In the history of creating this driving school ranking, this is the first time we include the same driving school simultaneously in both the TOP and the anti-TOP. Despite the fact that Credo Autoprieks stands out in certain categories with commendable openness toward clients and an unusual level of transparency for the driving school industry, it is noticeable that the school operates with certain double standards. We would like to draw attention to several practices that negatively affect the market and encourage customer deception through inaccurate or incomplete information. We already pointed out these aspects in 2017, when Credo Autoprieks was placed in 4th position in the anti-TOP.
In 2021 the driving school awarded itself the title of the No.1 driving school, prominently displayed on its homepage, presenting Credo as the largest driving school in Latvia. However, next to this title there are no sources, references, or specific statistical data confirming the validity of this claim. Therefore it can only be concluded that the medal displayed on the website is either decorative or part of a marketing strategy intentionally misleading clients.
Although Credo once truly had the largest number of students, since 01.07.2020 the driving school has no longer held the leading position. Therefore continuing to claim that it still does is misleading. The size of a driving school is determined by three parameters: the number of students taking theory exams at CSDD, the number of branches, and territorial coverage (municipalities, regions of the country, etc.). Credo does not occupy first place in any of these categories.
It should also be considered that Credo Autoprieks operates on a franchise basis in Daugavpils, Jelgava, Liepāja and Ventspils. This means that the driving schools founded outside Riga differ from each other. Although they share the same marketing and local teams use the brand, the quality in Riga cannot be automatically equated with that in regional branches. It is also unreasonable to compare the experience levels of the Riga school and the franchise schools.
Although Credo Autoprieks is one of the few driving schools that provides a publicly accessible contract on its website, the contract still contains conditions that are unnecessarily disadvantageous to the client. For example, after passing the driving school exam, the CSDD exam must be passed within 15 working days. On the one hand, this motivates students to pass the exam quickly; on the other hand, it restricts the student’s freedom to plan their time according to their possibilities, and it may also result in additional costs if the driving school exam must be taken again. In other driving schools the conditions are much more flexible, therefore we recommend that Credo Autoprieks reconsider the necessity of such penalties in the contract.
Since within this project we have been monitoring driving schools for seven consecutive years, Driving school Gross has not changed its marketing strategy — a constant promotion running 24/7/365.
This promotion is used both on the driving school’s website and on Facebook. It has been observed that the promotion is regularly removed from the Facebook page only to be reposted again with a new end date.
Because the “real” training price is constantly shown as crossed out, it raises doubts about the actual value of Gross driving school’s theory training service. In reality this value has never reached the so-called standard price, because such a standard price does not actually exist.
It is not mentioned that the discount granted for the theory course must later be repaid in another way. This is ensured through contractual attachment to one instructor — such a training model allows the easiest manipulation of the client, without ensuring a sufficiently dynamic and efficient training pace, deliberately prolonging the learning process. Since the driving school does not require that lessons be paid for via non-cash transactions, many lessons may remain unregistered. This creates a misleading impression about the real duration of the training.
The driving school’s terms provide that non-cash payments are required only for the first 10 mandatory academic hours, while afterwards payment must be made in cash directly to the instructor. As a result, the instructor has a real opportunity to earn only after the tenth lesson, which explains why the training process almost always lasts longer than the state-defined minimum.
Despite the aggressive and misleading advertising approach, Driving school Gross has made significant improvements to the content of its website. This factor allowed it to relinquish the crown of the long-standing leader of the anti-TOP. This year the language culture on the website has reached a decent level — the spelling mistakes and rough grammar errors that were previously very common are no longer noticeable.
Improvements are also visible in the school’s transparency policy: a section with CSDD statistical information has been added to the website. This gives prospective students the opportunity to review the success rates of students from the selected driving school before starting their training. Among large driving schools, Gross students have achieved one of the best results in theory exams — during the last six months 96.21% passed on the first attempt. However, driving results in category B are shockingly low and well below the national average in Latvia — 29.03%. Despite these low results in driving exams, the school advertises itself as “one of the leading driving schools in the republic”.
The administration of the driving school has become somewhat more accommodating in recent years: if necessary, the contract can be reviewed remotely — after submitting an application it is sent by email. However, it is still unclear why the school does not simply publish this contract directly on its website so that anyone interested could review its terms. There is also now an option to sign the contract remotely — at least for those who have an electronic signature or the ability to print, sign, scan and send the document back to the administration. Others still have to appear in person.
