Pondering ADR











I'll let you know how it goes!


  1. We are suing the claimants for a number of unpaid invoices too - invoices they have not even disputed, and after the "event" that they got the line for. What is odd is that they have replied to the court saying they plan to contest the jurisdiction? We can only assume they believe the matter should be solved by ADR - but we cannot use ADR. ADR cannot make an award against the customer, so the court is the right jurisdiction. That will be fun.

  2. Please keep us updated on this - I'd like to know how it turns out.

    I have to say that I personally feel that ADR is a badly thought out idea - we should have focused on making people feel able to take their disputes to the existing dispute resolution service - the Small Claims Court. But, for some reason, we'd prefer to make the courts a scary and mysterious place, not somewhere you go once you've got a genuine dispute to deal with.

  3. Indeed, Simon. I think the "justification" for having ADR was because people are scared off by the small claims courts. Fixing that broken perception would have been much better. They are not scarey or expensive.

    What this has done though is make us have a much clearer and more specific customer complaints code. This case is especially crazy as the customer did not ever make a clear "claim" to us in the first place so was impossible to resolve. I am really unhappy that the arbitrator took the case rather than sending them back asking them to try again with a proper complaint and see how we handle it (even giving us a short deadline).

  4. ADR makes sense for B2C services, because (although it shouldn't be), to your typical consumer a court is a scary place, and thus having an ADR scheme means they're more likely to complain and get their problems dealt with. For B2B on the other hand it makes no sense - they should just say for B2B disputes you take it to court (with ADR available only if there is a dispute over whether the customer counts as a consumer or a business)...

  5. I tend to agree with Simon - courts should not be scary to consumers and that needs fixing. The court service could also be improved as I am sure many cases, even contested cases, could be sorted by email without a hearing. That would make them even less scary.

    This is a B2B case, but for some reason OFCOM decided that "small" businesses could use ADR. Of course I have no way to tell if a customer is a small business or not (I think it is based on <10 staff). I think even a small business, or at the very least any limited company (as this is) should know what they are doing and so not need ADR as a nanny state alternative to real courts. Of course much of the unfair contract terms legislation does not apply to B2B either, regardless of size.

  6. I guess the point in terms of B2C is that Ofcom can't fix the courts being scary to consumers, that's up to the Ministry of Justice, so all they can do is mandate an ADR scheme, but equating small business to a consumer doesn't make sense (and actually could be considered almost insulting to small business owners)...

  7. Alex:

    Ofcom could have made the courts less scary to consumers for telecoms services.

    For example, it could have obliged telcos to pay court fees if a customer sues them, and required telcos to provide a MAC and terminate any contractual tie-in early in the event they lost. It could have prohibited telcos from bringing lawyers to small claims court, and generally set conditions on telcos that made SCC no more scary than ADR.

