CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation Omdömen 673

It is blatently obvious from reading adjudicators decision that my evidence was not taken into consideration and they take the word of Sky as gospel ( which it is not).
You have no right of appeal or chance to prove that Sky have mislead CEDR

We have initiated legal proceedings against CEDR.
We took a complaint about NOWTV and Broadband which is owned by the Sky Group and is their trading name.
Sky naturally objected and said the complaint had to be registered under
NOW. My complaints were escalated to Sky priority who had informed me they were now handling the complaint from NOW.
The other issue was under CEDR they don't have NOW.
So we started legal proceedings. The advice from the adjudicator was poor and legally flawed.

Cedr is a JOKE.

The adjudicator sided with Survitek the surveying company overlook broken and unlapped felt in the third level building report back in 2022. The adjudicator neglected all sms conversation records proved Staurt Bannerman had made the mistake, a handyman was instructed to come over to ready to repair. The adjudicator is a non-practising solicitor, on a field he has no experience or appropriate training. While the adjudicator keeps saying lack of third party evidence only in the proposed decision summary. He neglected all the evidences provided by the customer JUST BELIEVED ALL THE COMPANY'S WORDS. And when another independent 3rd level building report provided, the final decision is just a copy and paste of what had said in the proposed decision, total neglect what the problems the customer points out. The adjudicator D.M. Curnow BA Hons, LLM, Solicitor [non-practising] should stop working in a field not his expertise.

Shouldn't all we having greivances vs Cedr ally together to do something to ratify the fault?

It is the first time I have ever used this company and it was to refer to them because of my internet provider. I wasn’t sure what to expect but I was extremely pleased. From the beginning to the end it was very easy and simple to deal with and very quick too. I got the end result that I wanted so thank you very much.

Not worth the time it takes to write the complaint, despite sending overwhelming evidence that backs up my complaint they chose to side with the company I was making the complaint about

The evidence is huge but this company ignored that, I'm now making a formal complaint about them to the relevant authorities to show the blatant bias they have when dealing with cases
This company are not fit for purpose!

EDIT - the adjudicator failed in their responsibilities and will be found in breach of impartiality rules
My evidence was ignored despite it being overwhelming
I’ll win my case and you will be forced to admit you were clearly bias

I used CEDR following advice from RICS regarding a negligent surveyor JR Welch Ltd.
RICS gave me poor advice and CEDR dismissed my claim.
They make it so complicated and stressful to exercise your consumer rights, that most people just give it.
I however, will not give up the fight for justice, fairness, transparency and a change in the homebuying process.
The Property Rights Alliance have helped me navigate the whole process and get my voice heard!

Dear CEDR Management Team,

Your response is nothing more than a standard reply to deflect responsibility. I have spoken with many individuals who have been similarly let down by your processes. It is clear that maintaining your partnership with RICS takes precedence over providing genuine redress—just look at the Rogers case as a prime example.

Lina

I am sharing my recent experience with CEDR following a dispute with a property developer that has spanned three years. Despite extensive engagement with various parties, including the developer, warranty provider, and local authorities, I have been left without a resolution.

After failing to make progress with the developer and warranty provider, I sought assistance from the International Consumer Centre. They advised that if the developer failed to resolve the matter, I could escalate the issue to CEDR.

In October 2023, I once again contacted the developer to request that they rectify the defects in my property. Their response was that the council had signed off on the development, and they no longer considered it their responsibility. I then approached the council, who conducted an investigation and provided documented evidence that building regulations had not been followed. They confirmed that the defects needed to be corrected to prevent further deterioration. This was in September 2024.

In October 2024, I submitted a claim to the warranty provider, but they advised that the defect period had expired and declined to assist. I subsequently requested a claim form from CEDR, which took 15 days to arrive. Upon receiving it, I submitted my claim along with supporting evidence, and the process was initiated.

Over the course of several months, I engaged in ongoing correspondence with CEDR, responding to requests for additional information. I was informed that my case fell within the scope of their adjudication process, offering a sense of progress after a prolonged and challenging dispute. However, after significant delays—largely due to the developer—I was later informed that my case was now considered out of scope. This decision was communicated after three months of back-and-forth discussions, at which point my case was abruptly closed.

I sought clarification from the adjudicator, as this conclusion seemed inconsistent with the evidence provided. However, I was informed that the decision was final and would not be explained further. Despite submitting extensive documentation demonstrating that my communications with the relevant parties fell within the required timeframe, the adjudicator determined otherwise without justification.

My concern is that all the evidence may not have been thoroughly reviewed, as the dates provided in my submissions directly contradict the decision to close my case. Given the complexity of the matter and the clear timeline of communications and events, I believe the case warrants further review and, at the very least, a transparent explanation of how the decision was reached.

I have since found further information that supports my case, yet I continue to be told that the case is closed and the decision is final. All of my evidence related to breaches of consumer codes, and if there had been an administrative error on my part, I would have appreciated clarification early in the process rather than being asked to submit additional information for three months, only to be told my case was out of scope. This not only resulted in unnecessary delays but also led to a significant waste of time and effort on my part.