That saving the client’s time is not among the priorities of Driving school Gross is confirmed by several “red flags”: delayed access to the school’s contract, arranging lesson times through phone calls and SMS (instead of through an online system), and attachment to a single instructor. Such an approach also suggests what may follow — bureaucratic obstacles, lack of modern solutions, and conditions that are unfavorable for the client. For example, the amount of the initial payment required to start training can only be discovered after submitting an application and receiving the contract. Even though a price calculator is available on the website, the minimum total cost is not clearly shown.
There is also a small positive sign — the conditions for changing instructors have become more flexible, as it is now possible to terminate the contract with one instructor and sign with another. Unfortunately, this process may still take several days, meaning that training must pause for a short period.
The Facebook review section of Driving school Gross is quite active, where authorized reviews can be read. However, authorized reviews are not accepted on the website itself — which is another indicator of the school’s lack of transparency.
In 2016 Einšteins was even rated as the best driving school in Latvia, but this is the first time it appears in the anti-TOP. Placing misleading promotional offers for students has already become a well-established strategy. Throughout the year we observed that the driving school manipulated the price of theory training and document processing fees, offering discounts of up to 60 EUR for the theory course.
However, the offered discount is only an illusion: the crossed-out training price is regularly altered. The pricing tactic resembles Black Friday marketing — a permanent price of 10 EUR suddenly becomes a crossed-out 20 EUR, with the final price shown as 12 EUR. This suggests that the theory training itself has no real stable value.
The crossed-out promotional prices offered by Einšteins can be seen in these screenshots:
Alongside the advertised discounts come additional hidden costs, while such price dumping prevents students from understanding the real cost of the training process. Although according to CSDD exam statistics Einšteins shows excellent results, students are still misled by distorted or incomplete information. Moreover, when costs are reduced in one category, they later have to be compensated in another. For this reason instructors may be forced to prolong the training process in order to recover lost income.
We have also received information that after conducting 10 lessons instructors move to private arrangements with students, receiving payment directly in cash instead of through the driving school’s payment system. These lessons are recorded as attempts at the driving school’s internal driving exam. In this way both the calculation of income and tax payments can be bypassed. This refined tactic deprives both the school and CSDD of the ability to evaluate the real duration of the training process and possibilities for improvement. Such strategies create a misleading perception of the time required to learn driving skills, and an unusually short training process may be mistakenly accepted as normal.
The real cost of theory exam success also remains hidden from many students. Although Einšteins shows the best results in this category, these results cannot be objectively evaluated because the number of attempts is significantly higher than in other driving schools. The reason lies in the much higher difficulty of the internal exam — instead of the standard 30 questions, Einšteins students must answer 60 questions, while only 2 mistakes are allowed. It is therefore not surprising that many students fail the exam on the first attempt, and each repeated attempt costs 14.95 EUR. While such an exam format ensures that students are extremely well prepared for the CSDD exam, it is also an obvious way for the driving school to recover the initial discount offered on the theory course.
Considering the specifics of the Einšteins theory exam, the success percentages in CSDD exams lose their objectivity when compared with other driving schools, which offer significantly more lenient exam conditions. This suggests that the real cost of the theory exam for Einšteins students is higher in terms of both time and money than the official CSDD statistics might imply.
Preparation for the CSDD practical driving exam is not as thorough. Einšteins rules state that after three unsuccessful attempts at the school exam a student may register for the CSDD driving exam. Although such lenient conditions may give students hope of passing the state exam “by luck”, this approach reduces the opportunity for proper preparation. As a result the student risks falling into a cycle of repeatedly failed exams. A more reasonable approach would be to improve driving technique by investing time and money into proper training.
A significant disadvantage of the training approach is the standard attachment to one instructor. This approach itself is risky — if cooperation with the instructor is unsuccessful, training dynamics may suffer, the training period may become significantly longer, and the planned budget may be exceeded. Moreover, the student cannot change the instructor without consulting the branch’s customer consultant, which creates unnecessary obstacles that slow the learning process.
Considering that Einšteins is a very large driving school, it is difficult to understand why it has been slow to implement more modern digital solutions. Such solutions would allow students to handle many formalities remotely and would save both time and money.
Although the driving school willingly offers to send the contract by email for remote review if requested, it is still not available for easy viewing directly on the website. It can only be reviewed after a client requests a sample by email. Adding the contract directly to the website would not be technically complicated, therefore the refusal to do so clearly demonstrates a lack of transparency and fairness.
At the same time the driving school shows openness toward clients in other areas. The possibility to leave authorized reviews on the website is highly commendable, as it confirms their authenticity and allows future drivers to evaluate the real experiences of students during training. The school also provides support through a list of questions and answers about training procedures, rules and requirements. A separate section of the website presents CSDD statistics and explains their meaning. While this section can be considered a useful information resource for students choosing a driving school, we remind that the information there is incomplete and may create a misleading impression about the real difficulty of exams and the number of attempts required.
