CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation Opiniões 677

Disgraceful company. Did nothing for me. Royal Mail were clearly in the wrong and submitted incorrect evidence. The company acted on this and even went past the deadline. No wonder they have such a bad reputation.

If you're considering going down the CEDR dispute resolution route—don’t. Just go straight to court. It’ll cost a small amount, but it’s likely to be a far fairer process.

Sky, in my case, couldn’t even submit their final summary without inconsistencies and mistakes. I had pages of evidence and proven contradictions, yet despite the ruling being in my favor, CEDR still decided Sky should only pay the compensation they originally offered—because I didn't provide call recordings.

But here’s the issue: Sky didn’t provide them either. If they failed to submit them, wouldn’t that suggest they have something to hide? Instead, CEDR placed the burden on me, rather than holding Sky accountable.

My complaint covered multiple calls to resolve two small issues, including:

One call lasting over two hours, speaking to over 12 different customer service agents.

Mis-sold an upgrade that wasn’t allowed.

Failure to call back after promising to do so.

Sky outright closing my complaint instead of resolving it.

In the end, CEDR ruled in my favor—so they clearly acknowledged that Sky's failures happened. But then, they decided that the compensation Sky offered during the process was good enough, ignoring the contradictions in Sky’s response and failing to recognize how serious the issues actually were.

If you’re seeking a truly fair resolution, save yourself the frustration and go straight to court.

Systematically Appalling Customer Service - To avoid disappointment - Please avoid using CEDR/CISAS ADR service.

One star is very generous.

Based on my personal experiences, I found CEDR's methods to be unfair and impractical. Their process and decisions were legally flawed, bias towards the company you are complaining about. They failed to investigate fairly or properly. Ignored many aspects of my complaint. They failed to comply with their legal obligations. Systematically failed to keep the discussed and agreed arrangement's, and at times they have been very economical with the truth, (lied).
They have often made contradictory statements and they adopted double standards to suit them, and to my detriment.

I could have written much harsher/worse review. All that I have written is accurate and is supported by facts.
I wrote to CEDR extensively and repeatedly, stating the true facts and complained. I followed CEDR's procures but it was CEDR who failed to follow its own procedures, and failed to adhere to its legal obligations. This is also supported by the relevant Regulatory body's investigation, who confirmed that CEDR failed to comply with its obligations.

Complaints: References: WAT-5257
& Ref: 680160

Hi
Their response is rubbish they don't protect royal mail but what they did royal mail asked cancel my complaint and they didn't without explanation
Plus I knew in the past that they always protected royal mail
Your company is scams a d waste time
I don't care if you running by volunteers there should be not any donations
Citizen advice bureau also run by volunteers and us helpful not like you
You protected royal mail any company as I can see from reviews but not customer
How stupid this is ridiculous
Postal Review Panel can not follow the rules but you listen them what they

It is clear from reviews that 'CEDR' exists to support big business and put the consumer 'back in his box'. Do Sky contribute CEDR funding? My case is simple: Sky continued to charge me for services i did not receive for 12 months after i had changed supplier to BT. CEDR rejected my case ( because Sky simply asked them to presumably)

CEDR is expected to remain impartial and base decisions solely on evidence. However, in my case against Sky (Case Reference: 696685), this standard does not appear to have been upheld.
I believe the decision does not align with the Ofcom Code of Practice concerning automatic compensation for delays, particularly in its interpretation of what constitutes a “confirmed date” in writing.

Background Summary
• I placed my broadband order with Sky on 25 September 2024 and was given an installation date of 24 October 2024 via an email with the subject line: “We’re pleased to confirm your order with Sky.”
• The email included the exact activation date and did not state that it was provisional. It only mentioned that Openreach may need to carry out checks before that date – not that the date itself was subject to change.
• There were multiple delays, missed appointments, and ongoing communication failures from Sky and Openreach. The service was not activated until 4 February 2025—a delay of 103 calendar days.

Disputed Point

The key issue lies in the interpretation of the “confirmed date” under Ofcom’s Automatic Compensation Scheme. The Code clearly states:

“Compensation for delayed install is payable from the date initially confirmed in writing with the customer.”

Despite this, the adjudicator ruled that the compensation should begin from 20 January 2025, claiming this was the first “confirmed” date and that earlier dates were “provisional.”

Why This Interpretation Is Incorrect
1. The Original Confirmation Was in Writing: The email dated 25 September 2024 provided a clear activation date of 24 October 2024. The use of the word “confirm” in the subject line is consistent with the Ofcom requirement of being “confirmed in writing.”
2. No Disclaimers Invalidating the Date: Nowhere in that original communication was it stated that the date was subject to change. Openreach checks were mentioned, but this is standard and not an express reservation or provisional clause.
3. Subsequent Emails Are Irrelevant: The Code specifies “initially confirmed”. Any later correspondence suggesting provisionality or noting delays cannot override the initial confirmation. The adjudicator erred by considering subsequent messages instead of strictly applying the Code.
4. Order Cancellation Does Not Nullify Initial Confirmation: The adjudicator stated that the original order being rejected by Openreach invalidates the compensation period. However, this contradicts the spirit of the Automatic Compensation Scheme, which is designed to protect customers from exactly these kinds of operational failures beyond their control.
5. Adjudicator’s Position Undermines Consumer Rights: If companies are permitted to retroactively redefine initial confirmations as provisional through follow-up emails, then the consumer protection intent of Ofcom’s Code is seriously weakened.

