Lease Turn in - Excessive Wear and Tear... ?

[Drew46]

Wo

Wouldn’t visor be covered under warranty?

Chips are normal wear, you shouldn’t be charged for that.

This. If the visor light doesn't work, that should be covered by the warranty. Still true if its just the batteries are dead.

 

[californiaboy935]

This. If the visor light doesn't work, that should be covered by the warranty. Still true if it’s just the batteries are dead.

I think if we look at the actual charges he’s getting charged for vs. the problems identified we can see OP’s only being charged for physical damage to wheels and low tread. I don’t think this is Lucid’s fault at all.

The other problems identified in the report are for Lucid’s “resale” dept. to deal with. And likely shouldn’t even been included in a lease end report for a lease turn in consumer who isn’t buying the vehicle.

I think it’s a big stretch (in fact not based in truth at all) to say lucid has been deceptive. The only charges OP is being charged for are the tire marks, now if that’s not a charge Lucid says it’s going to charge for (like OP and @borski ‘s comment suggested) then I agree.

I do disagree with OP that “it’s plastic” so it’s automatically cheap. To highlight this you can see that just the bear logos for the Gravity are ~$200.

 

[liggy]

As a shareholder and potential lessee I am finding this thread to be pretty scary.

I have a vested interest in the company doing well but the OP’s windshield charge seems totally egregious to me.

Hiring 3rd party extortionists to trump up lease return charges is not the way.

 

[californiaboy935]

As a shareholder and potential lessee I am finding this thread to be pretty scary.

I have a vested interest in the company doing well but the OP’s windshield charge seems totally egregious to me.

Hiring 3rd party extortionists to trump up lease return charges is not the way.

What windshield charge? Unless I’m missing something the itemized list here is all he is being charged for:

 

[liggy]

What windshield charge? Unless I’m missing something the itemized list here is all he is being charged for:

View attachment 30356

From post #5

Come to think of it that visor charge seems like something that the warranty should cover.

 

[liggy]

@californiaboy935

And to answer your question- yes you are indeed missing something. You're conflating the OP's charge with a completely different lease return. The report in your post is not from the OP.

Unsure why you're so determined to defend these charges as continuing down this path will turn away potential customers.

 

[dapellegrini]

Thanks @liggy - you are right, that is not my lease return. Mine was for 3x <.1" marks on the (very) large windshield, and a mystery problem with the passenger sun visor.

Still nothing back from Lucid. I suppose I will call back again in a week. Seeing that emailing the CEO just gets more pushback, I suppose the next step is to pay their bill. It's not an issue of being able to afford it, it's just the principle of it. I would not lease another Lucid without guarantees in writing that this kind of lease turn in was not waiting for me again.

 

[liggy]

Thanks @liggy - you are right, that is not my lease return. Mine was for 3x <.1" marks on the (very) large windshield, and a mystery problem with the passenger sun visor.

Still nothing back from Lucid. I suppose I will call back again in a week. Seeing that emailing the CEO just gets more pushback, I suppose the next step is to pay their bill. It's not an issue of being able to afford it, it's just the principle of it. I would not lease another Lucid without guarantees in writing that this kind of lease turn in was not waiting for me again.

Not gonna lie - this is very disheartening to read. I really hope they eventually take better care of you and realize the penny wise but pound foolish approach here is going to cost them goodwill and business down the line.

 

[californiaboy935]

@californiaboy935

And to answer your question- yes you are indeed missing something. You're conflating the OP's charge with a completely different lease return. The report in your post is not from the OP.

Unsure why you're so determined to defend these charges as continuing down this path will turn away potential customers.

Pardon the confusion @onexcite posted the same message in two threads, so I think my confusion is warranted.

Not sure how me arguing that the sky is not falling will turn away potential customers. Differing views are what make the world interesting. If we all agreed what a boring world it would be.

 

[liggy]

Pardon the confusion @onexcite posted the same message in two threads, so I think my confusion is warranted.

Not sure how me arguing that the sky is not falling will turn away potential customers. Differing views are what make the world interesting. If we all agreed what a boring world it would be.

Your confusion was understandable. Warranted? That's a matter of opinion.

And defending this practice is not in the best long term interest of those of us that want Lucid to thrive. There is direct evidence of it having cost a few leases right in the lease return threads.

 

[californiaboy935]

Your confusion was understandable. Warranted? That's a matter of opinion.

And defending this practice is not in the best long term interest of those of us that want Lucid to thrive. There is direct evidence of it having cost a few leases right in the lease return threads.

To lend you some contexts as to why I’m defending Lucid, here is a Tesla lease return invoice of a friends model 3.

See if you can identify in the photos what you see reflected in the bill. I can’t, and neither could he. No discount was offered and he had to pay. Tesla seems to be doing fine.

Additionally, it seems like getting an invoice weeks or months later is also standard “EV” practice.

Seems like Lucid’s inspection is a lot nicer and actually shows the person what they identified versus a line item. He also said a debt collection agency was who he worked with when disputing and not Tesla, so maybe it seems less involved if Lucid just took their name off the financial services side of BofA.

Pic:

 

[Pragmatic]

Just because someone else does it does not make it right.

Also just because one company does it does not mean it's industry practice.

 

[L-Dude]

Has anyone asked Lucid for a complete documentation of what constitutes normal wear and tear? I have been through the current info on the website regarding wear and tear, and it seems like many of the things (ex)customers are being charged for are within what should be considered normal wear and tear.

This is a helpful thread, because it shapes my strategy for turning in my car at lease end (in three years!).

 

[californiaboy935]

Just because someone else does it does not make it right.

Also just because one company does it does not mean it's industry practice.

 

[liggy]

To lend you some contexts as to why I’m defending Lucid, here is a Tesla lease return invoice of a friends model 3.
View attachment 30362
See if you can identify in the photos what you see reflected in the bill. I can’t, and neither could he. No discount was offered and he had to pay. Tesla seems to be doing fine.

Additionally, it seems like getting an invoice weeks or months later is also standard “EV” practice.
View attachment 30361
Seems like Lucid’s inspection is a lot nicer and actually shows the person what they identified versus a line item. He also said a debt collection agency was who he worked with when disputing and not Tesla, so maybe it seems less involved if Lucid just took their name off the financial services side of BofA.

Pic:
View attachment 30364
View attachment 30365

So your defense of charging a paying customer $1450 for some fly spec defects in a windshield is that Edolf is doing it and getting results like this?

Okay!