Policy article

OPINION: Fixing the dispute resolution system would ease pressure on the courts and save consumers and businesses money

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should make resolving consumer disputes quick, fair, and affordable - but in practice, it often falls short. Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy at Which?, sets out a blueprint for reform
4 min read
Sue DaviesHead of Consumer Rights and Food Policy

Originally published in PoliticsHome 16 October 2025. Permission to publish sought and granted on 09 August 2023.

Imagine that you bought a new car and discovered it was faulty. What would you do if the dealer or manufacturer refused to take responsibility? If you decided to take this to court, the car itself might be only the start of your problems. Litigation can be stressful, laborious and time consuming - even setting aside the toll it takes on your finances.

The purpose of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is to give consumers a path to justice without the costly ordeal of going to court. It also serves to take some pressure off our over-stretched court system. At least, that is how it should work in theory. In practice, ADR often falls short of its promise to deliver a quick, fair and accessible path to redress.  

Some steps have been taken towards reforming ADR. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) was a start that paved the way for secondary legislation. This secondary legislation is set to make some improvements to the current regime, but the scope agreed in the Act means it won’t be able to address the full range of problems in ADR. Which?’s new report is a blueprint for an ADR system that puts consumers first by prioritising awareness, accessibility, reliability, fairness and enforcement.

Taken as a whole, ADR is a patchwork of schemes in which the quality of coverage varies wildly between sectors. Some schemes may be more user-friendly and efficient, while others feel like an assault course of delays, jargon and labyrinthine processes.  

People are often confused about the evidence they need to submit, what they can expect from the process, and how decisions, especially around compensation, are made. There is no good reason for consumers to be struggling with what should be basic information. Improving accessibility through clear communication and open procedural standards will empower users, especially vulnerable groups, to navigate dispute resolution with confidence. 

For ADR to put consumers first, there must be consistency across sectors. The government should establish a single ombudsman in high-complaint areas like aviation, home improvements and used car sales. This would end the confusion over which scheme applies to their situation as consumers will have a single trusted source for ADR. 

In some high-complaint sectors, including aviation, businesses are not even compelled to participate in ADR. This means that companies such as Ryanair have been able to game the system by withdrawing from ADR schemes after a number of unfavourable decisions in 2018 relating to compensation claims for flight disruptions caused by staff strikes.

An ‘opt-in’ justice system is clearly nonsense, and the government should legislate so that ADR decisions are binding and easily enforceable. Compliance can be strengthened through a combination of financial penalties and giving consumers the ability to report businesses that refuse to cooperate. 

Consumers of all backgrounds should be able understand and engage with ADR, but its dense legal jargon can be restrictive. To fix this, ADR must be overhauled to remove barriers to participation. This means clear language, accessible documentation and translations available for non-native speakers. Information about ADR should be shared through a variety of channels with targeted outreach to groups that are less likely to use the system.   

Consumer research has suggested that only 20 per cent of consumers recognise the term ‘ADR’. This is concerning given how many people could have benefitted from it in recent years. The CMA estimates that 72 per cent of UK consumers encountered at least one instance of consumer detriment between May 2023 - April 2024. Levels of awareness also differ between sectors. In areas like home improvement and motoring, consumers often learn about a business's participation in an ADR scheme after a dispute is already underway, by which point they may have missed their opportunity for an early resolution. 

The government should mandate clear and consistent signposting of ADR options as part of the secondary legislation of the DMCC Act. This should be backed by public awareness campaigns to ensure that everyone knows about ADR and how it can help them. 

An accessible and user-friendly redress system is essential for protecting consumer rights. It should also act as a source of intelligence that helps businesses, as well as regulators, drive improvements. ADR should be quicker, less confrontational, and easier to navigate than going to court. But to deliver on this potential, ADR needs a stronger framework. If the system is confusing, if some businesses aren’t included, or if compliance with ADR decisions is low, consumers will be left high and dry by a system that was designed to help them.