Home > Consultations > Consultation Documents > Alternative Dispute Resolution > Statement

Summary

1.1 Ofcom’s (the Office of Communications) principal duty as set out in Section 3(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”), in carrying out its functions, is to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate, by promoting competition. Effective competition delivers choice and lower prices to consumers as well as opportunities for new services and providers. However, consumers may need protection from inappropriate behaviour by certain providers that may undermine confidence in the market as well as causing consumer detriment.

1.2 Section 52 of the Act requires Ofcom to set general conditions to ensure that communications providers establish and maintain procedures to, amongst other things, handle complaints and resolve disputes between them and their domestic and small business customers (“customers”). The relevant condition set is General Condition 14, under which communications providers are required to publish a complaints code of practice (“the Complaints Code”) and provide access to independent alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”).

1.3 Ofcom has a statutory duty under Section 54(4) of the Act to undertake periodic reviews of the ADR procedures it has approved. Currently there are two organisations providing ADR services which have been approved by Ofcom. These are:

• CISAS (Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme), approved 19 November 2003.
• Otelo (Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman), approved 30 September 2003.

collectively referred to as the ‘Schemes’.

1.4 On 27 July 2005, Ofcom published a report, Ofcom Review of Alternative DisputeResolution Schemes (“the Review”).

1.5 In that Review we:

• Confirmed that Ofcom did not intend to modify the conditions of its approval or withdraw its approval of the Schemes.
• Consulted on a number of proposed recommendations for best practice (see Table 1, section 2.14).

1.6 This Statement summarises the responses Ofcom received to those recommendations (see Related Items) and Ofcom’s comments.

1.7 Ofcom is now re-issuing its recommendations, amended to reflect our analysis having considered the responses received. Set out below is a summary:

Transparency of Schemes’ performance
CISAS and Otelo should publish Key Performance Indicators covering: staff competence, timeliness of decision making and overall customer satisfaction, together with regular reports showing breakdown of complaint by type.

Accessibility and customer satisfaction
Otelo should continue and CISAS should start to publish (comparable) consumer satisfaction surveys. The surveys should capture the socio-demographic profiles of the respondents.

Ensuring compliance with Scheme rules
Schemes should notify Ofcom where a member’s breach of the rules and/or decisions is sufficiently serious to consider expulsion from the Scheme. This early warning to Ofcom will ensure that Ofcom can take action against a communications provider for failure to comply with its obligations in relation to being member of a Scheme (under General Condition 14).

1.8 Ofcom has decided to withdraw its previous recommendation that the Schemes use an independent third party to handle complaints about the Schemes. This is because:

• Complainants are not bound by the Ombudsman’s/adjudicator’s decision and may pursue an action through the courts.
• The Schemes have their own independent review procedures in place.
• Ofcom has received only a handful of complaints about the Schemes to date.

1.9 It is important that Ofcom has a greater understanding of the way in which disputes are handled in order to assess whether Schemes are effective. Ofcom would welcome a constructive dialogue with the Schemes, industry and consumer interests on how to improve best practice in dispute handling. Ofcom will continue to monitor the research available and undertake further research of its own where appropriate. However there are a number of suggestions which Ofcom believes will help to ensure that complainants have access to ADR when required:

• Communications Providers should ensure complainants are correctly signposted to the Schemes and make sure that their Complaints Code is easily accessible.
• If appropriate, a standard definition of ‘complaint’ may be used to assist with the accurate recording and monitoring of complaints. A ‘deadlock’ letter should be issued whenever the provider decides that a complaint cannot be resolved. Complainants should not be made to wait for twelve weeks as a matter of course before being referred to ADR.

Next steps

1.10 The review process raised a number of policy issues that fall outside of the strict remit of the Scheme approval process. These include the need to ensure that the existence of two Schemes benefits customers; and that customers are aware of their rights and how to complain. Ofcom intends to consider these issues further and will gather additional evidence to support its policy thinking.

The full document is available below:

• Alternative Dispute Resolution - Recommendations for best practice [pdf]
  Full Print Version

Back to top