"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 Fuzhou Jin Hua Driving School Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jinhua Driving School”). He paid a registration fee of 2,900 yuan. Later, he applied for a refund due to studying elsewhere, but the driving school delayed repeatedly—“When registering, the attitude was very good; when requesting a refund, they turned hostile. The school even cited contract clauses, planning to keep all the money.” A person in charge of Jinhua Driving School openly stated: “If you register for more than 2 years, no refund is given. 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 similar frustrations: the difficulty and high cost of refunds from driving schools are becoming a major headache for many learners.

Phenomenon: “Didn’t participate in training, why am I deducted 2,000?”

“Didn’t enjoy any service, and I was deducted over 2,000 yuan just for entering and leaving?” Xiamen resident Guo Weihao exclaimed, “I can’t accept this.”

Two years ago, Guo Weihao enrolled in Xiamen Zhong Song Automotive Service Co., Ltd., paying 3,080 yuan in tuition, but he never attended a single class. Last year, he requested to terminate the contract, and the school replied: “You can only get back 980 yuan.” After many 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,” and termination requires paying a penalty of 2,000 yuan. Photo provided by the interviewee.

“I’m 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”), 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.”

Hu Xiaomei’s court ruling document. Photo provided by the interviewee.

Due to being transferred to another school 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 had only taken the “Subject One” exam. When requesting a refund, the school said they would deduct 86%. Liu Yi from Nanjing was refused outright: “You signed a special offer, and the contract clearly states ‘no refund.’”

Liu Yi’s training contract shows “special offer, no refund.” Photo provided by the interviewee.

Investigating causes: Who is creating the “refund difficulty”?

The “passing the buck” and “delays” by driving schools are almost always part of the refund process for students. The “confidence” of these schools may be rooted in the very contracts students sign at the outset.

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

Students face high “costs of dropping out.” “File processed at the vehicle management office but haven’t taken ‘Subject One,’ 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.” “Transferring to another school mid-term is non-refundable; special offers are non-refundable.”

However, the “liability” of the driving schools for breach of contract is quite light. Some contracts stipulate “deduct the expenses incurred and pay a penalty of 15% of the training fee,” but many do not specify any penalty at all.

Excerpts from three training contracts’ termination clauses. Photo provided by the interviewee.

“All the clauses are about the student’s responsibilities; the school’s breach of contract is almost never mentioned.” 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, the relevant departments can only mediate and cannot enforce. This results in “knowing the clauses are unfair, students can only suffer in silence.”

“Many breach of contract clauses in driving training contracts are clearly higher than the actual losses of the schools,” said Wu Yajun, a lawyer at 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 pitfalls” in contracts and “being ripped off” in refunds, along with some vague wording, have become excuses for driving schools to deduct money. Lawyer Fu Yongsheng, a member of the China Law Society, believes that driving schools often use vague pricing, hidden charges, and increased student responsibilities to infringe on consumers’ right to information and fair transaction.

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

Additionally, “affiliated” instructors are also a reason for the difficulty in refunds. A coach in Nanjing, Jiangsu, revealed that some driving schools have private coaches renting venues and recruiting students independently. “They sign a unified contract on the surface, but the responsibilities and rights for refunds are unclear. When disputes occur, 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, to the mixed quality of operators, the “refund difficulty” reflects not only a lack of integrity among individual companies but also deeper issues such as outdated industry regulation and contract templates.

How to improve?

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 complaints in the transportation sector,” Xie Ming admitted. The problem is that “the money goes directly into the driving school’s pocket.”

How to solve this? Local transportation officials suggest that the key is to “regulate tuition fees” by supervising driving school funds through third-party platforms and promoting a model where “students pay for each subject after passing the exam.” This can pressure schools to improve training quality and prevent students from being “locked in.”

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

Control the 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 anything seems unreasonable.

Lin Yaqing, a professor at Xiamen University’s Public Policy Research Institute, suggests regulating the behavior of driving schools from the source. Market regulators and transportation departments should jointly incorporate contract compliance review into the licensing 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.

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,” Wu Yajun advised. 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.

Lin Yaqing said that solving the chaos of refund issues in driving training requires both preemptive regulation and post-event enforcement. Only by ensuring every payment by consumers is “traceable” and every contract “evidence-based” can students feel confident to sign up, and the industry operate fairly and transparently.

Source | People’s Daily

Reviewed by | Zhou Yang

Edited by | Xu Luming