In this situation, Lucid appears to be its own worst enemy. It should have nipped this in the bud, before things escalated to the point where this is now circulating in the press.
Is this a legitimate concern? Seems like it would be illegal to change the terms/agreement retroactively for those that signed before any changes.
How would you prove that they had changed their criteria for normal wear and tear if you didn't have a copy of the document that was in effect at the time you signed? I think it is reasonable to assume a company can revise their terms over a period of several years. Lucid's criteria for NW&T three years from now will probably be different than what is in effect today. Hence my recommendation to keep a copy of their NW&T description that was/is in effect when you signed your lease.
I can't help but think if Rawlinson was still in charge he would have never allowed this to get this far. He seems to have understood the luxury customers.
Awesome response!
Thank you for the clarity and attention to this issue. Can you confirm that LFS/BoA will abide by these guidelines and definitions of wear and tear please?
Weird question to ask. How would an employee unauthorized to speak for the company (LCS/BofA) be able to bind the corporation to any answer they would give on the forums.
Not really. The whole issue here is that lease returnees are being hit with charges for items that are not in accordance with Lucid’s guidelines. So what’s the point of Lucid updating / clarifying their guidelines if LFS/BoA are gong to continue ignoring them.Weird question to ask. How would an employee unauthorized to speak for the company (LCS/BofA) be able to bind the corporation to any answer they would give on the forums.
The lessee has signed a contract and the terms would be spelled out in them. Anyways I just think it’s a non-starter question.
Thanks Lucid for working towards a swift resolution to this
They said they are actively working on it; but you want them to give you a final word. If they have a final word, it will be an official release from Lucid.
This should be a question asked during the earnings report on Aug 5th...why are lease returns being handled outside of industry norms for normal wear and tear....giving Lucid a very bad name!
It’s unfortunate that Lucid decided to put their name on a Bank Of America owned financial services company, but hopefully they can get out of this since it says it is just licensed to Bank of America in the small print.
This is bogus, all that is NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR.....hey Lucid, fix this now! Listening executives?
Lucid really dropped the ball on this one. It's a shame these owners are leaving the Lucid brand(not to mention all the bad press). Lucid should have been more proactive when the first reports of BOFA surfaced about disregarding Lucid guidelines for normal wear and tear. Lucid also should have also been on the side of the owners right from the start and let the owners know this as well. After all, if the Lucid Owners Forum members who are mostly good will ambassadors are treated poorly(and they were in this instance until only recently when the press got a hold of this). It does not speak well for the company at large. I bought my AGT in cash, so it has no effect on me, but if I was a lessee, I would be pretty upset, though I am not happy to hear of anything that damages Lucid's reputation. Somebody at Lucid needs to take responsibility for this fiasco. BOFA violated Lucid's own guidelines and yet they gave the lessees a hard time.
