Lease return excess wear & tear

[Steveinarizona]

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.

He got the charge eliminated but NOT what he was seeking so I don't think one can call it a satisfactory resolution. He was looking for an acknowledgement that he never owed the charge as it was normal wear and tear and what he got was a "good will waiver".

 

[valentino]

This makes me sad. For the amount of money we are spending we should be given better customer responses than if we bought a Toyota. I'm glad you at least got the financial part resolved. I get it I hate it when companies don't seem to appreciate you but I think it would be good to look at it this way. Whenever a company settles a class action even though they are clearly at fault, part of the settlement is almost always "they don't admit wrong doing" because lawyers are probably hovering even here looking for lawsuit bits". Don't take it personal. You took a bullet for the rest of us.

I wonder if it would help for the forum to draft a group response. I'm not looking forward to returning my car though I have 2 years to go so hopefully this issue will be history.

---

Well, I have an update and official reply from Lucid,

 

[fisheral]

New article out from The Drive.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/lucid...glass-chips-on-lease-and-thats-just-the-start

 

[WildRide47]

New article out from The Drive.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/lucid...glass-chips-on-lease-and-thats-just-the-start

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.

 

[L-Dude]

I suggest anyone who recently leased a Lucid download the current definitions of normal wear and tear. These documents could change between now and the time you have to turn in your car, and you will want to have a record of normal wear and tear at the time you signed your lease.

 

[Nitemist]

I suggest anyone who recently leased a Lucid download the current definitions of normal wear and tear. These documents could change between now and the time you have to turn in your car, and you will want to have a record of normal wear and tear at the time you signed your lease.

Is this a legitimate concern? Seems like it would be illegal to change the terms/agreement retroactively for those that signed before any changes.

 

[L-Dude]

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.

 

[valentino]

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.

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.