Posted: 02nd Mar, 2011 By: MarkJ

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.
The Director of AAISP UK, Adrian Kennard, said:
"To be honest I never saw the point, country courts are cheap and simple and easy to handle. They are fair (loser pays) and have controlled costs so low risk.
I am all for sorting out disputes if they arise - don't get me wrong. We are even quite happy to err on the side of the customer if things are not clear in a dispute. We do try to avoid ambiguity by having things like call recording and ticketed email systems, and so on, but lets be fair with customers! It is the nanny state that insists on ADRs for all telcos and ISPs.
Thankfully we work hard to avoid disputes in the first place and to ensure they are resolved if ever they happen. We are keen to be fair in our terms and dealing with customers, and for that reason we have never had a matter actually go to ADR. Phew! FYI, we pay for ADR, win or lose!
I was already pretty resolved to avoid matters going to ADR as I have heard horror stories from other ISPs where decisions are made against the ISP/telco on what are apparently quite clearly wrong grounds. The ADR decision is binding on the telco (but not the customer!)."
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).