Since Driving school Mustangs was first included in the anti-TOP in 2015, this is the first time it has moved toward the lower end of the anti-TOP rankings. Considering the overall market situation and context, this means that in 2021 it was not the worst choice among driving schools.
However, its marketing strategy still relies not on quality but on selling the price. The theory course is constantly discounted — the original price is always shown as crossed out. This may create the impression of a technical error and suggests that the training itself has no real value. It would also be advisable to state on the website that the discount is available only for those who pay the full deposit within five days — otherwise students may face unpleasant surprises later.
Despite the cheap price advertised for theory training, this is only a hook — the total cost soon becomes much higher. A full training cost calculator cannot be found on the website, and for a student without prior driving experience it is difficult to estimate the potential total training cost based only on the price list. Information about the initial payment can only be found in the contract. Unfortunately, this demonstrates little concern for the student’s time — the amount of the first payment could easily be displayed on the website itself. Even before signing the contract, it is important for a prospective student to know whether the required amount fits within their budget.
Another unfair and disadvantageous contract condition is the requirement to complete training within six months. If the student fails to finish within this period, additional monthly fees are charged — which many pay while blaming themselves for failing exams. Although such a penalty system may motivate students to obtain a driver’s license quickly, the financial penalty itself is unjustified. Latvian law does not require exams to be completed within six months. It appears that the driving school’s priority is not to help students save money or provide flexible contract conditions, but rather to implement schemes that do the opposite.
We have also received information that according to internal guidelines instructors are forbidden to allow students to take the driving exam before completing 30 lessons. Otherwise the instructor must pay a penalty. Because of this strategy, it is impossible to provide faster training adapted to the student’s abilities. This again demonstrates that the theory course discount advertised on the website creates a misleading impression, as the school ultimately intends to recover this difference through driving lessons.
The results of Driving school Mustangs students in the CSDD theory exam are also concerning. In the period from 01.07 to 31.12 only 86.69% of students passed successfully, which is 6.59% lower than the average result in Riga. Moreover, in recent years the driving school has not introduced improvements to change this situation.
However, weaker theory exam results are compensated by driving exam results, which during the last six months have been the best among large driving schools. 39.62% of Mustangs students passed the exam on the first attempt.
Driving school Fortūna is a constant presence in the anti-TOP, having appeared on the list for the sixth time. Unfortunately, this statistic shows that the school is unwilling to change its habits. Moreover, not only is Fortūna unwilling to invest in the development and modernization of its driving school, but this also prevents its students from achieving better results.
Only 28.57% of B category students pass the CSDD exam on the first attempt. This result is significantly lower than the industry’s average success rate — meaning the chances of passing the driving exam successfully at Driving school Fortūna are lower than elsewhere. Meanwhile, theory exam results are very good: during the last six months 94.12% of students passed on the first attempt — more than the average across Latvian driving schools.
The design of the Fortūna website is very striking — like a Christmas tree constantly flashing with advertisements for low-priced training. Under the glare of these “bright lights,” it becomes difficult — if not impossible — to focus on anything else.
As a result, the content itself becomes secondary. The language culture on the website is poor — grammatical, stylistic and syntactic errors appear that should normally be corrected on professional websites. It is also difficult to find important information for students even about basic matters such as the structure of the training process, which would help them plan their time more effectively.
The driving school also has room for improvement not only in digital solutions but also in transparency and openness. Although the school has a review section, it is difficult to find, contains very few reviews and none of them are verified. Unfortunately, verified reviews cannot be found on the school’s Facebook page either. This raises rather unfavorable conclusions about the school’s attempts to conceal the real experiences of its students. It is also unclear why the website does not provide a sample contract before submitting an application.
Although the school attracts students with favorable prices and even wins municipal procurement competitions, Fortūna later faces difficulties in fulfilling its obligations, especially with deadlines. This once again confirms a common truth in this industry: the lowest price often means that the school secures its profit and effectively “sells” the client to the instructor. Working under such a scheme makes it nearly impossible to earn money without slowing down the pace of the training process. We have also received information that the school has long-standing debts and that the teaching staff often do not receive their salaries on time.
The strong side of Driving school Fortūna is the diversity of its training offers. The school provides training for licenses to operate various types of tractor machinery, cutters, jet skis, motor yachts and motorboats. It also prepares future auto locksmiths and mechanics, forklift operators and chainsaw/brush-cutter operators.