The New Regulatory Framework for Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution

Abstract

This concluding chapter calls for ensuring the effective provision of consumer ADR (CADR) by making the requirement of CADR mandatory in a number of sectors where there is a high demand for CADR and to set up an effective residual forum to ensure full coverage. The residual forum can be housed in a tribunal or in a much improved small claims court – it is argued that both of these options should incorporate CADR techniques and be accessible online. Another option, and one that may be less costly and more user-friendly (and thus preferred by consumers), would be the creation of a residual CADR entity with mandatory jurisdiction. The chapter then examines the main arguments against a mandatory CADR scheme, such as the argument of floodgates of complaints driving costs up for traders, the difficulties of enforcing outcomes with reluctant traders, and the restriction to the court and thus access to justice. Lastly this chapter briefly considers a number of dispute design options that policymakers should take into consideration when improving the CADR landscape.