Lease return excess wear & tear

[Steveinarizona]

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

The FDCPA is the fair credit reporting act passed during the 1970s because of abusive debt collector practices. It does NOT apply to debts owed to the creditor:

"With limited exceptions, the FDCPA applies only to entities that qualify as "debt collectors." The statute's definition of "debt collector" is intricate and excludes various entities from its scope. For example, a creditor seeking to collect debts on its own behalf and under its own name ordinarily does not qualify as a "debt collector.""

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11247

So if the bill includes that practice it should not be doing so! We have many users here who used to have leases with other car companies (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc.). It would be interesting to know if they included such language in their monthly statements. I have never leased a car but I did briefly finance a BMW (to get a $4K credit) and the invoices did NOT include any such language.

As far as I know, it is industry practice in the luxury car business to waive the termination fee if the lessee leases a replacement from the same company. That is what Josh G did. As he reported, the waiver had nothing to do with the wear and tear issue.

 

[BenTexas]

This is pretty much the best we are going to get for now, and honestly I am satisfied with this response. It def took too long coming, but they got there eventually. My background is marketing/advertising/PR, and I know that the first line of defense is to apologize without admitting guilt. Once you take responsibility for a problem, the money seekers will follow you relentlessly--that's just the way it works in the US. I would bet you a lot of dough that there are some very tough discussions being held between Lucid and BoA. Who knows what kind of deal Lucid had to agree to to gain a leasing partner. Clearly Lucid had to agree to some less-than-advantageous agreements with suppliers at startup in order to produce a car.

I am encouraged by the steps Lucid has taken, and I think they will get this right eventually. I feel badly that so many Lucid leaseholders had to get steamrolled before action was taken.

If I were a C-suite Lucid exec, I would be reaching out to each of these early lease holders to make things right. Hell these were the people that took a huge risk buying a Lucid early on. Without them, Lucid wouldn't be around right now. Just my 2 cents. What would it cost Lucid to reimburse the guys who got screwed? $100,000? $200,000? That's peanuts compared to what is at stake here. And wouldn't that be a fantastic message to the Lucid base and the marketplace?

I haven’t seen Lucid take any meaningful action beyond making JoshG “financially whole.” Meanwhile, I’m still being charged $685 for a so-called “dirt in paint” issue the size of a pinprick, plus other questionable fees ($5,800 in total). Let’s be honest—Lucid isn’t taking this seriously. I would bet they never actually reviewed anything:

“Lucid has reviewed your lease end inspection and has determined that each of the charges in question were verified by the AutoVin vehicle inspection company. Based upon these inspection findings Lucid is not able to support revising your lease end bill. Thank you for being a customer of Lucid.”

You can check my earlier post for photos which have been used in the media articles we've seen so far.

Look, I used to be a fanboy like many here. I ordered early, invested in the company before the SPAC merger, joined this forum in my excitement. I know most commenters just want the best outcome for everyone. But for those of us actually going through this? We’re not getting anything close to a reasonable or empathetic response. Even Marqie’s efforts—while well-intentioned—have been essentially meaningless.

Hopefully by the time others return their leases, this mess will be resolved. But real people are being affected NOW, and it’s disheartening to see how dismissive some in this community are, simply because it doesn’t affect you… Yet.

 

[BenTexas]

I think @JoshG has lost my support. He got what he wanted and is for some reason still freaking out. I can’t support something that no company would give him. Lucid is working and actively making decisive actions and putting pressure on their financial partner. What apology is he owed? Josh’s credit rating, if at all affected (which I don’t believe it will be) can be corrected through the normal dispute process which is in favor of debtors.

Every Lucid bill I get comes with a warning "This is an attempt to collect a debt" which I think is a requirement for FDCPA. Even tho I am paying as agreed. (https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#:~:text=It is the purpose of,consumers against debt collection abuses.)

So in my opinion him freaking out over his bill saying "COLLECTIONS AGENCY" "COLLECT A DEBT" is SERIOUSLY overblown. I wonder if anyone else with a lease bill could maybe redact their personal information to compare to my loan bill.

(Note this is a Loan bill, not a lease. YMMV)
View attachment 31440
Google seems to think this is also "Par for the Course"
View attachment 31441
Lucid in my opinion has done an upstanding job and is still only less than a month into this issue. I'm concerned of the media coverage this thread is getting with Josh flying off the handle for not getting a diamond crusted apology. It's $200 dollars you did not have to pay. Get over it.

