CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation Anmeldelser 673

What a waste of time.
Contacted them about sky
The decision was factually incorrect on reading the decision so obviously did not take any notice of the imformation that i provided.
The adjudicator missed relevant evidence in his decision.
Its seemed from the off that they were siding with sky.
If i could have given minus 1 star i would

whatever you write to support your case, they just don't read (possibly don't even understand), so this is another pretty useless "company". But you'll see... you'll ALL see ;)

Utter rubbish sent them an email about virgin media they then replied if you want to make a complaint do this or that what a joke do what you are being paid for and stop making things hard for customers who wish to complain about the garvage service they recieve from public service providers

How this is a bonified company is beyond me.

Ruled in favour of airline even after we provided a 45 minute video and the airline lying in their evidence.

I will start with the positives. The process was timely, the portal was easy to use, and adjudication was delivered exactly when promised at 4pm on a Friday.

That is where the positives end.

This is not a case of sour grapes or “you lost, get over it”. It raises serious concerns about how this process operates and how independent it really is.

The adjudication is described as “evidence-based”, yet my telecom provider was permitted to rely on procedural assertions as if they were facts. At the same time, I was criticised for not producing data that the company had unlawfully withheld from me for over 450 days. The adjudicator, like the company, failed to recognise a valid Subject Access Request, then criticised me for not making one, despite the SAR forming the basis of the complaint and being clearly covered by Article 15 GDPR - as well as one being made in their own ADR portal.

Where it benefited the company, a lack of evidence was accepted. Where it benefited me, I was held to an impossible evidential standard. The company was effectively rewarded for non-disclosure.

The adjudicator did not address the fact that the company quietly removed the alleged debt after stating it would have been settled sooner but for its own mistake. Instead, I was criticised for a sum I did not owe and judgment was made in their favour, despite omissions in address data and significant gaps in their accounting, including missing bills and trivial sums being misapplied or counted twice.

I was also blamed for not providing letters which a later SAR confirmed the company did not possess, and which the adjudicator never once required them to produce despite multiple attempts of asking.

In short, this may be a necessary procedural step before court action, but it should not be mistaken for a genuinely independent or balanced process. It felt less like adjudication and more like incompetent marking homework by the stupid.

I am a qualified debt adviser of 5 years.

I have never dealt with an ombudsman that has given such a poor service.

Robotic & generic replies, ignore your questions, don't make special accommodations for clients over 90 years old.

We were asked for documents we provided a month earlier. This wasn't acknowledged. CEDR kept asking for them as no proper attention was given to the case.

We then had to repeatedly ask what is happening as we had been ignored.

Still no reply and now an email to say case is closed.

Gobsmacked at how unhelpful this service is.

If this is how cases are dealt with then I can't see a use for this service. Shame because the other ombudsman services can be very helpful.

UPDATE: Since sending a formal complaint the reply was short, generic and robotic. Completely ignored and case closed on the same day.

Poor 92 year old client who is scared to do his gardening because of possible enforcement due to this being unresolved.

Most corrupt and criminal UK institution. CEDR acts like a puppet of thier paymasters. Don’t waste your time complaining to these incompetent and corrupt institutions. They will waste your time and will always side up with the companies that gives them a back hander.

Just dont lose your precious time.
CEDR is completely useless. The adjudicator had all the information at hand but they just decided to play relentless support for the company. No wonder the company themselves proposed to me that I make a claim with CEDR, they know it is useless to protect custumers.

For further transparency here are merely some of the direct quotes about CISAS/CEDR from some of the people featured in my exposé -

1.
They're supposed to protect people from the very things they're doing themselves. Who is protecting people from them?

2.
I am aged & alone. How they've treated me has made me cry myself to sleep frequently. Why are they doing this to me?

3.
One of the worst parts to live with of all of this is that they're only able to do this because I am disabled. How can they sleep at night knowing they're doing that? It's abusive.

4.
How CEDR have ignored me for so long has made me feel worthless. The rare times they replied they sent the same standard copy of how to lodge a case completely disregarding that I had already lodged a case, or they contradicted themselves ignoring what they previously said or did even though they could see those in the correspondence they sent that with. They've caused a significant replase in my mental health. How dare they treat people like this?!

