The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

It was still a valid question though.

5(c) will be an issue for IAS.

Yes indeed, I particularly liked that one!

waamo

I wonder who is going to be first to ask them?

arthurx1234

Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
13.
The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic d
ispute or a cross-border dispute which it
is competent to deal with on one of the following g
rounds—
(a)
prior to submitting the complaint to the body, the
consumer has not attempted to contact
the trader concerned in order to discuss the consum
er’s complaint and sought, as a first
step, to resolve the matter directly with the trade
r;
(b)
the dispute is frivolous or vexatious;
(c)
the dispute is being, or has been previously, consi
dered by another ADR entity or by a
court;
(d)
the value of the claim falls below or above the mon
etary thresholds set by the body;
(e)
the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the
body within the time period
specified by the body, provided that such time peri
od is not less than 12 months from the
date upon which the trader has given notice to the
consumer that the trader is unable to
resolve the complaint with the consumer;
(f)
dealing with such a type of dispute would seriously
impair the effective operation of the
body


I could not find any info regarding min and max amount of claim

Arthur

bazster

arthurx1234 wrote: »

I could not find any info regarding min and max amount of claim

It's determined by the ADR body, not by the regulations. Obviously different levels will be appropriate in different sectors.

The_Deep

I have recently taken Orange to Cisas and was most impressed by the manner in which it was handled, but I should imagine that the process must have been very expensive, I believe that it cost Orange £400. Still, as I was only claiming £23 (which I was awarded), they should have settled before it got as far as it did. ,

arthurx1234

ADR does seem like good news for us, however, due to the nature of the people we are dealing with, can the parking company involved refuse to agree to ADR and use the arguement that they have their own complaints and appeals procedure in place etc etc. I hope not.

Arthur

bazster

The new regs do not make the use of ADR legally compulsory across the board. Traders who aren't already compelled to do so by law or by membership of a trade association are not compelled to use ADR by the new regs.

However, the use of ADR is already compulsory for BPA and IPC members via their Codes of Practice. Given that the government was most insistent that the private parking "industry" must have ADR in place (which is how come we've now got PoPLA and the IAS) I think it would be impossible for government to do otherwise than insist that the ADR they demanded now complies with the new regulations i.e. PoPLA and the IAS would have to become "ADR entities" within the meaning of the new regs. It's potentially a huge shake-up for them.

The great unknown still is how the government is going to respond to the ongoing consultation regarding unfair practices in the "industry". I'll bet they've had a lot of responses to the effect that the IAS, in particular, is rigged.

TDA

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
13.
The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic d
ispute or a cross-border dispute which it
is competent to deal with on one of the following g
rounds—
(a)
prior to submitting the complaint to the body, the
consumer has not attempted to contact
the trader concerned in order to discuss the consum
er’s complaint and sought, as a first
step, to resolve the matter directly with the trade
r;
(b)
the dispute is frivolous or vexatious;
(c)
the dispute is being, or has been previously, consi
dered by another ADR entity or by a
court;
(d)
the value of the claim falls below or above the mon
etary thresholds set by the body;
(e)
the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the
body within the time period
specified by the body, provided that such time peri
od is not less than 12 months from the
date upon which the trader has given notice to the
consumer that the trader is unable to
resolve the complaint with the consumer;
(f)
dealing with such a type of dispute would seriously
impair the effective operation of the
body


I could not find any info regarding min and max amount of claim

Arthur

POPLA or the IAS will hardly be able to argue that they are refusing to arbitrate the claim because it falls above or below any monetary threshold, given that they have already arbitrated on a huge number of claims of exactly that monetary value.

The_Slithy_Tove

bazster wrote: »

Transparency
5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and
easily understandable manner
....
(c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;
....

Fairness
7. The body—
....
(b) provides a party to a dispute within a reasonable period of time, upon request, with the
arguments, evidence, documents and facts put forward by the other party to the dispute,
including a statement made, or opinion given, by an expert;
(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the
information and documents provided under paragraph (b);

Those pretty much stuff up the IAS's utterly opaque and one-sided modus operandi.

Guys_Dad

I think a standard set of clauses should appear in a separate thread for IPC/IAS appeals, demanding that the IAS follows the provisions of the legislation as highlighted in the previous post, plus other gems from the legislation as applicable.

Bazster - you seem most up on this to date. Is this something you could kick off?