What evidence do you have besides statements they have made and JoshG's charge reversal to suggest Lucid has done an "upstanding job"? That's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely am curious.

 

[Rogue]

A few personal anecdotes to perhaps calm the water. I have for better or worse been amongst the front runners for a few issues relating to the car, accessories, and loaners.

We had a loaner GT-P (well-documented on this forum by now) for ~2 months and at least 15k miles. Driving on Tennessee interstates caused two bubbled tires and two dented rims on the loaner revealed once deep in the mountains of West Virginia near Snowshoe. Lucid graciously met me on the border in Virginia in a grocery store parking lot given GPS doesn't often work to reach the cabin. They replaced all four wheels and tires there at no cost despite having every right to forward us the $2k bill + labor + travel costs. Loaners by default now come with the 19" tires and rims due to that issue plus other's having the same outcome.

On another loaner, we installed crossbars with little luck due to movement once installed despite torquing to spec (poor design of the crossbars that hasn't been fixed as far as I know). Several calls, video calls, and photos later the advise was to clear out the installation piece and tighten further. Long story short the cleaning screw got over torqued and disconnected the female end with the mounting piece. To fix, the entire glass roof has to come off plus the silver trim on the top in an extensive tear down. Again, Lucid handled it at no cost to us, very graciously, despite every right to forward us a hefty bill in the thousands. I believe the mounting point design has been changed and may account for the crossbar movement though I have not seen a new model to confirm due to these catastrophic incidents (plus 2-3 owners cracking glass roofs).

Loaners provided for events for owners flying in so that they can enjoy the rally as a driver in a Lucid vs. passengers in someone else's car. Photo ops with the Sapphire in iconic locations. Allowing people to get into the Sapphire to experience it firsthand (no test drives, but still). Warranty issues addressed with loaners, pickup, and drop-off of the car. Removal of pesky 21" wheel covers at no charge + disposal after being unable to get them off myself (also redesigned for easier on and off).

Lucid has always been gracious and accommodating. They make every effort that they can, even in cases where they don't have to. Solutions may come slower than folks may like, but I have rarely seen issues go unaddressed in the long term.

Patience is key in these cases. Working with "partners" can be especially difficult and require significant time and effort to reach a resolution. Not all partners in business act in a manner for win-win scenarios but rather a zero sum game that someone must lose for someone to win.

 

[californiaboy935]

The FDCPA is the fair credit reporting act passed during the 1970s because of abusive debt collector practices. It does NOT apply to debts owed to the creditor:

"With limited exceptions, the FDCPA applies only to entities that qualify as "debt collectors." The statute's definition of "debt collector" is intricate and excludes various entities from its scope. For example, a creditor seeking to collect debts on its own behalf and under its own name ordinarily does not qualify as a "debt collector.""

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11247

So if the bill includes that practice it should not be doing so! We have many users here who used to have leases with other car companies (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc.). It would be interesting to know if they included such language in their monthly statements. I have never leased a car but I did briefly finance a BMW (to get a $4K credit) and the invoices did NOT include any such language.

As far as I know, it is industry practice in the luxury car business to waive the termination fee if the lessee leases a replacement from the same company. That is what Josh G did. As he reported, the waiver had nothing to do with the wear and tear issue.

That bill is for the financing of my vehicle. I invite someone with a current lease with BofA to post theirs.

My only thought (without further evidence from someone else’s bill) is because Bank of America itself originated the loan, but is collecting it under the Lucid Financial Services name they may do this for liability reasons.

I also may be “industry practice” to remove the fee if a customer is buying another car when the manufacturer is the financial service partner. But in this case BofA has acted in their own interest. And isn’t servicing the end of lease process itself. From the limited data we have in this thread.

IMO BofA is looking to get as much money as possible at the end of these leases, and rolling the dice with Lucid’s name/brand because it doesn’t need to worry about continued brand cooperation.

I’d be interested to see if someone else has a loan statement and can confirm my data point. (@Jstaal confirmed that at least verbally this is the case) That’s a pretty old statement and every one from LFS has had that language on it. lol.

