What's new
By:

Lease return excess wear & tear

gaskiller said:
Mmm…depends on how much damage you have on the skid plate.

The way I look at it, if it reduces the resale value, it’s game. Why should those who lease be given a free ride for the damage they caused?
Click to expand...
Doesn't that mean any wear and tear, since all wear and tear reduces value?
 
Steveinarizona said:
Lucid definitely stepped in it on this one. The traditional luxury car companies all own their own financial services companies (BMW, Mercedes, Audi) so they can and do control these type of alleged costs. As part of its bankruptcy General Motors sold its financial subsidiary in what i snow called Ally Bank. But after a few years of using its former subsidiary, GM started its own financial arm.

I understand why Lucid, as a new company with limited financial resources, decided to use a third party. Unfortunately, it has not turned out well.
Click to expand...
Actually, they were a new company with practically unlimited financial resources. They could have easily set up an in-house finance/leasing arm but chose to partner with BofA instead. The positive for Lucid - they are not getting stuck with vehicles coming off lease that are worth way less than the residuals. The negative - BofA is wrecking Lucid’s relationship with their existing lease customers and damaging their reputation and sales. The whole process is jacked with the way it is being handled and is super easy to fix today, but they aren’t doing it. Pre and post turn in inspections are crazy and a waste of customers time. Schedule a turn in, have the inspection done at that appointment, and the process is complete.
 
BobFM said:
As @borski noted and as my SA has mentioned to me, they are highly focused on this. Not saying it's perfect yet but it's clearly a focus. I would say for those that are looking at the Gravity versus the Air for leasing, the Air is meaningfully lower to the ground which causes the skid plate scraping frequently mentioned. Shouldn't really be an issue for the Gravity. But as always, there are plenty of choices in the market and people can pick and choose whichever car they want. I will say though, after getting back from having to use a rental, I can't really imagine driving another vehicle.
Click to expand...
Yep, I just drove my Lucid Air after a week , I don’t take it out in the rain. Man, did I miss it badly. Just a phenomenal car, and Gravity was fantastic when I drove it.

Depriving yourself of these vehicles because lease return “ may “ be a problem is very foolish.

I’ll continue to enjoy my ride!
 
Looks like the saga continues, unfortunately (not my car).

https://www.reddit.com/r/LUCID/comments/1oelrbc/lease_end_inspection_7600_estimated

$4900 for a working rear signal lamp with at most a barely visible hairline fracture. $2400 for a brand new front bumper with some small chips. WTF. Get this under control, Lucid.

1761271946533.webp

1761272043898.webp
 
This is now a runaway train, Lucid is going to feel the long-term pain on this. It reminds me of the Hertz AI rental car return inspection bills that people are getting. I'm 20 months from my lease return and hoping things are sorted by then, but what is the next surprise tax waiting down the road? Not the kind of experience I tend to sign up for.
 
fisheral said:
Looks like the saga continues, unfortunately (not my car).

https://www.reddit.com/r/LUCID/comments/1oelrbc/lease_end_inspection_7600_estimated

$4900 for a working rear signal lamp with at most a barely visible hairline fracture. $2400 for a brand new front bumper with some small chips. WTF. Get this under control, Lucid.

View attachment 33713
View attachment 33714
Click to expand...
Idk that tail light does look like it’s been wrecked. I’m not sure I fault them too much on that particular one.
 
fisheral said:
4900 for a working rear signal lamp with at most a barely visible hairline fracture.
Click to expand...
Hairline or not doesn’t matter. If the housing is cracked it’s ruined. I think it needs replaced too. I do want to see some evidence that it’s actually $5000 tho.

Lucid runs the risk of having to eat legitimate repair costs (like this tail light) to try to save face after screwing people on the glass pits and under trays, but I also think people will try and take advantage of it. That tail light is absolutely broken and it’s from an impact.
 
If it needs to be replaced, there is zero chance that costs $4500 - zero.
 
Leftlane said:
If it needs to be replaced, there is zero chance that costs $4500 - zero.
Click to expand...
You must understand the labor and documentation charges for BOA, that doesn’t come free. Maybe they add 25%?

Any damage is a justified cost. Just because you leased a car doesn’t mean you don’t pay for damage.
 
And to give an additional perspective, Bank of America investments has a $10 price target on Lucid….maybe they are deliberately trying to give Lucid a bad name? Makes you think!

Lucid should dump BOA asap
 
socktucker said:
Hairline or not doesn’t matter. If the housing is cracked it’s ruined. I think it needs replaced too. I do want to see some evidence that it’s actually $5000 tho.

Lucid runs the risk of having to eat legitimate repair costs (like this tail light) to try to save face after screwing people on the glass pits and under trays, but I also think people will try and take advantage of it. That tail light is absolutely broken and it’s from an impact.
Click to expand...
Am curious if this popped up in the pre-inspection report. If so, it's something that should get fixed at (likely) a meaningfully lower cost.
 
There are over 20 people in that single reddit post who say they were considering leasing a Lucid but took it out of consideration after seeing this whole leasing debacle. That's in a single post!

Lucid really needs to get out ahead of this proactively. Things like:

(1) cover the difference between the actual cost of replacement parts/labor vs. whatever cracked out method BoA is using to determine costs;

(2) cover anything that does not match the industry standard wear and tear policies of other luxury makers; and

The money they lose on proactively making it right for existing lessees will be peanuts compared to what they lose in brand reputation and potential customers if this drags on. Every single reddit post about this has dozens outright stating they will no longer consider Lucid and God knows how many others that didn't feel the need to post a comment.
 
One option that I think should be considered by Lucid is an Excess Wear and Tear payment upfront, which many automakers offer that covers up to $10k (or similar) in return charges. I know we've done that with Mercedes as well as GM. @marqie
 
BobFM said:
One option that I think should be considered by Lucid is an Excess Wear and Tear payment upfront, which many automakers offer that covers up to $10k (or similar) in return charges. I know we've done that with Mercedes as well as GM. @marqie
Click to expand...
Good idea!
 
fisheral said:
There are over 20 people in that single reddit post who say they were considering leasing a Lucid but took it out of consideration after seeing this whole leasing debacle. That's in a single post!

Lucid really needs to get out ahead of this proactively. Things like:

(1) cover the difference between the actual cost of replacement parts/labor vs. whatever cracked out method BoA is using to determine costs;

(2) cover anything that does not match the industry standard wear and tear policies of other luxury makers; and

The money they lose on proactively making it right for existing lessees will be peanuts compared to what they lose in brand reputation and potential customers if this drags on. Every single reddit post about this has dozens outright stating they will no longer consider Lucid and God knows how many others that didn't feel the need to post a comment.
Click to expand...
I agree that Lucid needs to sort this out BUT I suspect that some of the Reddit posters were never really going to lease a Lucid. It is easy for someone who reads something negative about a product, and the reader agrees with the negative comment, to chime in and jump on the bandwagon.
 
"(2) cover anything that does not match the industry standard wear and tear policies of other luxury makers"

This is key IMO. I suspect many new and potential Lucid owners come with prior experience leasing luxury cars (like me). My firm leased luxury sedans for 15 years, and we did not ever get charged for excessive wear and tear. I never even thought about it.

Lucid cars surpass "industry standards" in so many ways; the lease return process has to at least be on par with industry standards and customer expectations.
 
I don’t think they’re going to do anything more than they already have, which was basically nothing. Their actions show that they are okay with this, unless you publicly shame them.

What an odd choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top