"Parking Fees Should Be Paid by Customers..." Controversy Surrounding Socar

Less Than One Hour, Consumers Bear Full Cost
Socar: "Related Matters Are Notified in Advance"

The operational method of the car-sharing company Socar, which charges users for parking fees incurred when delivering vehicles earlier than the requested time, is becoming controversial. While the company claims it was "notified in advance," consumers are raising complaints, calling it an unreasonable cost transfer.

Mr. A recently used Socar's 'Bureum' service to have a vehicle delivered to a parking lot near his home. However, the vehicle arrived about 1 hour and 30 minutes earlier than the requested time, resulting in unexpected parking fees.

Photo to aid understanding of the above article. Pixabay

When Mr. A inquired at the customer center, Socar responded, "The vehicle was delivered early due to road conditions," and added, "Choosing a paid parking lot was the customer's decision." They informed that refunds are possible up to a maximum of 10,000 KRW. They also stated, "We cannot consider every circumstance individually." In response, Mr. A protested, saying, "This is an act of shifting the responsibility of service operation onto consumers."

According to data obtained by Legal Newspaper, from 2022 to 2024, a total of 205 claims related to Socar were filed with the Korea Consumer Agency. The largest portion of claims was for unfair practices (35%), followed by dissatisfaction with after-sales service (31.5%), and contract issues as main reasons. Specific cases related to the Bureum service, such as "requests for refunds of unfairly charged Bureum fees," were also found.

Many consumer complaints related to the parking fees can also be found online. One user who used the Bureum service asked, "Should consumers bear all costs even if the car is delivered 10 hours early?" and expressed indignation after receiving a "yes" response from Socar.

Currently, according to Socar's parking fee refund policy, refunds are only possible if the vehicle arrives more than 60 minutes earlier than the rental start time, and up to 10,000 KRW can be refunded if it arrives more than 120 minutes early. Even if the vehicle arrives earlier than the reservation time, if it is less than one hour, the consumer must bear the full parking fee. Additionally, if the amount exceeds the refund limit due to the parking lot's fee structure, the consumer must also bear the additional costs.

The Bureum service delivers vehicles to locations desired by consumers, but some users claim that excessive parking fees are charged even when receiving vehicles at designated Socar zones. One user expressed frustration, saying, "I chose a Socar zone, but the vehicle was delivered too early, resulting in parking fees exceeding the maximum refund limit."

However, according to Article 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, businesses cannot unilaterally set terms that are disadvantageous to consumers. In particular, clauses that prohibit refunds or impose unclear fees are pointed out as potentially infringing on consumer rights.

Socar insists it is unfairly accused. A Socar representative stated, "Parking fee-related matters are notified in advance, and consumers use the Bureum service with this understanding," adding, "We understand complaints about parking fee burdens, but since Socar does not designate the Bureum service parking lots, we ask for your understanding." They also added, "Considering consumer inconvenience, since 2022, we have expanded the parking fee refund limit from a maximum of 5,000 KRW to 10,000 KRW."

A lawyer specializing in fair trade explained, "Clauses that are unfairly disadvantageous to customers are considered unfair terms and can be legally invalid," and "Administratively, consumers can request a review of unfair terms through the Fair Trade Commission."

He continued, "If the Fair Trade Commission judges a clause as unfair, it can demand the business to modify or delete the clause. Especially when additional costs arise beyond the pre-notified price or when customers are unilaterally burdened, this is likely to be a clause disadvantageous to consumers, which may be illegal not only under the Terms and Conditions Regulation but also under the Electronic Commerce Act."

A National Assembly Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee official said, "While car-sharing services are rapidly growing, corporate responsibility for consumer protection remains insufficient," emphasizing, "The Korea Consumer Agency and the Fair Trade Commission should step in to guide platform companies to improve unfair terms and service issues."

Kim Ji-hyun, Legal Newspaper Reporter

※ This article was written based on content provided by Legal Newspaper.

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.