Arbitration that hardly seemed to be objective
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.
Reply from CEDR - Conflict Resolution Training and Commercial Mediation