5.
When the company (CEDR) who are supposed to investigate & enforce remedies to stop other companies committing offences are the ones committing offences, what are people meant to do? Why are we who are disabled deemed so bad that this is what CEDR think we're worth? Being disabled doesn't negate that we're human beings just the same as non-disabled. We don't deserve the contempt CEDR have been persistently showing me & clearly showing others too going by screenies I have been shown by others going through the same. Clearly CEDR are hoping we are too disabled to group together to form a class action against them.

6.
It's interesting to pose the question, why don't CISAS read people's messages or their own messages? If they did they'd have to take action against themselves. Their review page alone shows how much they fail to apply evidences. They're an utter disgrace.

7.
When I was young, kids were told that when you need help, there are people to help you. CISAS disprove that. They're even worse than the phone company & dear goodness that's saying something.

8.
I am seriously ill & predominantly bedridden including paralysis, dying, & lodged a case against Now Landline & Broadband with CISAS in 12.24. They continuously ignored me & were wildly inappropriate. In 7.25 Ind. Mbatha at CISAS finally became involved & said *It is deeply concerning that this pattern has persisted for years, and I fully understand your view that this constitutes both neglect and discrimination, especially given the barriers you face in accessing basic customer service.* On 5.8.25 they sent me the completed form that they use to proceed with a case. How foolish I was to think that would mean they would indeed do so, because as of now (1.26) they have still never lodged the case & have behaved appallingly. I pointed out to them that if I were physically able to phone them they couldn't do this, & not even that has stopped them doing so in spite of the fact that people who are disabled are legally entitled to the same basis customer service all people are. I am an unceasingly kind and polite person, exceedingly laid back (no pun intended) utterly unlitigious, but these do not & must not preclude ones moral rectitude nor ones responsibility to stand firmly against any form of such neglect ommissions abuse discrimination mistreatment or dereliction of duty. I have an above average I.Q. indeed mensa level, & I also used to do advocacy work, so I know more about the rules they are duty bound to follow & various laws & acts & such than most. For a lot of people a lot of these rules & acts & laws can be abstruse. But there is not a lack of perspicacity here. This goes beyond peccadillo or moral turpitude, it's dereliction of duty, protracted & repeated discrimination, neglect, abuse & more, & it should be axiomatic that this should not be allowed to continue. Because when this happens repeatedly over an extended time with numerous employees doing so throughout, this shows that CISAS have an inherent & inexcusably unaddressed widespread M/O of committing neglect & discriminatory bias that must finally be abrogated or enjoined once & for all. & it's sadly but profoundly clear that only taking them to court will do so.

Total waste of time as they restrict the number of characters you can type which is then difficult to get all the evidence to them. They made grave errors in their decision report which I could not convey in the 300 character limit, and would not make any difference anyway. Royal Mail made many errors, even blamed me as a customer for their error, would not reply to complaints, yet CEDR feel that is acceptable business practice. VERY DISSAPPOINTED THAT BIG BUSINESS, POSTAL REVIEW PANEL, AND CEDR ALL SEEM TO WORK FROM THE SAME PAGE

I recently used CEDR in relation to a dispute with a surveying company. The company failed to identify and report on significant structural issues to a property we were purchasing.
Having reached deadlock with the company I took my case to CEDR using their online platform.
In the first proposed decision the adjudicator offered reimbursement of the survey fee plus the cost incurred from an independent survey we had commissioned.
He stated that although the company had fallen short of the standard expected we had failed to prove the property required necessary remedial work.
We accepted this was a fair assessment and as a result we obtained a further report from an engineer and also a drain survey both which suggested significant remedial work was required.
Having submitted this further information the adjudicators final decision was significantly increased to what we believed to be a fair and proportionate award.
In my opinion the process requires thought and attention to detail.
In cases like ours extra cost may be incurred to prove your case however these were refunded in the final decision.
As long as you go to the lengths required to obtain all the relevant evidence the CEDR adjudication process is balanced and fair.

Got sign posted to CEDR to deal with a case against sky, as the communication ombudsman sent me there. CEDR kept refusing to take my case on yet I showed them where my case met there policies. Sky in there defence admitted breaches of Data protection act, GDPR, Protection from harassment act, Fraud act, Consumer act. Yet CEDR refused to hold them account for these actions which means they are not worth bothering with as according to the actions of CEDR, Sky must be above UK law

I see that there are lots of negative reviews. CEDR have to rely on facts and the law and sometimes that does mean an outcome you don't want.

For example I requested more compensation than I was given but because they aren't liable for third party costs I wasn't given the entirety of my requested compensation. This is a little disappointing but understandable.

