ISPA UK Sets Out Proposals to Improve Consumer ISP Complaint Handling

The Public Affairs Manager for the UK Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), Andrew Kernahan, has today set out what sort of changes they’d like to see in order to improve Ofcom’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for handling serious consumer complaints against broadband providers. Would you support a pay to complain system?

All ISPs are legally required to be members of an approved ADR scheme like CISAS or Ombudsman Services, which are designed to supplement (not replace) the providers own internal complaints procedures and are only used after a dispute has gone unresolved for 8 weeks (the “Deadlock Letter” stage).

The process is important in order to help protect consumers against unscrupulous ISPs with poor customer service and support, although some providers feel as if the ADR services are effectively incentivised to take on as many complaints as they can (including potentially vexatious ones) because, win or lose, the ISP is still forced to pay up to around £350 +vat in fees (example problems here and here).

The ISPA claims to support the ADR process but they also want to see improvements. Now Andrew Kernahan, writing in a blog post for Entanet today (here), has clarified some of the key changes that the ISPA would like to see Ofcom make and we’ve summarised those below.

ADR Proposals by the UK ISPA

* ADR providers should have an initial screening process to stop vexatious complaints from being ruled on.

* Ofcom needs to better monitor and question ADR statistics.

* Ofcom should look at what lessons can be learned from other systems, such as the small claims court where cases are heard quickly, with features like a small claimant fee to prevent vexatious applications.

* ISPA would also like more transparency from ADR providers over decisions, with clearer reasoning why a complaint was either upheld or rejected. ISPA members also need more clarity over the exact remit of ADR.

One of the most controversial points above is likely to be the reference to a “small claimant fee” (i.e. if you want to pursue your complaint to ADR then you may have to pay for the privilege), which could help to discourage “vexatious” complaints but it also runs the risk of hindering honest gripes. Entanet has previously called for a similar approach (here).

The matter is currently the subject of an on-going Government consultation and debate with Ofcom concerning the future of ADRs. At present nobody expects the ADR process to be scrapped and if anything Europe would like to see this approach expanded to cover more sectors. Never the less there could be some big changes around the corner, although the parties concerned will need to tread carefully.