驾校退费纠纷已成为消费投诉的重点问题。上海市7月驾培相关投诉1944件中，退费诉求达1621件，占比83.38%1。消费者因工作调动、服务质量不符等原因申请退费时，往往面临高额扣费。例如，万女士交纳4000元报名费后未进行任何培训，最终被扣除近2000元1；东莞一名学员刘先生支付4100元报名费且未练车，驾校仅口头承诺退款2880元后便无下文1。
对于驾校的不合理扣费行为，法律界已形成共识。北京市中同律师事务所执行主任欧阳继华指出，驾校"一律不予退费"的格式条款属无效霸王条款1。上海交通大学竞争法律与政策研究中心主任王先林主张，应按实际履约进度结算退费，未接受培训应全额或按比例退费1。天津某驾校教练则坦言，低价引流导致驾校后续无法提供服务1。
为保护消费者权益，多个地方已开始推行制度化解决方案。重庆"渝悦学车"、青岛"青学驾"、广州"穗学车"等平台实现了预收资金与驾校自有资金的隔离管理1。2025年5月，最高人民法院《关于审理预付式消费民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》正式实施，为规范驾校等预付费行业提供了法律依据1。
Refund disputes have become a major consumer complaint in China's driving school industry, with students losing substantial fees despite receiving little or no training. Ms. Wan paid 4,000 yuan in enrollment fees but had nearly 2,000 yuan deducted without receiving any driving lessons.1 In Shanghai alone, refund-related complaints accounted for 1,621 of 1,944 driving school complaints filed in July, representing 83.38% of all disputes in the sector.1
Driving schools often justify aggressive refund deductions by citing operational costs and low-price promotions. One instructor at a Tianjin driving school acknowledged that offering discounted rates to attract students created subsequent service delivery problems.1 However, legal experts argue that such practices are unjustifiable. According to Ouyang Jihua, executive director of Beijing's Zhongton Law Firm, driving school policies that categorically refuse refunds are invalid terms that violate consumer protection principles.1 Wang Xianlin, director of Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Competition Law and Policy Research Center, advocates calculating refunds based on actual training completion, recommending full or proportional reimbursement for unused services.1 A case from Dongguan's Third People's Court illustrates the enforcement challenge: Liu was promised a refund of 2,880 yuan on his 4,100 yuan enrollment deposit after receiving no training, but the driving school failed to follow through.1
To address systemic issues, multiple cities have implemented structural reforms. Platforms including Chongqing's "Ruyue Xueche," Qingdao's "Qixue Jiashi," and Guangzhou's "Sui Xueche" have separated student prepayments from driving school operating funds.1 Additionally, the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Adjudicating Prepaid Consumer Disputes, which took effect in May 2025, provides legal guidance for resolving such conflicts.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。