Lease return excess wear & tear

[WildRide47]

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.

Since BOFA owns the car and not Lucid, then why does Lucid even have guidelines about returning a car for lease especially if they don't conform with BOFA's guidelines?

 

[HC_79]

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.

It's certainly not the message coming from most people who are simply frustrated but some poster(s) have wanted a personal apology and have come across somewhat entitled. You just need to see how off the rails the 2.8.0 OTA thread went with people demanding answers from Lucid when the OTA came a few days after the intended date.

The response from @marqie that they're looking into it regarding the leasing is enough for me to now leave it alone not continue to pile on. This isn't going to be a 5 min fix and yes, it will be a bumpy road for those with leases ending in the months ahead.

 

[californiaboy935]

View attachment 31470

Weird idk

 

[borski]

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 don’t think anyone is being dismissive. We all very much want this resolved. Our issue is with personal insults being hurled, or private information being posted.

Nobody thinks this is “good,” Lucid included.

 

[borski]

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

Not all luxury buyers feel an outsized sense of entitlement.

 

[borski]

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.

I agree with you, and I think we can find common ground re: the issue. It’s clearly a real issue, and a legitimate complaint.

I am not them, but I strongly suspect that comment was not lodged at you, as I haven’t seen you act entitled on this thread at all.

It’s the impatience, desire for a personal apology, and a few of the other threads these last few days that have given that impression.

I could be wrong, but I didn’t see it as a personal attack on you.

 

[L-Dude]

The response from @marqie that they're looking into it regarding the leasing is enough for me to now leave it alone not continue to pile on.

This

 

[larrycpa]

Not all luxury buyers feel an outsized sense of entitlement.

Some feel a sense of gratitude that they can be luxury buyers.

 

[Impatient7536]

do some of you really expect lucid and BoA to come to newly revised renegotiated lease return terms and agreement in just 3 months? just because you dont see anything happening doesn't mean things aren't progressing in the background.

for example, bilt and wells fargo's partnership agreement (started march 2022, ending 2029) was rumored in June 2024 to be losing WF over $10m per month. WF wanted out, so they negotiated and announced a breakup in July 2025, which is expected to go into effect 2026.

if it took an established player like WF at least a year to work out the breakup details with a "nobody," how long do you think a renegotiated lease return agreement would take between lucid and BoA given the uneven playing field.

 

[borski]

do some of you really expect lucid and BoA to come to newly revised renegotiated lease return terms and agreement in just 3 months? just because you dont see anything happening doesn't mean things aren't progressing in the background.

for example, bilt and wells fargo's partnership agreement (started march 2022, ending 2029) was rumored in June 2024 to be losing WF over $10m per month. WF wanted out, so they negotiated and announced a breakup in July 2025, which is expected to go into effect 2026.

if it took an established player like WF at least a year to work out the breakup details with a "nobody," how long do you think a renegotiated lease return agreement would take between lucid and BoA given the uneven playing field.

You should change your username.

 

[Steveinarizona]

do some of you really expect lucid and BoA to come to newly revised renegotiated lease return terms and agreement in just 3 months? just because you dont see anything happening doesn't mean things aren't progressing in the background.

for example, bilt and wells fargo's partnership agreement (started march 2022, ending 2029) was rumored in June 2024 to be losing WF over $10m per month. WF wanted out, so they negotiated and announced a breakup in July 2025, which is expected to go into effect 2026.

if it took an established player like WF at least a year to work out the breakup details with a "nobody," how long do you think a renegotiated lease return agreement would take between lucid and BoA given the uneven playing field.

It is a fact that B of A left the consumer leasing business almost 25 years ago so its arrangement with Lucid is a restart after a long hiatus. So we have essentially a new car company (Lucid) negotiating leasing terms for consumers with a bank that hasn't done that for almost 25 years. It is a recipe for disaster and that has apparently happened. Impatient 7536 is IMO correct that it will take a while for terms to be renegotiated and that is especially true when both parties are inexperienced in the field.

But Lucid could do more than it has. It could put out a statement that there appears to be a difference between what Lucid has said about lease returns and what B of A is doing on the same topic and Lucid will stand by what it has said on its website and it will make such Lucid lessees whole if their returns were in accord with the Lucid announced standards but to give it some time to work out the details with the bank. A statement like that would have ended threads like this one.