 

[suchluke]

IMO BofA is looking to get as much money as possible at the end of these leases, and rolling the dice with Lucid’s name/brand because it doesn’t need to worry about continued brand cooperation.

This ^^^^.
I posted about this before. BofA under LFS owns the car. After the lease return they need to "refurbish" it and sell it at the auction. Considering how much the value of these cars depreciated BofA is trying really hard to minimize their loss at the cost of Lucid brand name.

 

[californiaboy935]

A few personal anecdotes to perhaps calm the water. I have for better or worse been amongst the front runners for a few issues relating to the car, accessories, and loaners.

We had a loaner GT-P (well-documented on this forum by now) for ~2 months and at least 15k miles. Driving on Tennessee interstates caused two bubbled tires and two dented rims on the loaner revealed once deep in the mountains of West Virginia near Snowshoe. Lucid graciously met me on the border in Virginia in a grocery store parking lot given GPS doesn't often work to reach the cabin. They replaced all four wheels and tires there at no cost despite having every right to forward us the $2k bill + labor + travel costs. Loaners by default now come with the 19" tires and rims due to that issue plus other's having the same outcome.

On another loaner, we installed crossbars with little luck due to movement once installed despite torquing to spec (poor design of the crossbars that hasn't been fixed as far as I know). Several calls, video calls, and photos later the advise was to clear out the installation piece and tighten further. Long story short the cleaning screw got over torqued and disconnected the female end with the mounting piece. To fix, the entire glass roof has to come off plus the silver trim on the top in an extensive tear down. Again, Lucid handled it at no cost to us, very graciously, despite every right to forward us a hefty bill in the thousands. I believe the mounting point design has been changed and may account for the crossbar movement though I have not seen a new model to confirm due to these catastrophic incidents (plus 2-3 owners cracking glass roofs).

Loaners provided for events for owners flying in so that they can enjoy the rally as a driver in a Lucid vs. passengers in someone else's car. Photo ops with the Sapphire in iconic locations. Allowing people to get into the Sapphire to experience it firsthand (no test drives, but still). Warranty issues addressed with loaners, pickup, and drop-off of the car. Removal of pesky 21" wheel covers at no charge + disposal after being unable to get them off myself (also redesigned for easier on and off).

Lucid has always been gracious and accommodating. They make every effort that they can, even in cases where they don't have to. Solutions may come slower than folks may like, but I have rarely seen issues go unaddressed in the long term.

Patience is key in these cases. Working with "partners" can be especially difficult and require significant time and effort to reach a resolution. Not all partners in business act in a manner for win-win scenarios but rather a zero sum game that someone must lose for someone to win.

This has been my experience. Lucid has always been the epitome of class and works to rectify issues they could wring their hands with.

Patience is the key in any reliance relationship. Lucid’s banking “partner” needs to play ball. And, for all this thread knows, could be working to a solution in a constructive way. If not then I’m sure we’ll see guidance otherwise. I doubt Lucid will take the heat silently if negotiations truly go south.

To quote @borski post: ”Rome wasn’t built in a day”

 

[californiaboy935]

What evidence do you have besides statements they have made and JoshG's charge reversal to suggest Lucid has done an "upstanding job"? That's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely am curious.

Refunding @JoshG from a stance that the charge was correct originally suggests that the relevant teams are working in the background. First steps, I’m not saying this is a RESOLVED thread.

But my original post was to disagree with the sky is falling rhetoric and ensuing panic portrayed by Josh because the phraseology in an email was not to his liking.

 

[illopp00]

Wow, didn't expect it to go global.

But I agree, doxing BOA or addressing it head on with some sort of updated process; instead of just letting silence make the situation spiral is probably a way to go.

 

[BenTexas]

Refunding @JoshG from a stance that the charge was correct originally suggests that the relevant teams are working in the background. First steps, I’m not saying this is a RESOLVED thread.

But my original post was to disagree with the sky is falling rhetoric and ensuing panic portrayed by Josh because the phraseology in an email was not to his liking.

I agree with you. The sky isn't falling. My personal feeling is that a team has evaluated the potential financial damage to Lucid and determined it hasn't risen to the point of additional action. Some noise will be made. Some people will move on from the brand. Others will stay. But I would firmly disagree that Lucid has done an upstanding job. The ownership experience was good. About the same as my Model S before that and my Giulia QV before that.

