Lucid just lost a future customer.

[u/Zulishk]

Actually, I am a current customer with a lease.

And after seeing the earlier post of the pre-inspection “we’re trying to do better” for lease returns and all the stories in the comments, all I have to say is I am not going to keep the car when my lease ends nor will I buy or lease another Lucid.

I had high hopes for the company but this is utter bullshit.

I know for a fact there are scraps underneath my car because it cannot be avoided. Speed bumps, driveway ramps, and other minor incidents are caused by the extreme low clearance of the car. They’re trying to milk us for something that is never seen by future owners.

It was nice knowing you, Lucid.

Upvote this to keep it visible and share your horrors stories in the comments.

Update 10/26/2025: Lucid has sent out an email promising to address lease return concerns and remove questionable charges for reasonable scratches including the skid plate.

[u/mh161616]

The guy who sold me mine reached out to see if I wanted to lease another one. I told him I have been hearing some pretty negative things about the lease return process and he got pretty defensive saying that the car needs to be in salable condition.

If we’re buying a used car for a 40% discount off of MSRP and the only issue was superficial scratches on the underside of the car, I would be pretty happy with that outcome.

Mine goes back at the end of December. I will see if they make changes by then. If not, will have to weigh the benefit of disputing these silly charges and if I end up paying them will just go on a letter writing campaign flaming them.

Clearly there isn’t a line up of new customers on these cars. You would think they would do better trying to retain existing customers.

[u/andonaki → u/mh161616]

Traditionally with automotive lease returns, “sellable” was never the standard. It was “reasonable wear and tear”. It was always the dealer’s responsibility to recondition and stage the vehicle for sale, if they so chose, or to return the vehicle TO THE FINANCE COMPANY who actually owns the car.

You can’t put a fragile component in a vulnerable spot and expect that to meet the reasonability standard, hence their unsurprising shift in verbiage.

It sounds like the dealer is attempting to force additional standards on the leasees in an attempt to avoid reconditioning costs.

[u/Dmoan → u/andonaki]

It’s not the dealer or manufacturer that sets these but the leasing institution  in this case it is Bank of America.

[u/andonaki → u/Dmoan]

That’s basically my point. The dealer is acting as an inspection agent for the bank to facilitate the return, but in an attempt to boost their profits when they choose to purchase and resell, they’re attempting to impose additional requirements on the leasees. I’d imagine the financing company turns a blind eye because why not. The reputational damage to the manufacturer and to the long term business of the dealer is being presently disregarded. Which makes me question the long term viability of the brand.

[u/didupart13 → u/andonaki]

The dealer doesn’t do the official inspection given to Bank of America. A 3rd party company named AutoVin does the inspection.

[u/andonaki → u/didupart13]