• There appears to be a misapplication or misinterpretation of Ofcom’s Code regarding what constitutes a confirmed date.
• The adjudicator’s approach risks setting a precedent where providers can issue “confirmed” installation dates in writing, only to later reclassify them as provisional and evade compensation obligations.
• This outcome undermines consumer trust and the consistency of redress under Ofcom’s regulation.

I would welcome the opportunity to provide further evidence, including the original email from Sky and related correspondence.

We commissioned a building survey for a house we wanted to purchase. The surveyor failed to spot evidence of a problem with the roof. We went ahead with the purchase and ended up having to replace the entire roof. After trying to pursue with the surveyor for many months, we went to CEDR (interestingly the surveyor seemed quite relaxed about us doing this, and now we understand why). CEDR didn't acknowledge or comment on key evidence we submitted, even after it was highlighted a second time during the appeal to their proposed award (of a paltry 10% of our total costs). The final decision can't be appealed, and you are not even permitted to complain about the adjudicator's reasoning or lack thereof. In addition, note that the total award is capped at £25k, so if you're looking for a significant recompense it's probably worth pursuing through the courts.

Received a standard ‘fob off’ response to the following review. As advised they are only interested in pacifying the big companies.
Don't waste your time or money contacting these so called adjudicators, history shows that they ALWAYS agree with 'Big brother' companies.
Typical Post Office adjudicator ‘Cow, Cowing’ to big brother post office, have you not seen how the disgracefully treated the sub post office workers?

Why do normal people waste our time and money trying to get any justice, when you so called adjudicators just sit back laughing at us while you take your mammoth salaries?

I hope you can sleep at night??????????????

Wish there was option of zero stars. Read many of the reviews on here before proceeding. You always think your case will be "different". We had a RICS survey commissioned. A minor area of damp was spotted. The rest of the property was considered free of damp. The whole house is hugely damp. Subsequent surveys and experienced builders have confirmed the damp was present for many years and should have been easily spotted during the survey. We are £25,000 into to damp repairs and prevention, this is just the start across 2 rooms. The CEDR adjudicator reviewing and making the decision has (from we can see) no experience in the field of housing, surveyors, damp or related issues. Would never use this service again or recommend that anyone wastes many, many hours preparing a case. Almost all of the good reviews are from persons having completed a course with this company. This is a teacher marking its own homework. Very, very poor and distressing experience.

Kier Plaster is just incompetent and the organisation is biased and unaccountable. Maybe Kier actually got plastered 🥴 would certainly explain his perverse and unjustifiable decision making.

Update

Just because you state you’re independent doesn’t make it true, your negative reviews explain a lot

Useless bunch of idiots. Arbitrators stands for ar*sehole*. Speaking to foreigners. Not a clue what’s reality. Had a dispute with Vodafone adding on a possible broadband appointment which we did not request. These muppets spent weeks pretending they had investigated the issue and case was rejected, after Sir Keir Plastered had ruled against. However the numpties had no clue that Vodafone had already cancelled any orders. A pathetic lazy ( in favour of the business, not impartial) shoddy outfit.

In December 2024, I accepted the broadband provider’s offer to settle. The provider had until January 2025 to comply with the settlement. Since the provider failed to comply, I reported their noncompliance in February 2025.

CISAS promised to contact the provider for further evidence, with a 7-days deadline. However, I received no update from neither CISAS nor the provider.

Since CISAS failed to update me, I emailed them for an update. Guess what? A few days later, CISAS claimed “compliance has been met based on the information provided by the provider” and closed the case.

I almost took the provider to court to make them comply with the settlement.

In March 2025, I raised a complaint against CISAS, which promised a 30 working days deadline, ending today. Unsurprisingly, CISAS broke their promise again, and the Stage 1 response guaranteed in their “CEDR Complaints Procedure” is still absent.

Their website says "fair and timely" amongst other things. They put back the adjudication date, then didn't meet that. And the adjudication was non-sensical. We booked premium flights, were downgraded, but not recompensed for the down-grade. Bizarre

UPDATE RESPONSE
I already contacted you as I didn't understand the reasoning and you told me you couldn't comment further so your latest comments are basically a whitewash.

Completely waste of time.
They completely ignored what the airline agreed to pay the cost of my bag On 31 October 2024.

Took the MST (March 2025) course. Was fantastic, all the way from the top notch faculty to the excellent venue and infrastructure. Would recommend to anyone.

Very clear teaching aims well delivered at. Apace that was neither excessive nor wasting time.

Honestly one of the most intense but impressive courses I have ever attended. Fantastic sessions/ content and hugely talented and supportive faculty members - constant feedback - interesting fellow attendees on the course - Could not recommend this course enough - very high quality all round. Hard work but loads of fun too and new skills acquired.

A completely useless organisation kept asking for proof I was at deadlock with my broadband supplier...I sent twice and then they closed my case. I had a legitimate complaint and sought a small amount of compensation as a fair resolution ....got nowhere …….UPDATE 20thApril25 ….thanks to my trust pilot review my case was reopened and I successfully got my compensation

I paid fine through them in february now i got letter where warn me of removing items from my property even if i paid everything they want my wife is in critical pregnacy and nearly loose baby due to their agent was fairy bad rude and offensive over the phone contact customer services regarding issue we had as soon as i provide paperwork what proof we paid everythink lady turn of the chat over the phone they told me they dont speak with me i should contact aget.
Never had that scary experience.

Reading all the negative reviews here, I will echo the comments - CEDR is a complete waste of money/space/oxygen.

Don’t BOTHER wasting your time.

Is Anthony Nelson really an adjudicator? Or is he a made up person who cannot read evidence?