The boss of broadband ISP Andrews & Arnold ( AAISP ), Adrian Kennard, has heavily criticised Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (managed by CISAS and OTELO). Ofcom requires all ISPs to be a member of an ADR complaints handler, which exist to help customers resolve their disputes.

As a consumer site we see ADR's as critically important. They avoid the need for stressful and sometimes costly court cases, which deter consumers from seeking fair treatment, and frequently provide help in situations where ISPs are clearly falling foul of the rules (e.g. continuing to bill for cancelled services and refusing a fair refund etc.).

Suffice to say that it's extremely rare to hear any ISP speaking out in public against the service. However Kennard does make some interesting points in his criticism.


It's definitely worth reading the full report, which describes an interesting situation where the ADR process might have trouble making a decision when the ISP isn't technically at fault. Still, we suspect that Kennard's thoughts on a single situation probably won't convince too many consumers that ADR's are, as a whole, a bad thing. They exist because some ISPs don't play fair with their customers.

None of this is to say that some consumers won't try to bend the rules in their favour, either intentionally or unintentionally. As ever there are always two sides to every story. Never the less, at present, nobody has presented any evidence of widespread abuse.

Meanwhile most consumers are often more concerned with the effectiveness of ADR schemes. A dispute with your ISP must have gone unresolved for 8 weeks before you can even use one and even then it could take months before any conclusion is reached. ADR's can also rule against customer complaints, sometimes unfairly (often due to a lack of information or misrepresentation).