CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation レビュー 673

I submitted my application in June against Sky with whom I had reached a ‘deadlock’.
I think for this review to be reflective of my experience with CEDR it is important for me to note that my complaint with Sky should have been dealt with in house as they had absolutely no leg to stand on. Skys complete lack of knowledge surrounding law and relevant policy however meant that my only choice was adjudication.
I submitted my application which I found to be a lengthy process but straightforward and waited approximately 10 working days for it to be accepted. Once accepted Sky responded, on the last day of course, and accepted my complaint agreeing to all of my requested outcomes including compensation. Sky paid this amount within CEDR’s specified time scales and my case was then closed.
I had read through many reviews on here about CEDR and whilst I had no doubt surrounding Sky’s wrongdoings, I have to admit that I was left feeling rather apprehensive. I was therefore pleasantly surprised when my experience and the attached outcome was positive.
I of course did not have to use the adjudicators which is the only reason I have rated CEDR 4 stars rather than 5.
In summary, if like me you are confident in the wrongdoings of a service/provider I would 100% recommend CEDR as just simply using them as a go between can secure a fair and successful end to a genuine complaint.

Again I should have checked Trustpilot, before wasting my time and energy the amount of dissatisfied clients is alarming and an eye opener. This organisations is not impartial to say the least. Their alleged Independent Complaints Reviewer is a (Non practising Solicitor). This proves my point that all Solicitors stick together and support each other, even and most especially when they are in the wrong. I cannot say that I am surprised, just merely disappointed that this is yet another organisation is 'Not fit for purpose.' They are wholly a Corrupt Service, neither impartial or transparent, but are incompetent and bias. They failed to seriously consider the numerous concerns and crimes committed by the Solicitors within the High Court setting. Even when falsified documents were used by the Solicitor, this was all ignored. I've inform my local MP and Mayor, relevant organisations and the media. The staff at CEDR are not trustworthy or efficient it seems. I cannot understand why so many organisations try to to do the bare minimum work and hardly read the contents of documents and evidence sent to them. When staff or Solicitors are not answerable to anyone continued issues will arise and people may take the law into their own hands. The pen is mightier than the sword. So this is the route that I will be taking.

The Adjudicator failed or had deliberately ignored and overlooked the fact that 'White Collar Crimes' committed 'White Privilege' individuals within the High Courts. Completely ignored the facts that the transcript was tampered with, for a hearing which lasted approximately 35 minutes and the transcript was cut and was timed to be only to be less than 10 minutes. The second audio for the December 2024 hearing has gone missing after the real Barrister who attended was confronted with the truth and then had a psychotic episode. To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it" Martin Luther King Jr.

I am deciding what legal steps to take and will not be hiding my experiences. STRONG WORDS OF ADVICE, PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR VALUABLE TIME AND ENERGY ON THIS CORRUPT AND NON-INDEPENDANT AND NON-IMPARTIAL ORGANISATION.

Wednesday 6th August 2025, in response to your post CEDR, your organisation is unfortnately much like the SRA, JCIO and the JACO seem to be one and the same entity. There is no justice, no accountability, transparency and a total abuse of the process and of your supposed powers.

To ignore evil is to become accomplice to it, Martin Luther King Jr.

On one final note, God's Laws and Judgements are much higher and more respected than yours. Given that 2025 is a year of Judgements and Justice, for those of you who still possess one, may God have mercy on your souls.

Very very rude customer service again. As usual another call centre abroad that don't understand me when I'm talking and instead of trying to understand they hang up on you. Never ever had that happen. I called to ask to have the call listened to so I can make a complaint and got hung up on again. The third time I got someone who gave me an email and when I told him he should note his fellow colleagues are rude and are hanging up on people, he done the exact same! Now reporting to my local MP. Disgrace!

muy amables, por telefono.

ANOTHER CORRUPT SERVICE
Just another so called independent service which is corrupt to the core!

Disgustingly inadequate ax is every ombudsman service in the UK they work for businesses

CEDR is supposed to act as an independent adjudicator in cases of airline misconduct, but our experience was anything but impartial.

They refused to engage with the facts we presented, ignored the clear evidence we submitted, and failed to answer our questions. Rather than conduct a fair review, they appeared to follow a rigid, one-sided rulebook, a “computer says no” approach that mirrored the airline’s own indifference.

In our case, we had four hours before departure, were issued boarding passes given at the terminal desk, yet somehow our seats were given away to bystanders at security. How is that even possible and ok?

Instead of holding the airline accountable, CEDR seemed to endorse this unacceptable treatment without meaningful investigation. A deeply frustrating experience that calls into question the fairness and independence of the entire process.

