satisfactory resolution to your case - now others can figure out what to do about their own issues. It beats them telling you to go pound sand.

 

[JoshG]

I hope some financial analyst who follows the company will ask about this issue on their next earnings call, making the execs finally address it publicly. They clearly aren't going to do so otherwise.

I'm still a shareholder in the company... I don't wish them harm! In fact, I think them addressing this issue direclty is the best chance to increase shareholder value, and not doing so will do the opposite.

 

[JoshG]

I understand the frustration but would look at it as a small victory. It’s hard to not make other peoples problems your problems, but you did get a satisfactory resolution to your case - now others can figure out what to do about their own issues. It beats them telling you to go pound sand.

While I don't completely agree, you make a reasonable case on how I should view this. My own charges are now "waived." Good for me, sure. But as someone who cares about the company and brand and as a financial stakeholder in the company, I really want them to fix this for all of our benefit.

 

[Clyde2575]

While I don't completely agree, you make a reasonable case on how I should view this. My own charges are now "waived." Good for me, sure. But as someone who cares about the company and brand and as a financial stakeholder in the company, I really want them to fix this for all of our benefit.

As a business owner, I understand why they responded the way they did. While it may come across as a brush-off, I don't personally see it that way.

If it were me, I would have made more of an effort to validate your concerns. That said, I would never contradict or undermine my business partner. We also don't know the specifics of their agreement or contract, and it's entirely possible they're addressing this privately behind the scenes. From what you wrote, it sounds like the conversation was being discussed publicly, and while they can’t stop you from sharing, they also have to assume that anything they say might be repeated. That could be a risk they weren't willing to take—and honestly, I wouldn’t be either.

I completely understand why you’re upset and regret signing another contract with them—I don’t blame you one bit. After reading your post, I’m honestly glad I bought rather than leased. Still, I get why their response was limited in detail.

 

[JoshG]

As a business owner, I understand why they responded the way they did. While it may come across as a brush-off, I don't personally see it that way.

If it were me, I would have made more of an effort to validate your concerns. That said, I would never contradict or undermine my business partner. We also don't know the specifics of their agreement or contract, and it's entirely possible they're addressing this privately behind the scenes. From what you wrote, it sounds like the conversation was being discussed publicly, and while they can’t stop you from sharing, they also have to assume that anything they say might be repeated. That could be a risk they weren't willing to take—and honestly, I wouldn’t be either.

I completely understand why you’re upset and regret signing another contract with them—I don’t blame you one bit. After reading your post, I’m honestly glad I bought rather than leased. Still, I get why their response was limited in detail.

very good and helpful perspective. Appreciate you voicing that here.

 

[L-Dude]

I understand the frustration but would look at it as a small victory. It’s hard to not make other peoples problems your problems, but you did get a satisfactory resolution to your case - now others can figure out what to do about their own issues. It beats them telling you to go pound sand.

@JoshG I have read your posts with interest and respect, and for the most part have agreed with everything you've said. However I think your (justifiable) frustration over this incredibly bad Lucid experience may have colored your view of their response. To me, you got what you wanted and what was fair. Granted it was regrettable that you had to work SO hard to get them to waive a stinkin' $200 charge. And the lack of a clear apology for putting you through this leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth, but clearly your efforts have helped get a large corporation to look directly at this issue.

The Lucid is a great car--there are only a couple others in this class IMO. I would hope that perhaps you would consider the brand at some point in the future. Again thanks for keeping all of abreast of your pursuit of a just outcome.

 

[HC_79]

very good and helpful perspective. Appreciate you voicing that here.

Prime example, you posted their response to you in a public forum. Not illegal for you to do so but I can see why they certainly weren’t going to apologize or admit fault. It could be used against them legally.

 

[L-Dude]

We also don't know the specifics of their agreement or contract, and it's entirely possible they're addressing this privately behind the scenes.

I would bet a lot of money that this is being discussed at very high levels at Lucid.

 

[JoshG]

Prime example, you posted their response to you in a public forum. Not illegal for you to do so but I can see why they certainly weren’t going to apologize or admit fault. It could be used against them legally.

maybe. But they'd have had no possible damage or legal issue by simply posting "we are aware of the issue and ask for some patience while we decide on a path" or something. They do have a great representative here on the forum who has relayed similar things from their management team in the past... carefully noncommittal (as is appropriate and necessary for a public company in a competitive space) but just addressing that they've heard a concern.

