Lucid Lease Customers Facing Four-Digit Charges for Invisible Scuffs | Carscoops

      Customers are reporting significant bills for wear and tear, and Lucid acknowledges there is an issue.

      Some lessees of Lucid are facing charges in the thousands for nearly undetectable damage at lease returns.

      While pre-inspections helped some avoid fees, others were still charged for minor flaws.

      Lucid stated that inconsistencies in wear assessments are currently under investigation and evaluation.

      Establishing an electric vehicle company from scratch is a challenging endeavor. Many startups fail before producing even one car. Lucid is one of the few that has succeeded in scaling production and delivering vehicles to customers. However, manufacturing cars is merely part of the overall business model.

      Automakers also need to manage less glamorous aspects of their operations, such as lease agreements and the often complicated process of lease returns. Both customers and Lucid itself indicate that this area requires further improvement.

      Every automaker that deals with leases needs to determine its approach for handling excessive wear and tear when a leased vehicle is returned. Lucid deserves credit for publicly sharing its guidelines, which include common-sense rules like not returning the car with bald tires, cracked headlights, or damaged interior upholstery—practices that are standard across the industry.

      Customers Claim Charges Are Disproportionate to Vehicle Condition

      What is somewhat unusual is the experiences reported by some lessees upon returning their vehicles. On LucidOwners, several individuals describe receiving four-figure bills for "excessive wear and tear," which do not involve significant damage like broken mirrors or torn seats. One lessee reported a $5,800 charge despite the intake employee calling it “one of the cleanest lease returns she’d seen.”

      Breaking down that $5,800 bill reveals $1,200 for a small piece of plastic missing from the inner fender liner, $585 for a minor paint chip, and an additional $200 fee for light wear on the phone holder. It appears that similar issues are affecting multiple customers.

      The originator of one discussion reported a $1,825 bill for wear and tear, predominantly stemming from a $1,450 charge for a new windshield. Rather than having a significant crack or several sizable spider cracks, this windshield had three nearly invisible rock chips. Even more surprising was a $375 charge for “Left interior Qtr Trim Broken,” where the lessee noted that the alleged damage was difficult to identify, stating, “I honestly don’t even see what they are trying to show in the photos.”

      Others Voice Similar Concerns

      Customers on platforms like Reddit are expressing similar grievances. One individual mentioned a $4,300 charge for wear and tear, which included $650 for a charger that was reportedly given as a gift. Another lessee received a bill exceeding $1,500 but was able to have it waived after undergoing a completely clean pre-inspection three weeks prior to returning the vehicle.

      Lucid Indicates It’s Addressing the Situation

      It’s important to note that some of the cases discussed above still have ongoing disputes. There is a possibility that Lucid may reach an agreement that satisfies both parties.

      Indeed, it seems the automaker is keen to resolve these issues. Lucid told The Drive, “We are aware of some instances where our lease turn-in standards have not been interpreted consistently. We are collaborating with our banking partner to resolve disputes and sincerely apologize to those who have been inconvenienced.” They communicated a similar message to CarBuzz, and the automaker has reached out to some affected customers, indicating progress.

      Who Is Making the Decisions?

      Crucially, the banking partner involved is Bank of America, which oversees all servicing through a third party. When a lease is returned to Lucid, this third party assesses the car, Bank of America demands what it believes is owed, and Lucid, as the car manufacturer, communicates this to the customer.

      This process resembles a game of telephone with financially significant outcomes. Only time will determine whether Lucid can improve its processes or if more customers will view leasing from the brand as too risky.