A day of service not enjoyed, and I was charged over 2000 yuan just for entering and exiting?

"Not a single class attended, arguing for over a year, and finally got back 1,000 yuan."

Three years ago, Shi Yunqing was learning to drive at Fuzhou Jin Hua Driving School Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Jinhua Driving School"). He paid 2,900 yuan for registration. Later, he applied for a refund due to studying elsewhere, but the driving school delayed repeatedly—"The attitude was good when registering, but they turned hostile when requesting a refund. The school even cited contract clauses, planning to keep all the money." A person in charge of Jinhua Driving School straightforwardly said: "No refunds if registration is over 2 years; this is the usual practice at Fuzhou driving schools."

Shi Yunqing’s experience is not unique. On People's Daily "Leader Message Board," students from Fujian, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shanghai, and other places shared common frustrations: the difficulty and high cost of refunds from driving schools have become a frustrating obstacle on their learning journey.

Phenomenon: "I Haven't Attended Any Training, Why Deduct 2,000 Yuan?"

"Not a single service received, yet they deduct over 2,000 yuan when I leave?" Xiamen resident Guo Weihao exclaimed, "I can't accept that."

Two years ago, Guo Weihao enrolled in Xiamen Zhong Song Automotive Service Co., Ltd., paying 3,080 yuan for driving training, but he never took a single lesson. Last year, he requested to terminate the contract, and the school replied: "You can only get back 980 yuan." After several negotiations, Guo Weihao finally received 1,100 yuan, with more than 60% of the fee deducted.

Photo shows Guo Weihao communicating with the driving school staff about the refund. According to the contract, since the student "has filed the documents at Xiamen Vehicle Management Office but has not taken the first test," termination requires paying a penalty of 2,000 yuan. Photo provided by interviewee.

"I am applying for enforcement to get the refund," student Hu Xiaomei told reporters. She paid three years ago but had no time for training. In July last year, she applied for a refund from Fuzhou Xiong Feng Driving Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Xiong Feng Driving School"), which refused citing "expired contract." In November of the same year, the court ordered the school to refund 1,340 yuan, but the money has not been received to this day. Mr. Zheng, the head of Xiong Feng Driving School, insisted: "Hu Xiaomei must first cancel her registration before she can get a refund, so her spot isn't occupied."

Hu Xiaomei’s court judgment document. Photo provided by interviewee.

Due to being transferred without consent after registration, student Song Mei from Hangzhou, Zhejiang, applied for a refund at the end of last year. The school cited the contract: "According to breach of contract clauses, only 1,000 yuan can be refunded." Even when local transportation authorities determined only 325 yuan could be deducted, the school remained firm.

Two students from Jiangsu faced even harsher deductions. Wu Li from Suzhou had only taken the "Subject One" test; when requesting a refund, the school said they would deduct 86%. Liu Yi from Nanjing was outright refused: "You signed a special offer, and the contract clearly states 'no refund.'"

Liu Yi’s driving training contract shows "special offer, no refund." Photo provided by interviewee.

Investigating Causes: Who Is Creating the "Refund Difficulties"?

The "passing the buck" and "delays" by driving schools are almost inevitable for students requesting refunds. The "confidence" of these schools may well be "hidden" in the contracts students initially signed.

The reporter reviewed more than ten driving training contracts and found a stark "contrast"—

Students face high "costs of dropping out." "The vehicle management office has filed the documents but the student hasn't taken the 'Subject One' exam," so they must pay a penalty of 2,000 yuan; if they've practiced but not taken 'Subject Two,' the penalty is 3,000 yuan. "If you withdraw after more than a year of registration, no refund at all." "Transferring to another school midway does not qualify for a refund; special offers are also non-refundable."

However, the "liability" of the driving schools for breach of contract is very light. Some contracts stipulate "deduct the incurred costs and pay a penalty of 15% of the training fee," while many do not specify any penalty at all.

Photos of three driving training contracts’ termination clauses. Photo provided by interviewee.

