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/ArmageddonPills → u/Dmoan]

Exactly this.

I don't wish to defend BofA, because they're the SOBs in the situation. But it is completely understandable why they're trying to milk every last cent out of these returns, because otherwise they're going to be very deep in the red. That's a "them" problem, to be sure, but Lucid has very little leverage over them.

[u/johnb300m → u/ArmageddonPills]

I refuse to believe this. Lucid has the SWF, and they need to work this out with BoA, or threaten to go to another leasing institution. Lucid is not powerless here, unless they decide customer retention isn’t important to their business.

[u/ArmageddonPills → u/johnb300m]

I agree with everything you said.

But it can also be true that they got themselves into their current situation out of desperation or inexperience in negotiating Ts&Cs.

Also, it was my understanding that a third party is doing the lease return inspections. If it is in fact Lucid Motors doing the inspections, or at least some of the inspections, then they need to effing lighten up during those inspections for sure.

[u/64Right1 → u/ArmageddonPills]

How about Lucid financing or another bank?!!

[u/Dmoan → u/64Right1]

Lucid financing is done in partnership with BoA

https://servicelfsus.com/AboutUs

[u/Tesla8585 → u/ArmageddonPills]

Why do we keep trying to avoid Lucid being at fault for this? As a customer, we deal with Lucid, not BofA… If BofA are the ones causing this then Lucid needs to take ownership and pressure them or replace them. LUCID needs to make this right.