Disputes over refund fees for the Bus All-in-One Card have occurred frequently

        The lack of hearing procedures reflects loopholes in public goods supervision

　　Since buses can now use the "One Card," it has brought many conveniences to citizens and saved them the trouble of changing change. However, as "All-in-One Card" has become more popular in major cities, the issuing companies' supporting policies such as card issuance and card refunds have multiple suspicions of violation, leading to numerous disputes and even lawsuits.

　　Charging a handling fee for card applications is suspected of being illegal

　　On September 20, 2012, Mr. Wang applied for a "Wuhan Pass Bus Card" at a branch set up by Wuhan City "Yikatong" in front of Wuhan University. The clerk charged Mr. Wang 20 yuan for the card application fee and recharged 100 yuan, totaling 120 yuan.

　　Mr. Wang later reviewed relevant documents and found that the "One Card" company's charging card fees had no legal basis. He then entrusted a lawyer to sue Wuhan City "Yikatong" Company, demanding the return of 20 yuan in unjust enrichment. On December 5, 2012, the Jianghan District Court of Wuhan officially accepted Mr. Wang's lawsuit. It is reported that as of now, Wuhan City "All-in-One Card" has issued nearly 20 million cards locally.

　　Professor Liu Zhihui, Deputy Director of the Civil Law Research Institute at the School of Civil, Commercial, and Economic Law at China University of Political Science and Law, analyzed that as early as September 28, 2001, the State Planning Commission, the National Gold Card Project Coordination Leading Group, the Ministry of Finance, and the People's Bank of China formulated and published the "Integrated Circuit Card Application and Fee Management Measures." The practice of charging non-deposit "card issuance fees" by "One Card" companies violates Article 8 of the Measures, which stipulates that public institutions providing business services, public transport such as public transportation, water supply, gas supply, electricity supply, railways, postal and telecommunications, transportation industries, or enterprises with industry monopoly characteristics providing production and business services and promoting the use of IC cards, must be compensated by compensating users for service prices and must not be charged separately. Therefore, the practice of charging card application fees by the "One Card" company is suspected of being illegal.

　　Pricing without a hearing violates price laws

　　On December 26, 2012, Mr. Wang from Shenzhen told local media that a few days earlier, when he went to a bus card outlet to refund the "all-in-one pass," he was told that the 30 yuan deposit when applying for the card could now only be refunded 5 yuan, with the remaining 25 yuan being deducted as monthly rent. When media reporters checked with the Shenzhen Development and Reform Commission, the staff replied: "The pricing of bus cards is not in the Shenzhen government hearing catalog, so no hearing is necessary." ”

　　So, does charging a monthly rental fee by a transit card fall within the scope of the hearing, and does it comply with relevant laws on Chinese hearings?

　　In response, Professor Wang Yong from the School of Civil and Commercial Law at China University of Political Science and Law analyzed that according to the "Rules for Government Price Behavior" and the provisions of the Price Law, when setting government-guided prices and government pricing for public utilities, public service prices, and natural monopoly goods that affect the vital interests of the people, a hearing system should be established; Government pricing behavior shall lawfully conduct cost supervision, hearings, argumentation, and solicitation of opinions. At the same time, according to Article 10 of the "Administrative Measures for the Application and Fee Management of Integrated Circuit Cards," government-approved IC card fees must be charged strictly according to the IC card issuance fee. Construction and management costs for hardware, network equipment, application software, etc., must not be resolved through charges. For IC cards approved for charging and those not charged separately according to regulations, if reissuance is required due to loss, damage, or other reasons, fees will be charged at the IC card cost fee. From this, it can be inferred that bus card pricing should fall within the scope of government public hearings and should be set through the statutory price hearing procedures.

　　Professor Liu Zhihui also believes that provincial governments have the authority to formulate specific management measures for IC card deposits; If the IC card is lost or damaged, a "certificate fee for the IC card" can be charged; Specific fee standards shall be approved by the State Council's price authority or the provincial price authority; If approved by the provincial price authority, it shall be filed with the price authority of the State Council.

　　The unfair clause for refunding cards was deemed illegal

　　On December 18, 2012, 14 lawyers from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and other provinces and cities jointly sent a "Letter of Recommendation" to bus card operating companies in 14 provincial capitals nationwide, suggesting they promote the practices of Nanjing Citizen Card companies and proactively remove the "unfair clause for returning bus cards."

　　The "Recommendation Letter" mentions that among bus card operating companies in 31 provincial capitals nationwide, 7 cities still "only allow card refunds, no refunds": Nanchang, Harbin, Guiyang, Urumqi, Lhasa, Yinchuan, and Nanning; Seven cities charge a handling fee for capital refunds: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Wuhan, and Changchun.

　　In April 2012, Mr. Yu, a Nanjing resident, filed a lawsuit with the Xuanwu District People's Court, requesting that Citizen Card Company refund the 8 yuan handling fee collected when returning the card, confirming that the clause charging a 10% handling fee was invalid. On December 8 of the same year, the court ruled: "The provision in the 'Jinling Tong Registered Name Card Handling Regulations' that charges a 10% handling fee on the balance for fund refunds is invalid." As the losing party, Nanjing Citizen Card Company amended the "Jinling Tong Registered Name Card Processing Regulations." The "Jinling Registered Name Card Handling Regulations (Draft Amendment)" stipulate that a 10% handling fee will no longer be charged when refunding funds with Jinling Registered Name Cards. Currently, Nanjing Citizen Card Company is developing supporting backend systems for this and has filed it with the Administration for Industry and Commerce. It is expected to be realized as early as 2013.

　　Monopoly industry pricing practices should be supervised

　　Wang Yu, a lawyer at Beijing Fengrui Law Firm, believes that when consumers pre-deposit money into a bus card, no matter how much they deposit, it is their legal property, and they have full control and disposal rights. Bus card operators not only fail to provide convenient refund services but also charge fees and even prohibit refunds. This effectively restricts and deprives users of their legal right to refund, effectively forcing users to spend all their card balance, which is extremely unfair to consumers. It should be cleaned up as soon as possible.

　　Professor Liu Zhihui believes that whether there is the right to charge fees for bus card refunds should be analyzed case by case. In the legal relationship between the user and the bus company, if there is an agreement, it should be handled according to the agreement. It should be noted that the "All-in-One Card Card" serves as a formal proof of the nature of a "standard contract." Since it is a standard clause contract, the bus company providing the standard terms is obligated to fully inform and explain to users, and must follow the general rules governing the validity and interpretation of standard contracts when resolving disputes. Currently, some city bus companies have failed to fulfill their obligations and should provide explanations unfavorable to the bus company in the event of disputes. Of course, IC cards have a certain cost, can be reused repeatedly after recycling, and can be overdrawn once. Therefore, when returning the card, it is acceptable to deduct some fees for card damage, but it should not exceed the cost of card production and maintenance.

　　Qiu Baochang, head of the lawyers' team at the China Consumers Association, believes that Article 9 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that consumers have the right to independently choose goods or services. In the clause that allows card refunds without refunding balance, the bus card company excludes consumers' main right to choose the service method, infringing on their right to choose, making the clause invalid.

　　Industry insiders generally believe that the public's various doubts about the public transit "all-in-one card" reflect a representative issue in public service products: the legality and legitimacy of monopoly enterprises' pricing behaviors are not supervised, and the gaps in relevant laws have led to a lack of protection for public interest rights protection.