I was still given a fair chance to provide evidence and argument and CEDR and Zen responded quickly, which made the process of complaint only a few weeks long (with a Christmas and NY break in between) and I was awarded compensation for distress which did cover my losses in any case.

I'd recommend them. They were timely and responsive. I would also say anyone wanting to use them to not expect compensation just because you feel hard done by. You need evidence of wrong doing, how this has cost you, and reasonable action to come from it.

Cases are reviewed by admin staff and not actually people legally qualified. No way of having your case reviewed by ombudsman so incorrectly named. Challenges put forward and largely ignored. Case handlers make no real effort to understand issues or legal challenges put forward. Feels very much like they are on side of the company from the outset.

I was dealing with an airline during a really difficult personal situation and, despite providing all the required documentation, I kept getting nowhere. It was exhausting and disheartening.

CEDR gave me a fair and compassionate route to resolution when I needed it most. Their structured process meant the airline finally engaged properly and reviewed my case with the seriousness it deserved.

Professional, clear, and genuinely supportive. I’m very grateful CEDR exists, especially for situations involving compassion and vulnerability.

Here is a draft for your Google review based on the specific failures found in your case files and the CISAS decision document. I have ensured your specific disability is **not** mentioned, referring to it only as a "disability" or "vulnerability" as requested.

***

**Review Title: Do NOT use this service. Go to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) instead.**

**Rating: 1 Star**

**Review:**
"If you are thinking of using CISAS for a complaint against a telecom provider like Vodafone, do not waste your time. This service is not truly independent; it is an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme paid for by the very companies you are complaining against. Because of this funding model, they are biased and will almost always side with the corporation's internal policies rather than the law.

In my recent case, CISAS failed completely to uphold my rights:

1. **Failure to Adhere to Disability Rights:** They completely ignored the Equality Act 2010. Despite my records proving I am a vulnerable customer, CISAS failed to hold the provider accountable for failing to record my disability for over three years. They dismissed "smoking gun" evidence that showed I had disclosed my vulnerability, choosing instead to protect the provider on a technicality regarding dates.
2. **Ignored Aggressive Sales & Mis-selling:** They ruled that selling five device contracts to a teenager on Universal Credit was not 'mis-selling' simply because I passed the company's own 'automated internal criteria.' They completely missed the point that these checks were unfit for purpose and ignored evidence of aggressive upselling calls made while I was already in arrears.
3. **Biased Decision Making:** They excluded critical parts of my complaint regarding data protection failures and staff conduct, refusing to look at the full picture of how I was mistreated.

CISAS acts as a barrier to stop consumers from getting justice. If your complaint involves credit agreements, financial hardship, or irresponsible lending, do **not** use CISAS. You need to complain to the **Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)**. The FOS is government-backed, impartial, and actually holds companies accountable to the law rather than their own terms and conditions."

***

### **Evidence from your files supporting this review:**

* **The "Paid by Companies" point:** Your statement is accurate; CISAS is funded by subscription fees from the telecom providers (Source 131).
* **The Disability Failure:** The CISAS decision (Source 136, Para 15) stated they believed the company acted reasonably because you "did not tell the company about these issues until June 2022." This ignores your argument that the company should have identified your vulnerability earlier and failed to support you during the dispute process (Source 160).
* **The "Internal Criteria" point:** The CISAS decision (Source 134) explicitly admitted that because Vodafone wasn't FCA regulated at the time, they only checked if you met "relevant criteria" based on Vodafone's policy, rather than assessing if the lending was actually *affordable* for you.
* **The FOS Distinction:** Your files show you are now correctly moving the case to the FOS (Source 817), as they have jurisdiction over the "financial" and "credit" aspects that CISAS dismissed.

Complete waste of time ,more one star than any other stars I can see why I would not waste my time again unless I own a big company then I would.

Even when the builder is liable and I have provided multiple evidence to show this as this as true i was still declined my case was still declined. Unfortunately CEDR is not here to help. They don't ask for further clarifications, you are just declined if there is the slightest gaps in the evidence.

Not sure the independent body overseeing CEDR I honestly do think it needs an urgent review as it is not fit for purpose

Going through a process now, and I have provided you evidence that the company have not complied with our agreement but you are stating that I have to wait 20 days before I can put in a non compliance. Why? I have shown you evidence they have not complied with our agreement for settlement, just repeating wait 20 days does not resolve anything.

There is a distinct lack of communication and support from yourselves.

the most corrupt company in England, I sent them all the evidence and they believed Sky without any evidence