Original Review Title: Shambolic, Corrupt, Unprofessional, Pointless & Biased Company.

Following my original review, I’m pleased to share an important update: I took CEDR (the umbrella organisation behind ISCAS) to the Small Claims Court — and won. They failed to file a defence, judgment was issued against them, and enforcement officers later recovered the full amount plus costs. Their silence spoke volumes; they clearly wanted to avoid making a defence that would expose just how flawed and biased their complaints process really is.

As previously outlined, my experience with ISCAS, who handled my complaint about the outcome of private cataract surgery, was nothing short of outrageous. Despite being left with no reading vision and no meaningful aftercare, ISCAS dismissed my concerns through a process that was shambolic, inconsistent, and clearly designed to protect their subscribers rather than deliver a fair outcome.

The adjudicator ignored key medical evidence, fabricated aspects of my claim, refused to correct factual errors, and relied on an “expert” who had never examined my eyes. This so-called expert praised my long-distance vision six times but only once acknowledged the core of my complaint — that I couldn’t read. He refused to answer any questions that might cast the surgeon or hospital in a negative light.

I had twice rejected goodwill offers of £1,500 from the hospital. ISCAS’s idea of a final “resolution” was to award me just £500, less than a third of what I’d already turned down. They even acknowledged I had paid £335 more for a second procedure without any explanation from the hospital or surgeon, yet still did nothing to hold anyone accountable.

Despite claiming to offer “high quality complaints systems,” CEDR are anything but. There is no meaningful accountability; once an adjudicator rules, there is no appeal, no independent scrutiny, and no way to challenge clear errors or omissions. Even their so-called “Independent Complaint Reviewer” is employed by CEDR and is forbidden from reviewing the adjudicator’s decisions. In other words, the people running the process answer only to themselves.

Let’s not forget: this organisation exists to help people avoid the need to go to court. But given how appallingly CEDR handled my complaint, with bias, incompetence, and total disregard for the evidence, I chose to take legal action to expose just how unfit they are for the role they claim to perform. The result? Total vindication. Their refusal to defend my claim speaks volumes: even they knew their conduct was indefensible in court.

This outcome validates every criticism I made in my original review. CEDR/ISCAS did not act independently, professionally, or competently. They ignored their own standards and treated me with contempt. But ultimately, they were held financially accountable, not because they offered to put things right, but because they refused to defend themselves when legally challenged.

So, my advice remains the same, but now it’s backed by a successful legal outcome. If you’re thinking of using CEDR to resolve a complaint, don’t. Go straight to court. You’ll avoid months of wasted time, stress, and frustration. As my case shows, if you do use this “service,” legal action can be a powerful option to hold CEDR liable when they fail to provide a professional, fair, and unbiased outcome, especially when they’d rather avoid scrutiny than defend their actions in front of a judge.

CEDR has operated for too long without meaningful oversight, shielding their subscribers while undermining the rights of complainants. As I have proven, they are not untouchable. When they ignore their responsibilities, they can be disputed, they can be exposed, and they can be held fully accountable.

British Airways lost our bag for 88 days. Even CEDR acknowledges this in their decision.

Under the Montreal Convention (Article 17(3)), a bag not returned within 21 days is legally considered lost. Compensation should follow — no additional proof of “damage” is required. But CEDR rejected our claim by relying on two flawed arguments:

They claimed Montreal is "damage-based."
They argued we had to prove the loss caused us measurable damages, even after admitting the bag was lost. This is incorrect. The whole point of Article 17(3) is to establish presumed loss after 21 days. Creating extra requirements contradicts international treaty law.

They treated our delay compensation as a final settlement.
British Airways reimbursed us £721 for emergency items during the delay — a separate issue under Article 19 (delay), not Article 17 (loss). CEDR wrongly counted this reimbursement against our claim for the value of lost items, including medical equipment and electronics.

We submitted:
A full itemised inventory with receipts
Evidence that BA misrepresented timelines
All documents within their required timeframe

BA provided vague denials and internal reports that contradicted themselves. Yet CEDR still sided with them.

CEDR’s process appears to favour airlines, overlook clear legal standards, and undermine legitimate consumer claims. We are now pursuing the matter through Small Claims Court and exploring avenues to escalate our concerns to relevant regulatory bodies and oversight authorities.

If you're a consumer seeking justice, approach CEDR with caution.

I was directed to this company by Hey Broadband, the company I'm in dispute with. So I should have known the result before I started. Total failure by CEDR to look at the evidence but instead side with the company. Long story short, a Gas Engineer came on to my property to read the gas meter and tripped over the broadband wire and ripped it out of the wall, Hey Broadband decided it was my fault because I was happy with the installation and they wanted to charge me for a reinstall and CEDR agreed. In their adjudication they said Hey Broadband had conducted a review and found no issues with the installation and then went on about the good customer service I'd had.