I just got an emailed loyalty offer to lease another Air for $529/m. Why would I do that at the risk of a nearly $6k surprise bill at the end of the lease?

I think some folks here will change their tune when those lease termination invoice hit their mail boxes.

 

[tarator]

Refunding @JoshG from a stance that the charge was correct originally suggests that the relevant teams are working in the background. First steps, I’m not saying this is a RESOLVED thread.

But my original post was to disagree with the sky is falling rhetoric and ensuing panic portrayed by Josh because the phraseology in an email was not to his liking.

So how are the "working in the background" if BenTexas charge is not reversed? Wishful thinking?

 

[californiaboy935]

I haven’t seen Lucid take any meaningful action beyond making JoshG “financially whole.” Meanwhile, I’m still being charged $685 for a so-called “dirt in paint” issue the size of a pinprick, plus other questionable fees ($5,800 in total). Let’s be honest—Lucid isn’t taking this seriously. I would bet they never actually reviewed anything:

You can check my earlier post for photos which have been used in the media articles we've seen so far.

Look, I used to be a fanboy like many here. I ordered early, invested in the company before the SPAC merger, joined this forum in my excitement. I know most commenters just want the best outcome for everyone. But for those of us actually going through this? We’re not getting anything close to a reasonable or empathetic response. Even Marqie’s efforts—while well-intentioned—have been essentially meaningless.

Hopefully by the time others return their leases, this mess will be resolved. But real people are being affected NOW, and it’s disheartening to see how dismissive some in this community are, simply because it doesn’t affect you… Yet.

I hear your frustration, have the same frustration myself as an investor in Lucid, and I agree that getting dinged for a pin-prick of “dirt” is absurd but it isn’t true that Lucid has done nothing beyond making JoshG whole.

The fact that you’re seeing a $685 charge for a pin-point spot underscores who actually sets the baseline: Bank of America’s contract terms, and the AutoVin inspection company. Not Lucid Motors. Lucid doesn’t write or enforce those fine-print protocols. BofA owns your vehicle. Lucid inherits the problem from their financial partner. Yet they’ve lobbied BofA on behalf of @JoshG, securing fee reversal. You haven’t given enough time to find out if you might have the same done for you.

I don’t think anyone waited long enough to see Lucid’s advocacy in action, as @Rogue and other have said sometimes it takes a while but Lucid does look to rectify these problems. And I agree with this rhetoric whole heartedly.

 

[Leftlane]

I think this is very interesting - I got an email today from Lucid to browse their pre-owned vehicle inventory. When I clicked on the page, they explain the standards that are applied to their used vehicles. This is what is “allowable” on the car as offered from Lucid - so it would seem that many of these lease-end charges are not being used to repair or fix these issues, just pocketed and then the car is offered as is with the same small cosmetic blemishes that the lessee was charged to fix. Specifically - glass chips and wheel rash.

 

[kort6776]

That bill is for the financing of my vehicle. I invite someone with a current lease with BofA to post theirs.

My only thought (without further evidence from someone else’s bill) is because Bank of America itself originated the loan, but is collecting it under the Lucid Financial Services name they may do this for liability reasons.

I also may be “industry practice” to remove the fee if a customer is buying another car when the manufacturer is the financial service partner. But in this case BofA has acted in their own interest. And isn’t servicing the end of lease process itself. From the limited data we have in this thread.

IMO BofA is looking to get as much money as possible at the end of these leases, and rolling the dice with Lucid’s name/brand because it doesn’t need to worry about continued brand cooperation.

I’d be interested to see if someone else has a loan statement and can confirm my data point. (@Jstaal confirmed that at least verbally this is the case) That’s a pretty old statement and every one from LFS has had that language on it. lol.

financing is not leasing or the problems associated with lease returns.

 

[californiaboy935]

financing is not leasing or the problems associated with lease returns.

My comment was about the language of collecting a debt that was present in the communication received by @JoshG

Well aware I own my car and don’t lease it, lol.

 

[hillmb]

I hear your frustration, have the same frustration myself as an investor in Lucid, and I agree that getting dinged for a pin-prick of “dirt” is absurd but it isn’t true that Lucid has done nothing beyond making JoshG whole.