I'd have stopped posting anything if they just had posted something like that. I don't want anything bad to happen to Lucid at all! Just the opposite... I think the posts here from many others are starting to show that current harm is coming to to the brand and they're turning off consumers by continued silence.

They absolutely have no duty to reply to me, to change their policy, or to post publicly. But I have a right, as a stakeholder and customer, and after reasonable time given to them time to respond (weeks of silence in my case, and months on the overall issue that's come up on this topic) to help others in the community make an informed decision before making the mistakes I've made (twice, rather embarrassingly, in my case!)

 

[joec]

I didn’t move it, so I’ll wait for the other mods to respond - I can guarantee it wasn’t done with anything other than an attempt to organize, though. We don’t hide threads or anything.

I didn't move it, either.

 

[BenTexas]

I understand the frustration but would look at it as a small victory. It’s hard to not make other peoples problems your problems, but you did get a satisfactory resolution to your case - now others can figure out what to do about their own issues. It beats them telling you to go pound sand.

This is a community and he's rightfully disappointed about the way Lucid is treating members of the community. I still vividly remember my excitement when I joined this forum, added my reservation to the tracker and literally checked daily for updates and read every single post, eagerly waiting my turn. I invested back when it was still Churchill Capital Corp. A lot of us are personally, financially and emotionally invested in the success of Lucid. So refrain from telling people how to feel. Clearly he didn't care just about the $200.

 

[Unmutual]

I think the most interesting thing in Lucid's reply to @JoshG is that it was Lucid who waived the charge, not BoA. Does that suggest that Lucid has the power to waive charges directly, or the power to direct BoA to waive these ridiculous charges? Or, did Lucid simply paid BoA to make the problem go away? I'm really curious

 

[BS8899]

I think the most interesting thing in Lucid's reply to @JoshG is that it was Lucid who waived the charge, not BoA. Does that suggest that Lucid has the power to waive charges directly, or the power to direct BoA to waive these ridiculous charges? Or, did Lucid simply paid BoA to make the problem go away? I'm really curious

I don't know the exact numbers, but I bet a large part of Lucid's business in the past couple of years was driven by leasing. It has major financial implications if they screw this up! At a minimum, they should make the return/inspection criteria and the resultant charges visible. $650 for each rash/pint chips etc. can add up quickly. I have no dog in this fight, I own my 2022 AGT. That said, Lucid can't afford to alineate the leasing community! At a minium, they need to make the return/inspection/defect charge process visible.

 

[L-Dude]

I didn't move it, either.

It wasn't me.

 

[Leftlane]

This is a community and he's rightfully disappointed about the way Lucid is treating members of the community. I still vividly remember my excitement when I joined this forum, added my reservation to the tracker and literally checked daily for updates and read every single post, eagerly waiting my turn. I invested back when it was still Churchill Capital Corp. A lot of us are personally, financially and emotionally invested in the success of Lucid. So refrain from telling people how to feel. Clearly he didn't care just about the $200.

Stop already - no one is telling him how to feel, but he got the resolution he needed and that was totally warranted. The idea that anyone cares so deeply about any company that doesn’t care about you at all is silly. Lucid/BofA have a crappy process that needs to get fixed and hopefully it will - but what else could Lucid have done specifically for this one customer to make it right in the end? Getting wrapped up personally and emotionally isn’t going to be reciprocated by any company these days. There isn’t a single person at Lucid or BofA who cares at all about your shareholder journey or your personal feelings - not one. They will make their decisions based on what is best for them, just like you should do. In the meantime, everyone with a problem on their lease return needs to hope for a personal solution specific to them in lieu of some mass changes to the program that will hopefully happen soon.

Maybe read my post and see that I was happy for him and figured it was as good as it was gonna get for him. Or - be miserable because others still have problems they are working out with Lucid - your choice.

 

[dapellegrini]

Still radio silence on my excessive wear and tear bill from post #1. I suppose I should call in again to the collections agency to ask if they still show a balance due. Perhaps I will find some time tomorrow. In my case they can't just waive the fees, because they also charged me an extra lease payment - meaning they would need to cut me a check.

 

[borski]

I think the most interesting thing in Lucid's reply to @JoshG is that it was Lucid who waived the charge, not BoA. Does that suggest that Lucid has the power to waive charges directly, or the power to direct BoA to waive these ridiculous charges? Or, did Lucid simply paid BoA to make the problem go away? I'm really curious

It was Lucid Financial, aka BofA.