Vietnamese motorists have pushed back against new monthly fees connected to electronic toll collection accounts, prompting VETC and Viettel Money to halt the charges shortly after they were announced.

The controversy centered on a monthly fee of VND6,600 (about $0.25) for individual customers and VND66,000 ($2.50) for businesses and organizations.

While the amounts were relatively small, motorists questioned the rationale behind a recurring charge that could apply regardless of whether a vehicle passed through a toll station during the month.

The dispute also highlighted a broader concern among drivers: as electronic toll payment becomes increasingly integrated into road travel, how much choice do motorists have over the payment services and fees attached to the system?

Drivers question a fee they cannot easily avoid

Under the new road traffic electronic payment model, vehicle owners are required to convert their former electronic toll collection accounts into “traffic accounts” linked to a cashless payment method.

These payment methods can include an e-wallet, bank account, credit card or another eligible payment instrument.

Against that backdrop, announcements of the new monthly charges quickly drew criticism.

Some motorists said they rarely use expressways or toll roads and saw little reason to pay every month for a service they might use only several times a year.

Luong Van Quan, a car owner in Dai Mo, Hanoi, said he mainly drives within the city and uses electronic toll collection only a few times annually.

“VND6,600 is not a large amount, but if I don't use an expressway for an entire year, or use it only a few times, I don't want to pay for all the months when I don't use the service,” he said.

Quan said he had disconnected his wallet and temporarily deactivated his eTag, intending to reactivate it before his next trip through a toll station.

Other motorists began looking for similar ways to minimize the charge. Discussions in car-owner communities included withdrawing money from linked wallets, disconnecting payment methods or keeping funds available only when a toll-road journey was planned.

Nguyen Tien Dung of Dong Da, Hanoi, said he used money in his Viettel Money wallet to pay phone, electricity and water bills, effectively draining the wallet that had been linked to his ePass traffic account. He was also considering linking another type of bank account instead.

The concern was not simply the size of the monthly charge.

For an individual customer, VND6,600 a month amounts to VND79,200, or about $3, a year. For a business paying VND66,000 each month, the annual cost reaches VND792,000, or about $30.

Drivers argued that when such charges are applied across a very large customer base and maintained for years, the total becomes significant.

Some were particularly frustrated because they routinely keep hundreds of thousands or even millions of dong available for toll payments.

Nguyen Huy Ngoc, a Ford owner in Thanh Xuan, Hanoi, said motorists were required to make the transition to traffic accounts linked to cashless payment methods, so any additional costs should be clearly explained from the outset.

“When an additional account management fee arises, users have the right to know the basis on which it is charged and what additional service they receive in return,” he said.

La Van Thuc of Long Bien, Hanoi, who frequently drives on expressways, raised another concern. He said he sometimes keeps millions of dong available for toll payments, yet the money does not earn interest while users were being asked to pay an additional monthly fee.

For many motorists, therefore, the controversy became less about VND6,600 and more about transparency, choice and what exactly they were paying for.

VETC and ePass explain the charges

Service providers argued that the new fees were not road tolls or charges for maintaining the traffic accounts themselves.

Le Quang Hung, VETC's sales director, said the charge concerned the VETC electronic wallet and was intended to cover costs that continue even when a customer does not make a transaction.

Those costs include bank connectivity, system operation and maintenance, security, reconciliation, complaint handling and round-the-clock customer support.

VETC also said money held in its e-wallet remained the customer's property and was not counted as company revenue or used by the company for business purposes. Under existing regulations, e-wallet providers are not permitted to pay interest on wallet balances.

ePass made a similar distinction between a traffic account and the payment instrument connected to it.

Cao Dinh Ngan, head of sales at ePass, said vehicle owners do not necessarily have to deposit and maintain money in a traffic account under the new system.

Instead, the traffic account can be linked to a bank account, e-wallet, credit card or another suitable payment method. When a vehicle passes a toll station, the system deducts the payment from the linked source.

According to the ePass representative, the monthly fee was charged by the payment-service provider to maintain the connection rather than by ePass itself.

Both providers also said motorists were not necessarily required to use a fee-charging e-wallet. Customers could disconnect an existing wallet and switch to another eligible payment method, with any subsequent charges governed by the policy of that provider.

However, disconnecting a wallet without establishing an alternative payment source could create problems when passing through an electronic toll station. A traffic account must remain connected to a valid payment instrument for toll transactions to be completed.

Questions over transparency and oversight

The explanations did little to immediately calm criticism.

Nguyen Quoc Binh, administrator of the OFFB motoring forum, which has more than 1.4 million members, said the reaction among users reflected confusion over the lack of clear alternatives and the fact that comparable charges had emerged around the same time.

He argued that the more fundamental question was whether operators involved in providing electronic toll services could independently introduce additional charges for motorists and what oversight applied to such decisions.

Binh also pointed to regulations governing electronic toll collection, arguing that the costs of operating ETC systems need to be clearly distinguished from charges imposed directly on road users.

Under Article 13 of Decision 19/2020/QD-TTg, electronic toll collection service costs at toll-road projects provide revenue for ETC service providers to recover investments and cover construction, upgrades, management, operation and maintenance. Such costs are deducted directly from road-use toll revenue, with competent state agencies determining the service costs when approving projects.

Binh argued that greater scrutiny was necessary as traffic accounts become an increasingly important part of traveling on expressways and toll roads.

Providers retreat after public reaction

The backlash ultimately prompted a rapid change of course.

VETC announced that it would suspend the planned VETC Wallet service fee while it conducts a review and gathers further customer feedback.

The company acknowledged shortcomings in the way the policy had been developed and communicated, saying the process had not fully met customer expectations or generated sufficient consensus.

“VETC has decided not to apply and to temporarily suspend this fee policy in order to review it, listen further to customers and develop a more appropriate solution,” the company said.

VETC stressed that no customers had actually been charged the proposed fee by the VETC Wallet system.

It also reiterated that the proposed charge concerned VETC Wallet, the payment instrument linked to a traffic account, rather than the traffic account itself or the road-use toll.

Viettel Money, meanwhile, also announced that it would stop charging its transaction-processing fee for customers whose payment service is linked to ePass traffic accounts.

That means the VND6,600 monthly charge for individuals and VND66,000 charge for organizations and businesses has been halted.

The company said the decision followed customer feedback and was made with customer interests in mind.

The reversal closes, at least for now, a dispute over a relatively modest monthly fee. But the reaction from motorists has exposed a larger issue likely to remain relevant as Vietnam expands cashless transport payments: when digital services become essential to everyday mobility, users expect not only convenience, but clear rules over what they pay, why they pay it and what alternatives they have.

Hoang Hiep – Vu Diep