CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation Anmeldelser 672

Most corrupt and evil people on this planet . Cowboys is a polite word for these lazy and incompetent people!!

Disgusting organisation, after paying £20 towards a debt I didn’t owe and communication Saturday I was awoke by a fat cockney fella called Andy 07846 123355 banging my door and frightening my children. No explanation of the debt, aggressive rude looked very unclean and not what you need at 7am. CDER were very well aware of my mental health situation which they previously called, I cleared majority of the £400 bill down to £60 to be bullied at 7am into paying £299. CDEr did not give me any letters or text warning of a 7 day pre warning of visit. The £60 would have been cleared today but Andy the scum agressive bailiff has now left me broke and on edge and angry. CDER welfare department are a disgrace.

They don’t reply they have taken their money, damaged someone’s mental health and even more severe actions. Danielle sent an email back saying tough, we have our money not our problem. The bailiff has damaged my car, and they didn’t listen and no warnings of fat boy turning up at 7am. Of which he never introduced his company battered the hell out of my door. The £60 was due to as welfare was advised to be paid Wednesday they decided to not listen and send this disgusting creature to my home of who can be tracked down quite easily, for criminal damage. CEDR need to be closed down the welfare department in competence has now made a small debt cost me over £800, no empathy or compassion.

Dear CEDR Team,

I just wanted to thank you for the professional and fair way my case (706605) against TalkTalk was handled.
The process was clear, communication was efficient, and I’m satisfied with the outcome.

Kind regards,
Antonio Caropreso

Richard, County Court Mediation Team, kind, professional absolute star. If you have a reward and recognition programme Richard should be on it. I can only hope the experience of mediation is as profesional as Richard.

My longstanding case against TalkTalk with CEDR was supposed to be settled today - - in so far as the adjudicator had until today to reach a decision.

This has not happened. So I feel I have no option but to now take this matter further.

I will revise this review if I hear back. So far however I’m not impressed with the service and having knowledge that all of my correspondence with the platform seems to have been outsourced to people in South Africa leaving me quite worried about how my private data is handled.

I appreciate the opportunity to use the CEDR process; however, I am disappointed with the outcome. Despite providing detailed evidence, including dated photographs and invoices, my submissions were not properly considered. The adjudicator’s response appeared one-sided and did not reflect the full facts of the case. The process felt biased, and I did not feel that my evidence was given equal weight. I expected a more balanced and transparent review.

I very much get the feeling that they aren't interested in listening to you. Most of my queries have gone unanswered and where they have, they have generally answered their own question rather than the one I actually asked. They couldn't keep a straight story either which led to questions regarding honesty.

I cannot comment on their resolution process as I accepted the provider's offer (they fixed the issue without CEDR/CISAS's pressure and I thought it was easier at that point to walk away. I genuinely think that dealing with them was worse than the provider.

Wish we had read reviews before pursuing Gold Crest Surveyors via CEDR, RICS preferred arbitration service. CEDR found there ‘was not a sufficient trail of evidence for the surveyor to pursue’ on a level 3 building survey.

Rising damp was present as a tide mark along the entire wall of one room and bubbling paint and salts at the base of 2 columns and externally above blue bricks.

The surveyor failed to carry out a thorough inspection of the property (as required by RICS guidance which I also presented to CEDR) or move items by the vendor to check for damp despite us presenting emails to show we’d specifically asked them to look for damp as we knew the vendor had previously had damp treatment. We submitted a report by a chartered surveyor to CEDR which concluded that the rising damp had been there long term. We noticed the visible evidence of damp on moving in, 6 weeks after the survey and in September (survey done July).

We should’ve taken the £1,000 payment offered by the surveyor to not take it to arbitration. The surveyor warned us that they were usually successful refuting claims via CEDR. Now we know why.

Completely biased to the surveyors. Hours of evidence gathering, obtaining quotes to rectify it and stress for nothing. I was convinced I would be successful but I should’ve realised that corporations stick together and consumer rights mean nothing.

Adjudicator totally failed to fully consider the evidence that I provided. Huge Bias towards Now TV. Upon following the CEDR complaint process, you have to mandatorily tick a box which actually prevents you from complaining about the adjudication process. Total Waste of time and energy. Useless

The decision was factually incorrect in major areas.
The adjudicator missed relevant evidence in his decision. If he had spoken to me (as I requested before he investigated) then I could have identified exactly where the relevant evidence was.
It was a complicated, multi-faceted and detailed case which is why a simple telephone call would have resolved any confusion and prevented mistakes. It would also have created goodwill and better understanding on both sides.
As an improvement to their system, they should allow the complainant to optionally add a comment when they tick the accept/decline box. This would give the service honest and valuable feedback.

Only CISAS saved me from TalkTalk's diabolical practice of refusing to allow customers to leave even though notice was given well in advance. After TalkTalk failed to provide broadband for 11 days and allowed my data to be breached I contacted CISAS. CISAS professionals considered all the evidence I provided and called TalkTalk to account. TalkTalk was punished for its very disreputable practices and fined. I was awarded compensation. Without CISAS, TalkTalk would still be levying bills even though I left them over six months ago. Thank you CISAS.