I am struggling to understand how a case can be deemed within scope initially, only to later be dismissed without clear reasoning. The lack of transparency in the decision-making process raises concerns about the effectiveness of the service. If an independent adjudicator is unable to provide a rationale for their decision, it calls into question the reliability and purpose of the adjudication process.

I would appreciate any clarification or guidance on how to proceed, as I remain deeply concerned about both the handling of my case and the broader implications for consumers seeking resolution through this service.

Reply: it not about the decision but a matter of fairness!!

I’m disappointed with how this situation has been handled. The developer was granted multiple extension to submit evidence based on weak justification and excuses. I clearly stated that if the adjudicator deemed my claim out of scope, I had supporting evidence to substantiate my original claim. However the evidence I provided- specifically my final communication to the developer-was dismissed solely because the developer chose not to respond. Despite the fact that my message falls within the relevant timeframes, it was deemed unacceptable, as the adjudicator appears to have set the cut off date only based on the developers last response. This effectively suggests that I am responsible for ensuring the developer replies, which is both unreasonable and impractical. The handling of this matter has been flawed not response to complaints email by “management”

They helpes us find a solution for our problem, everything was great. We were always informed about the next steps and timelines etc.. we are really impressed by their professionality!

I used CEDR to pursue a claim against BA for a cancelled flight that was covered under EU legislation (EU261).

BA had rejected my initial case and then ghosted me for over 6 months despite countless escalations and follow up calls. I opened a case with CEDR and provided comprehensive information relating to my claim and evidence of my numerous communications towards BA that went unanswered. CEDR accepted my case and had agreed full settlement with BA inside of a week, very happy with their service.

It seems CEDR are funded by the airlines and collude with them for the terms of reference for any solution, which inevitably rarely goes your way. They are unwilling to consider any element of acting in bad faith or to present a judgement that will nudge airlines into acting in a fairer manner. Their first aim is to satisfy themselves and their processes, then their paymaster, and finally the plaintiff.

Lots of support from the teaching staff - good post course support

Further to my previous review and CEDR's response, here is the RICS requirement for companies to respond to "each of the points that the customer has raised". Perhaps RICS would be interested to know that their procedures are not being followed or enforced by CEDR? Do CEDR operate to a lower standard? The lower standard would no-doubt be popular with the companies that pay for your services. LBC did not provide evidence relating to points raised. The adjudicator failed to challenge LBC on either of these requirements listed in the RICS guide.

RICS-Members-Guide-21.pdf - CEDR Independent Adjudication Service: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Guidance Notes for Members - Page 6-7:
"What should be included in your response?
The principal purpose of a defence is to respond to each of the points that the customer has raised in their application to the RICS Scheme. You should deal with each and every complaint that the customer has made, stating clearly whether you agree or disagree with the points made and your reasons why. The danger of not responding to all of the complaints is that the adjudicator will only have one side of the story for those complaints that you remain silent on. This could result in the adjudicator finding in the customer’s favour on that point. Where you disagree with the customer and wish to put across an alternative point of view, you must provide evidence to support your position. Adjudication is an evidence-based process, so you must prove to the adjudicator’s satisfaction that your position is correct."
The document is available on the RICS website.

If I could give no stars I would
now I see the reviews I can see why
Waste of time contacting them very quickly closed my case saying it was out of scope? All they did was say they wanted more information? Didn’t tell me what information I suppose I should be a mind reader
I guess we pay our taxes to fund this useless organisation
Please don’t bother with them
Their reply says it all they are most likely funded by the same organisation that I complained about again don’t bother with is company

I am entitled to compensation from BA due to delayed flight causing a miss of connecting flight however BA are ignoring and not responding to my complaint so I have tried to escalate the grievance to CEDR who’s online complaint form is only possible to fill out if BA have responded with a reference number. This seems like the 2 companies are in cahoots, I now have no where else to turn to resolve this situation

The course was very well designed and thought out. The preliminary reading was very useful prior to the course. The course involved a lot of role play which I found was a great way to learn.

Update

I have been scathing about ombudsman-services, while now that opinion only remains in regards to the one for the Energy sector and the LGO which basically supports local government corruption; in fact, they are useful for people who don't want the time and expense of taking companies to court and can make do with a quick resolution.

The reason they lose two stars is because they could go more into the technical areas and yet stand back from related subjects and because the jump between resolution and court-fines is too great - a lot of the time, one-hundred pounds seems to be the answer for everything.

The extra star, nudging CISAS into a positive light, is based on the last time they helped out and my mother was satisfactorily rewarded for the hassle experienced at her mobile-phone operator's hands.

I also like their portal. Very easy to use. And the people on the other end are communicable. And I do get the general idea that they take their jobs very seriously and so the effort you put in, as long as you know what you can expect to receive in return (should conclusions drawn go your way), is worth the trouble.