The fact that you’re seeing a $685 charge for a pin-point spot underscores who actually sets the baseline: Bank of America’s contract terms, and the AutoVin inspection company. Not Lucid Motors. Lucid doesn’t write or enforce those fine-print protocols. BofA owns your vehicle. Lucid inherits the problem from their financial partner. Yet they’ve lobbied BofA on behalf of @JoshG, securing fee reversal. You haven’t given enough time to find out if you might have the same done for you.

I don’t think anyone waited long enough to see Lucid’s advocacy in action, as @Rogue and other have said sometimes it takes a while but Lucid does look to rectify these problems. And I agree with this rhetoric whole heartedly.

My issue with absolving Lucid of any blame here and saying it's all on Bank of America and AutoVin is that Lucid Motors (not B of A or "Lucid Financial Services") publishes specific Vehicle Lease End information with specific "Lucid Excess Wear and Use Guidelines" right on their own site at lucidmotors.com:

Vehicle Lease End | Lucid Motors

Whether you want to purchase your current Lucid, lease or purchase a new one, or simply return your current vehicle, we’re here to help you understand all of your end of lease options so you can make an informed decision.

lucidmotors.com

The lease on my Air Pure AWD is ending in October, and these published guidelines (which all seem reasonable an in line with industry standards) are what I was going by prior to seeing all these bad experiences and insane excess wear charges affecting others in this thread.

Like others here, I think Lucid ought to do the right thing and ensure that lease returns get evaluated by their own advertised standards which were the only information any current owners would have had at the time when making the decision to lease a Lucid.

And going forward, they certainly need to modify what is published on their own website to reflect reality to remedy this whole mess for future lessees because what is currently posted is completely misrepresenting reality. I'd much rather see them lean on B of A or whatever banking partner they have in the future to adopt industry standards in line with the current guidelines, but if not, it would at least be honest to update this Excess Wear and Use Guidelines to say "Lessees must return vehicles in brand new showroom condition, identical to what was delivered, or be billed for all imperfections."

 

[jbawden]

Lucid, or at least this forum, sure attracts an interesting collections of humans. I can't recall such a concentration of adults that feel entitled to (and demand) personal apologies, immediate software updates, treat Lucid like their personal boutique auto maker and expect direct access to decision makers, and are so taken aback by standard corporate behavior.

 

[marsarbu]

Lucid, or at least this forum, sure attracts an interesting collections of humans. I can't recall such a concentration of adults that feel entitled to (and demand) personal apologies, immediate software updates, treat Lucid like their personal boutique auto maker and expect direct access to decision makers, and are so taken aback by standard corporate behavior.

They are called luxury buyers. When you're paying $2k / month, you want accountability.

 

[BenTexas]

Lucid, or at least this forum, sure attracts an interesting collections of humans. I can't recall such a concentration of adults that feel entitled to (and demand) personal apologies, immediate software updates, treat Lucid like their personal boutique auto maker and expect direct access to decision makers, and are so taken aback by standard corporate behavior.

The condescension is just simply wow!
You do realize you’re talking about real people with real issues, right? People aren’t asking for ‘personal apologies’—they’re expecting fair treatment and transparency from a company they trusted with a high-end purchase. Calling legitimate complaints ‘entitled’ is a lazy way to dismiss concerns that you personally don’t share. If your experience has been perfect, great—just don’t use it as a weapon to belittle others who haven’t been as fortunate.

 

[HC_79]

That bill is for the financing of my vehicle. I invite someone with a current lease with BofA to post theirs.

My only thought (without further evidence from someone else’s bill) is because Bank of America itself originated the loan, but is collecting it under the Lucid Financial Services name they may do this for liability reasons.

I also may be “industry practice” to remove the fee if a customer is buying another car when the manufacturer is the financial service partner. But in this case BofA has acted in their own interest. And isn’t servicing the end of lease process itself. From the limited data we have in this thread.

IMO BofA is looking to get as much money as possible at the end of these leases, and rolling the dice with Lucid’s name/brand because it doesn’t need to worry about continued brand cooperation.

I’d be interested to see if someone else has a loan statement and can confirm my data point. (@Jstaal confirmed that at least verbally this is the case) That’s a pretty old statement and every one from LFS has had that language on it. lol.