 

[californiaboy935]

do some of you really expect lucid and BoA to come to newly revised renegotiated lease return terms and agreement in just 3 months? just because you dont see anything happening doesn't mean things aren't progressing in the background.

for example, bilt and wells fargo's partnership agreement (started march 2022, ending 2029) was rumored in June 2024 to be losing WF over $10m per month. WF wanted out, so they negotiated and announced a breakup in July 2025, which is expected to go into effect 2026.

if it took an established player like WF at least a year to work out the breakup details with a "nobody," how long do you think a renegotiated lease return agreement would take between lucid and BoA given the uneven playing field.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[californiaboy935]

You should change your username.

 

[californiaboy935]

It is a fact that B of A left the consumer leasing business almost 25 years ago so its arrangement with Lucid is a restart after a long hiatus. So we have essentially a new car company (Lucid) negotiating leasing terms for consumers with a bank that hasn't done that for almost 25 years. It is a recipe for disaster and that has apparently happened. Impatient 7536 is IMO correct that it will take a while for terms to be renegotiated and that is especially true when both parties are inexperienced in the field.

But Lucid could do more than it has. It could put out a statement that there appears to be a difference between what Lucid has said about lease returns and what B of A is doing on the same topic and Lucid will stand by what it has said on its website and it will make such Lucid lessees whole if their returns were in accord with the Lucid announced standards but to give it some time to work out the details with the bank. A statement like that would have ended threads like this one.

I agree with the first paragraph but not with the second.

I don’t think Lucid could do this without stepping on some serious toes with BofA, and disincentivize BofA to take the loss on their end. Of they say “we’ll make everyone whole” without getting in writing agreement that BofA will be following suit then they would absorb that loss.

 

[marsarbu]

Not all luxury buyers feel an outsized sense of entitlement.

Seems like you've done your research. I rest my case.

 

[californiaboy935]

I agree with you, and I think we can find common ground re: the issue. It’s clearly a real issue, and a legitimate complaint.

I am not them, but I strongly suspect that comment was not lodged at you, as I haven’t seen you act entitled on this thread at all.

It’s the impatience, desire for a personal apology, and a few of the other threads these last few days that have given that impression.

I could be wrong, but I didn’t see it as a personal attack on you.

Yep, not a personal attack.

 

[californiaboy935]

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

Yes… the cost of a studio apartment in LA. Let’s roll out the rouge carpet.

 

[BenTexas]

This

I won't post any of their comments or emails but I'll give you my experience with Marqie and "We're looking into it".

Marqie sent me a DM and took some information. Then an email saying they'll get back to me. After a week or so, A Lucid rep sent an email saying they've concluded their review and see nothing wrong with BofA's evaluation of my car and that no relief will be provided. Then thanked me for being a Lucid customer.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I don't think anyone can say for sure.

Lucid is basically saying "trust us we'll fix it". If you don't have a case in front of them, your appetite for trust is likely stronger than if you're in my situation.

 

[fisheral]

I won't post any of their comments or emails but I'll give you my experience with Marqie and "We're looking into it".

Marqie sent me a DM and took some information. Then an email saying they'll get back to me. After a week or so, A Lucid rep sent an email saying they've concluded their review and see nothing wrong with BofA's evaluation of my car and that no relief will be provided. Then thanked me for being a Lucid customer.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I don't think anyone can say for sure.

Lucid is basically saying "trust us we'll fix it". If you don't have a case in front of them, your appetite for trust is likely stronger than if you're in my situation.

This is such BS on their part.

 

[Leftlane]

I agree with the first paragraph but not with the second.

I don’t think Lucid could do this without stepping on some serious toes with BofA, and disincentivize BofA to take the loss on their end. Of they say “we’ll make everyone whole” without getting in writing agreement that BofA will be following suit then they would absorb that loss.

Should Lucid step on BofA toes, or their own customers’ toes? Depends on who you want to keep happy, BofA or your paying customers? No reason to say they’ll make everyone whole, just that they will hold the inspection service and any associated fees to the standards spelled out by Lucid and will rectify any disconnects. That’s it. If your car meets the requirements spelled out on the lease doc as presented by Lucid, then there is no room for extra interpretation and charges by BofA or AutoVIN - pretty simple really.