Old Review - was TWO STARS:

Having trudged through the rigmarole of internal-complaint processes, only to be left standing, with one's specially-crafted black security-case where a 'letter of deadlock' might one-day be carried in transit, trembling, as one looks upward, faced with an imposingly high tower of sheet-steel frame and huge, impeccably clean and reflective glass-panels, in the hope that a prospective case of fraudulent activity will be acknowledged, only to be faced with the marble-eyed stares of the once-human ADR2020 Claim-Response Units, from this point onward can seem far too much a daunting mileage to have to push through.

Hidden quangos inconspicuously-pocketed share the silver-skied horizon with the equally-impersonal outsourcing corporations, casting their stretched shadows over vast areas of looming terrain, before merging into one great formidable mass of darkness, with an inescapably cold and sustained bite to the air.

Internet-service and mobile-phone providers are posted up on billboards that extend the tree-lined sub-climate-engineered avenues with advertising for gilded t-shirts made specially to wear under their company-brand suits-made-unisex, with slogans that read "we know what we are doing but we just don't care", as they juggle around their refined technology here and there, loosely-handed, bold and brash, no signs of care as to the potential value of what it is they have in their hands.

The case is filed. Wide two-way doors are heard automatically locking - no obvious way-in. Out of a side-hatch - the shape of a cash-dispenser - an A4-sized note appears from the slot, as the fax-machine type-whirring comes to a stop...

They've done it again: fraud cannot be handled; technological standards cannot be scrutinised; no intervention where there is company non-compliance; claims of negligence not followed through.

Twice now, at the outset. There was another. It's better this way. And I should have learned my lesson.

When I get back in my car, I easily spot in my rear-view the shiny-grey 341-A Town Sedan tailing me for a couple of blocks. I leave it at the lights and take a few turns, another way home. Looking back down at the 'CISAS-CEDR' note in the passenger seat, tapping my fingers on the steering-wheel, now out-of-area, I pull in and instead of binning, I bury the letter under a few inches' dirt, just to be safe.

Now I feel better: the score stays. The online portal, phone-in service, investigative processes, the cross-armed adjudicators stood manned and ready with bundles of compiled evidence - a win-win; they knew that I knew and here I am, a spray of recently emerged indents across the boot and back bumper, yet it is they who have been marked to their detriment.

Appalling service. I went to them in regards to the treatment I received from TalkTalk broadband provided evidence asked them to bare with me as I'm not technically minded if they wished to get more information just to ask and I'd have an intermediary assist me received an email yesterday point blank refusal in looking at the case

From my experience, the CISAS service from CEDR is free to the complainant because no one in their right mind would pay for its arbitration. I provided CISAS with high quality verifiable evidence about the ISP Company but they completely ignored it - and questions I had too. Apparently the ADJUDICATOR CAN DECIDE WHAT OF MY EVIDENCE THEY WANT TO LOOK AT. How fair is that? I attempted to appeal the adjudicator's decision but CISAS refused. Later when I complained about their service I discovered that THEY tell YOU WHAT YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT!

During the case I rejected a paltry settlement from the ISP, only for CISAS to AWARD ME NOTHING AT ALL IN ITS DECISION! NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY. When I checked the one star reviews here on Trustpilot, 38% of people say that CISAS was a waste of time and at least 15% say CEDR is biased. I found over 110 references to CISAS CORRUPTION experienced by the complainants. A small percentage of the reviews interpret the bias as incompetence, but like me, 13% or more reviewers say their evidence has been ignored, isn't that BIAS?

CISAS derives income from the companies being complained about. It also derives income from running training courses which accounts for about 66% of the 5 & 4 star Trustpilot reviews i.e. not the quality of its adjudication. It does not publish data on CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and the number of COMPLAINTS it receives about ITS OWN SERVICE and the rate of COMPLIANCE with any upheld outcomes. It has also published misleading data. Its table titled 'CISAS Case Outcome Data' on its website is really a combination of CISAS and the Communications Ombudsman's data. Incidentally, the Communications Ombudsman's website doesn't do likewise. That is, admit that its stats are merged with those from CISAS (they are). But that's another can of worms...

I also wonder about CISAS so-called "oversight and approval". From the reports I've read, its process of quality-control has not been overseen by a totally uninfluenced invigilator, more like a chummy old friend. Shouldn't the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIARB) oversee the CISAS? I see that three CEDR adjudicators are members of the CIARB, but isn't the CISAS an embarrassment to it?

What is Ofcom doing about CISAS's make-believe arbitration? IMHO we can only hope that Ofcom's report 'Strategic review of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in telecoms' will shake up these services that promise impartiality but do not deliver it. At present consumers have a choice between two 'evils' while telecoms companies have a choice between two ALLIES. I strongly recommend that if you can, avoid the utter waste of time with either the Communications Ombudsman or CISAS. If your complaint is strong enough (and you are) take your case to the County Court. And of course, leave a review of the ISP etc., on Trustpilot. Thank goodness that honest, ordinary people can publish their reviews on this site. Good luck.

Complete Waste of Time. Don’t spend hours submitting a case. They will just side with the company.

A high quality course, with both theory and practical aspects. Very knowledgeable mentors and valuable feedback during the course. I will have great use of all the lessons learned from the course in many aspects.