Consumer Adr

...

are needed to meet the requirement that all consumer disputes be covered, some responses call for larger existing providers with the necessary expertise to be extended to cover the gaps. The Government however remains firm on its position that further action is necessary to ensure full coverage of ADR: by implementing the residual ADR scheme.

At the EU level, Knudsen and Balina recommended that by classifying consumer ADR systems within EU, it could lead to better evaluation and comparison of the effectiveness of different ADR schemes between member states. Indeed, without a summary or comparisons of various organizational aspects of ADR schemes it is difficult to determine which of the countries have developed these schemes most successfully and efficiently. Without a role model discussions on ways to elaborate on their future development will be meaningless. Therefore, Knudsen and Balina seek to facilitate this comparison by differentiating ADR schemes across the EU, Iceland and Norway into 7 different working patterns.

The relationship between the courts and ADR

Lindblom criticises the widespread support for ADR. He argues that there is a risk that ADR systems will undermine the role of traditional civil proceedings and their role in the society. Perhaps ADR’s popularity has to do with politicians’ vested interests to get rid of the problem of scarce court resources? Also, he questions whether ADR does in fact lead to an increased access to justice.

On the contrary, Hodges seems to be optimistic and looking forward to the development of a new relationship between the courts and ADR bodies: that the courts will take care of the issues of law, while ADR providers will focus on application of decided laws to individual facts. His vision therefore illustrates a transfer of cases between courts and ADR bodies.

One prefers Hodges’ view. The fact that ADR procedures are affordable tools and their ability to resolve disputes speedily must not be ignored. By imposing the quality standards of ADR schemes, the Directive guarantees, or at the least intends to facilitate access to justice for consumers. Furthermore, the ‘residual’ scheme under the Directive requires member states to fill in significant gaps in the provision of ADR. If complied with, the scheme will introduce a degree of consistency across sectors. This eventually brings clarity and in turn informed decisions among consumers as to whether to take part in ADR.

Conclusion

In conclusion, consumer ADR plays an indispensable role in improving consumer access to justice in the increasingly complex market. Given the benefits that it can offer, the Directive and Online Dispute Regulation have arrived in time to address the uncovered serious shortcomings in ADR procedures. Yet we have to see how well member states play their part in implementing the new rules to produce the desired impact. Perhaps the impacts are likely to be most keenly felt in member states like Bulgaria and Romania where ADR is less popular and the infrastructure is at initial development stage.