I used their adjudication process against a RICS firm. The process felt stilted. Favouring the firm by adopting their view. They ignored various professional failing by the company.
- Ignored then saying they would do some critical activity and did not.
-Ignored my complaint about a critical lack of definition of changed roles.
Discounted later evidence. It feel like a stich up that favours professionals ability to present a case and discounts this amateur's attempts to explain things. So they just discounted later evidence.

Another useless paper tosser company out of tax payers money.

A Complete Failure to Evaluate Evidence

I am profoundly disappointed with the CEDR adjudication outcome and have rated it 1 star, solely because a zero-star option is unavailable.

This decision unequivocally demonstrates a complete failure to fairly evaluate the overwhelming evidence I submitted. CEDR outright dismissed Royal Mail's own internal Postal Review Panel’s conclusion — which determined my parcel was lost due to a delivery error and subsequently awarded me compensation. Instead, CEDR chose to rely on a disproven and factually incorrect claim that I had addressed the parcel incorrectly.

The sheer incompetence of the CEDR adjudicator is highlighted by their statement, which formed the basis for rejecting my escalation: “I am persuaded it is more likely than not that the customer did not address the package correctly. Therefore, while it is likely that the package was not delivered to the recipient the customer intended, I am satisfied it is more likely it was delivered to the address the customer had written on the package.”

It's crucial to note that the address used was auto-generated by Royal Mail via eBay’s return system and was accepted by Royal Mail’s own platform without any reported errors.

I provided a comprehensive body of evidence, including:

- Royal Mail's own Postal Review Panel also confirming the item was delivered to the wrong address and upholding my claim as they stated the following - "Upon reviewing your complaint, I can confirm that this item was marked as delivered on 4th February 2025. However, after examining the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates associated with the tracking, it appears the item was delivered to an incorrect location. Given the time that has passed since delivery, it was not possible to make further inquiries with the Aylesbury Vale Customer Operations Manager (COM) regarding its whereabouts. Additionally, I acknowledge the conversation you provided, in which the intended recipient states they have not received the item, and the image captured on the items proof of delivery does not depict their property. As a result, I have classified the item as lost."

- An email from eBay Customer Service, independently confirming my correct use of the return system and Royal Mail's delivery failure.

- Direct confirmation from the recipient that they never received the item despite the address on the label being correct.

Astonishingly, all of this crucial evidence was ignored. Instead, the adjudicator merely repeated the same flawed narrative that Royal Mail itself had already disproved and apologized for.

The CEDR process has severely undermined my trust in its neutrality, and shockingly rewarded a company that had already admitted fault. My detailed rebuttal, supported by indisputable evidence, was completely disregarded.

This outcome is neither fair nor impartial, highlighting a severe deficiency in CEDR's dispute resolution process.

I urge others to beware — this is not a service you can trust to act fairly when the evidence is on your side.

Case Ref. No : POST008132

It takes a lot for me to to follow through on complaining about an unjust process as I have much better things to do with my time, however, I am in the process of approaching the Civil Aviation Authority to complain about CEDR on the basis that as an arbitration service between a customer and an Airline, this organisation is failing in its supposed core value of IMPARTIALITY. I guess this is the result of being partially funded by one of the parties involved ie: the Airline.
Take time to look through the reviews on Trustpilot website. The vast majority of reviews are extremely poor due to a lack of impartiality. They have some good reviews but most of these are from attendees of courses that they run. If you removed these and just had reviews about their arbitration service I suppose their star rating might be 1star.

One of their other core objectives shown on their website they are failing at is as follows:
Ensure that all outcomes are based on the balance of probabilities

My Case #695453
I’m not bothered about the airline complaint now as their failings pail into insignificance compared to CEDR.
I will be passing this on to CAA and suggest others to do the same. Perhaps we can effect a change in this area.

CEDR seem to be some form of veneer or façade, existing to give companies like Royal Mail some credibility by appearing to give the wronged RM customer 'a voice'. Actually, CEDR seem to be no more than a shadowy digital scam: there is a website with a formal-looking design via which you enter details and go through the motions expecting it result in actual human deliberation, but there is literally none. My case: Royal Mail forged my signature - I have visual proof - in order to facilitate a non-delivery, and CEDR simply ignored my argument and dismissed it. All by extremely convenient - for them - digital means.

Very good training, excellent team, loved the course

Complained about a new business mobile contract from ice comms that clearly had £20 a month written on it but I was getting charged over £34 a month. :
somehow cedr favoured the telecommunications company ice comms - absolute scamming fraudsters the lot of them .

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