"Contracts are full of student responsibilities, while the driving schools' breach responsibilities are almost nonexistent." This was the main impression of Xie Ming, head of a county-level transportation department in Fujian, when handling complaints. Since driving training contracts are civil contracts, relevant departments can only mediate and cannot enforce, leading to "knowing the clauses are unfair, students can only suffer in silence."

"Many breach penalties in driving training contracts are clearly higher than the actual losses of the schools," said lawyer Wu Yajun from Wanshang Tianqin (Shenzhen) Law Firm. According to relevant interpretations of the Supreme Court regarding the Civil Code, if the penalty exceeds 30% of the actual loss, courts can deem it "excessive," and students have the right to request reduction.

"Hidden clauses" in contracts and "being ripped off" in refunds, along with some "vague language," have become excuses for driving schools to deduct money. Lawyer Fu Yongsheng, a member of the China Law Society, believes that driving schools use vague pricing, hidden charges, and increased student responsibilities to infringe on consumers' right to information and fair trade.

Xiamen student Chen Yingyue’s training contract shows that if the student cancels after registration but before training begins, 1,500 yuan will be deducted for exam fees and other costs. Photo provided by interviewee.

Additionally, "hanging" instructors is another reason for refund difficulties. A coach in Nanjing, Jiangsu, revealed that some driving schools have private instructors renting venues and recruiting students independently. "They sign unified contracts on the surface, but the responsibilities for refunds are unclear. When disputes arise, students find it hard to defend their rights."

Management: How to Solve the "Refund Difficulties" in the Driving Training Industry?

From "word games" in contracts, to "fictitious charges" during fee deductions, and the "chaotic" nature of operators, the "refund difficulties" reflect not only a lack of integrity in individual enterprises but also deeper issues like outdated industry regulation and contract templates.

How to govern?

A student practicing driving at a Jiangsu driving school. People's Daily Li Jingye photo.

Control tuition fees, and implement "training first, payment later" to cut off the source of refund disputes.

"Last year, we received 400-500 refund complaints, accounting for over 90% of transportation sector complaints," Xie Ming admitted. The problem lies in "the money going directly into the driving school’s pocket."

How to solve this? Local transportation officials believe the key is to "regulate tuition fees," i.e., supervise driving school funds through third-party platforms, and promote a model where "students pay for each subject after passing the exam." This not only pressures schools to improve training quality but also prevents students from being "locked in."

Another industry suggestion is to promote "pay-per-hour, training first, payment later": driving schools provide venues, students place orders independently, and pay for each lesson as they take it. "Money isn't in the driving school's account, so refund disputes naturally decrease."

Control contracts, and keep "unfair terms" out before payment.

Ling Jianhao, managing partner of Jiangsu Taihe Law Firm, reminds students to carefully review breach of contract clauses when signing, and to request modifications if anything seems unreasonable.

Professor Lin Yaqing of Xiamen University’s School of Public Policy suggests regulating driving school contracts from the source. Market supervision and transportation departments should work together to include contract compliance review in the driving school registration process, turning prohibitive rules on paper into "red lines" before signing. Contracts that violate fairness principles should not be filed or should be rectified within a deadline.

Maintain bottom-line standards, and dare to "strike hard" against repeat offenders.

"Students are the vulnerable party, and mediation often cannot protect their rights. Going through judicial channels takes at least half a year, sometimes a year, and the cost of rights protection is too high," said lawyer Wu Yajun. Administrative supervision must be strengthened. For driving schools with frequent complaints and exposure, authorities should dare to "take tough measures"—reduce registration quotas, suspend enrollment, or blacklist them, making violations too costly to repeat.

Professor Lin Yaqing states that solving the chaos in driving training refunds requires both preemptive regulation and post-event enforcement. Only by ensuring every payment is "traceable" and every contract "evidence-based" can students "dare to sign up, get refunds, and avoid frustration."

(Except for experts and lawyers, all other interviewees are pseudonyms.)

People’s Daily joint reporting team Liu Baoqin, Li Jingye, Ai Yutao, Gong Sha. Original title: "People’s Direct Insight | Who Is Creating the 'Refund Difficulties' at Driving Schools"

Source: People's Daily