What an awful, unprofessional agency. They intimated they can help, ask for sensitive passport information etc. then another case handler informs you that they can't help. Shambolic, They can't even communicate properly. Avoid in my opinion, as went to them with a grievance and now I've a grievance against them.

I used CEDR arbitration to try and obtain a settlement in a dispute I had with an airline. I need not have bothered.
I had been prevented from using my tickets to fly from Heathrow to Greece. The airline later confirmed that they had no reason to bar me other than they had ‘ reasonable’ motive at the time. I had also complained that we were treated in a manner that I felt to be offensive.
In its ruling CEDR argued that ‘ reasonable’ motive at the time of preventing me to fly is final. The airline is allowed to make a mistake and not be held accountable. As to my complaint about receiving very poor service CEDR affirmed that UK law does not demand any minimum standard of service.
CEDR ruled in favour of the airline.
I was , I am, disappointed - at CEDR’s reluctance to support me and the fearsome implication their ruling gives, that enforceable standards of quality of service do not exist.
Were I to fall foul of an airline in the future I am not sure if I would ask CEDR to adjudicate and would probably refer to TrustPilot and similar to see how it scores before proceeding.

I do compliment CEDR on the way it is set up to handle disputes. Unlike the airline whose communication was appalling ( deliberately so ? ) CEDR is straightforward to use and strict timelines are requested and complied with. Incidental questions are quickly and efficiently answered. For that I was grateful.

Went through CEDR since my internet was having issues during online gaming. I had sent in Wireshark proof of packet retransmissions and a full blown 6-7 minute video explaining the issue, and shown key differences of a working game, to a game with issues purely down to internet stability. My ISP's only response was "internet is above minimum download/upload speeds, and our samknows box showed no issues", yet this box doesn't show anything to do with my problem within live gaming, as it doesn't track live packets, but simple base latency, download and upload speeds. CEDR sided with my ISP when they had very little defence, and actual evidence to defend all the proof I had sent in. Basically stating "Internet speeds are above minimum range, so internet must be fine". This type of response clearly shows that their adjudicators don't have a single shred of technical knowledge behind them, and they only see what's on the surface, instead of looking at the actual issue as what it is. They also stated, that my ISP did all necessary testing to ensure no issues, yet I was the one who did the majority of it, calling up everyday for the last 8-10 weeks before the CEDR case was put in motion. Suggesting fixes for this issue, and doing all background checks to try figure out what the issue could be. All of which were sent into CEDR.

If the adjudicator had some form of technical knowledge, such a basic response would of been given (whether win or lose), but the fact that none of my evidence to showcase this issue was mentioned in the final response, only saying that the adjudicator found no evidence to show that there is no issues, makes it blatantly obvious.

Is this actually a legitimate company , the customer service is really evasive seem unable to answer questions , instead they sit there in silence !

Straight forward case, provided PROOF/EVIDENCE and detailed but concise explanation for said case and they made it up and went off on their own and put their own spin on it instead of using the evidence, they made their own adjudication based on their own spin and obviously the outcome would be wrong.

Raised the incorrect information with them but “their decision is final and cannot be appealed” these are not even held accountable for their mistakes - give them a miss as you’ll be wasting your time and energy with them.

I raised a complaint with CEDR about their involvement and within an hour they refused my complaint saying that I can’t appeal their decision, I never asked that in the complaint.

I have raised CEDR’s conduct with Ofcom who back these incompetents and they are just as bad - nothing to do with them speech.

They potentially cost me over £3000 in compensation.

You are better off, if possible go straight to see a solicitor instead of CEDR.

CEDR is nothing more than a shield for airlines. I used their Aviation Adjudication Scheme for an 88-day baggage delay with British Airways. The Montreal Convention says baggage delayed for more than 21 days is legally lost. CEDR even admitted that — and admitted the bag was returned months late.

But instead of applying the law, they twisted it with “mitigation” arguments. Their logic: because I didn’t go out and spend hundreds on duplicate items while my bag was missing, I apparently “suffered no damages.” According to CEDR, the fact that I was deprived of my belongings for three months — including essential medical supplies — is irrelevant.

They hide behind legalese and technicalities to let airlines off the hook. No oral hearings, no real investigation, just a paperwork exercise where BA’s word is taken over evidence. The whole thing is stacked against passengers.

If you think CEDR is independent or fair, think again. If you want justice, skip this fake ADR scheme and go straight to small claims court.

If in the UK, don't waste your time and just go straight to small claims court.

Decision is factually inaccurate and not in line with CAA rules.

I have a First-Class Degree in Law and I have found that reaching to this center for Ajudication was a mistake.

Firstly they have offered a very brief resolution that was not written in details based on the law.

Secondly they failed to make legal evaluations based on each legal arguments we proposed following the law.

The binding cases from the EU Directives are completely ignored by them.

It was a waste of time and caused us to take legal action in the court which we will have to pay for expensive legal support if the case goes out of our legal abilities as law graduate.

It is really a waste of time.

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.