"Didn't enjoy a day of service, and I was charged over 2000 yuan just for entering and exiting?"

“I didn’t attend a single class, argued for over a year, and finally got back 1,000 yuan.”

Three years ago, Shi Yunqing was learning to drive at Jin Hua Driving School in Fuzhou (hereinafter referred to as “Jin Hua Driving School”). He paid a registration fee of 2,900 yuan. Later, due to studying elsewhere, he applied for a refund but was met with endless delays from the school—“When I registered, the attitude was very good, but once I asked for a refund, they turned hostile. The school even cited contract clauses, planning to keep every penny.” A person in charge at Jin Hua Driving School openly stated, “If you register for more than two years, no refund is given. That’s 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 similar frustrations: the difficulty and high cost of refunds from driving schools have become a common headache for many learners.

Phenomena:

“Never attended training, why deduct 2,000?”

“Didn’t enjoy any service, 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 signed up for driving training at Xiamen Zhong Song Automotive Service Co., Ltd., paying 3,080 yuan, but never attended a single class. Last year, he requested to terminate the contract. The school replied, “We can only refund 980 yuan.” After several negotiations, Guo Weihao finally received 1,100 yuan, with more than 60% of the fee deducted.

The photo shows Guo Weihao communicating with the driving school staff about the refund. According to the contract, the student “has had their file processed at the Xiamen Vehicle Management Office but has not taken the first subject exam,” so termination requires paying a penalty of 2,000 yuan. The interviewee provided the photo.

“I am applying for enforcement to get the refund,” student Hu Xiaomei told reporters. She paid three years ago but never had time to train. In July last year, she applied for a refund from Fuzhou Xiong Feng Driving Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Xiong Feng Driving School”), but the school 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 yet. 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.”

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 presented the contract: “According to breach of contract clauses, only 1,000 yuan can be refunded.” Even when local transportation authorities determined that only 325 yuan could be deducted, the school remained firm.

Two students from Jiangsu faced even harsher deductions. Wu Li from Suzhou only took the “Subject One” test, and 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.’”

Reasons:

Who is creating the “refund difficulty”?

The “passing the buck” and “delays” by driving schools are almost inevitable for every student requesting a refund. The “confidence” of these schools may be rooted in the very contracts students sign initially.

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

The “cost” of withdrawal for students is high. “The vehicle management office has processed the file but the student hasn’t taken the ‘Subject One’ exam,’ so a penalty of 2,000 yuan applies; 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 is given.” “Changing schools midway does not entitle a refund; special offers are non-refundable.”

In contrast, 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,” but many contracts do not specify any penalty at all.

“Contracts are full of student responsibilities, while the school’s breach responsibilities are almost nonexistent,” said 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 but cannot enforce. This results in “knowing that 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 Civil Code by the Supreme Court, if the penalty exceeds 30% of the actual loss, it can be deemed “excessive,” and students have the right to request a reduction.

Hidden clauses in contracts and vague wording allow driving schools to “overcharge” students. Lawyer Fu Yongsheng, a member of the China Law Society, believes that by obscuring pricing, hidden fees, and increasing student responsibilities, driving schools infringe on consumers’ right to information and fair transaction rights.

Additionally, the “affiliation” of instructors is another reason behind the difficulty in refunds. A coach in Nanjing, Jiangsu, revealed that some driving schools have private instructors renting venues and recruiting students independently. They sign “standardized contracts on the surface,” but the responsibilities and rights regarding refunds are unclear. When disputes arise, students find it hard to defend their rights.

Governance:

How to solve the “refund difficulty” in the driving training industry?

From contractual “word games” to fabricated deductions during fee collection, and the chaotic landscape of operators, the “refund difficulty” reflects not only a lack of integrity among individual companies but also deeper issues like outdated industry regulation and contract templates.

How to improve?

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 complaints in the transportation sector,” Xie Ming admitted. The problem lies in “the money going directly into the driving school’s pocket at once.”

What’s the solution? Local transportation officials suggest that the key is to “regulate tuition fees” by supervising driving school funds through third-party platforms, promoting 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.”

Some industry insiders recommend promoting a “pay-per-hour, training first, pay later” model: driving schools provide the venue, students place orders independently, and pay for each lesson as they take it. “Money isn’t in the school’s pocket, so refund disputes naturally decrease.”

Control contracts, and keep “unfair terms” out before payment.

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

Professor Lin Yaqing from Xiamen University’s Public Policy Research Institute suggests regulating driving school contracts from the source. Market regulators and transportation authorities should work together to include contract compliance review in the licensing process, turning prohibitive clauses into “red lines” before signing. Contracts that violate fairness principles should not be approved or should be rectified within a deadline.

Control the bottom line, 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 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 emphasizes that solving the chaos of refunds in driving training requires both preemptive regulation and post-event enforcement. Only by ensuring every payment is traceable and every contract is enforceable can students confidently sign up, and the industry operate fairly and transparently.