Consumer Dispute Resolution Bewertungen 

If only I’d read these reviews before wasting months of my time in trying to hold CurrysPCWorld to account for an appalling service! It’s clear what side CDRL are on and it’s definitely not the consumer! The evidence I provided was compelling and I even had a solicitor look over it ! BUT CDRL found in CurrysPCWorld favour….

Do not put any effort in a CDRL complain. It took me almost 3 months to receive a final determination and if you read the report carefully it does not make sense at all. Contradiction after contradiction.

In my case some items missed in my parcel. The seller (ASOS) only provided a list with the items + track and trace. And that is enough for them to keep away with this scandal! A list + track and trace... First of all, the list was only from my order so it makes sense that all items were shown on that list since that is what I initially bought. The track & trace only confirms that I received the box, which I did. Both 'evidences' have nothing to do with missing items in the box.

Waste of time. You get a descent file of 12 pages but there is nothing in it that makes sense.

CDRL have extremely poor rating and it is clear why. In my case a large distributor of laptops failed to meet their own terms and conditions and left me with £100s of pounds in losses chasing up a repair. CDRL offered a net negative compensation of only £80 which does not even cover my travel which means there hasn't even been compensation for extreme rudeness in store - it is a shame that consumers have to use this company and that they do not discuss the claim at all with consumers.

I have to say this site is disgustingly outrageous and no one should use it unless you want to be ripped off.

Useless beyond believe!!!

Avanti Gas delayed a transfer of LPG supply for months, had none of the safety certification up to date. The resulting delay meant my 2 year fixed rate offer of 33p had expired and new offer was 39p.

Had to use this totally useless company as only the redress scheme available for LPG.

Web site difficult to navigate and once had finally managed to email the information they then took 4 months to process the complaint. The complaint was not upheld as they stated the original offer of 33p was not given in evidence, it was and could have easily been confirmed if they had bothered to request. Avanti failed to respond to them at all about the complaint. What a waste of time they are!

I will have to do it the old fashioned way via County Court

Absolutely shocking company. If I could give it zero stars I would. Completely avoid. Clearly linked with Currys. Currys damaged our flooring and we provided evidence including independent witness reports who watched the delivery drivers damage our flooring as well as photos of them in our house installing the fridge freezer. Currys admit they asked for towels and advised “us” to drag the item but stated they did not enter our house. They dragged it and caused the damage. Currys submitted late evidence that we were not given the opportunity to see or respond to. On this hidden evidence, this company ruled in Currys favour. It was clearly written on their systems after they submitted evidence. It said we had accepted a refund on delivery and installation so we could not claim from them for that service as we did not have that service! We have never accepted this from them. There is nothing in writing that this was offered or we never accepted this! Honestly it’s beyond a joke. You couldn’t make it up. Criminal damage. Going to now try the police. NEVER NEVER use this company.

Don't bother - go to the financial ombudsman who will give you the correct advice.

No wonder companies like Curry's PC World dismiss any complaint and direct you to this company as they know all complaints get upheld in favour of the company having read all the pervious comments 🤔

This has wasted months of my life. They admitted the burden of proof was on the retailer but the retailer chose to just ignore the entire thing and didn't respond to dispute resolutions request for information about why my rights weren't upheld, and somehow my claim failed?

The CDRL (Aviation ADR) accepted our Case ID 148608 against TUI Airways 11th FEBRUARY 2022 under EU 261-2004 now (UK 261) rulings for denied boarding/cancelled Tenerife flight 4 days before departure. AND, with no alternative flight offered costing us elderly Pensioners substantially -let alone the accommodation costs associated! Hence we commenced a claim against TUI Airways -after Legal Advice from x2 specialist Travel Solicitors; Citizens Advice; and "Which" However, after CDRL acknowledged our claim on the above date, we have heard NOTHING since despite several letters of reminders being sent. Noting CDRL were informed we are Pensioners (72 years young) with limited computer skills with the case being expedited in hard copy....UPDATE we have now restored 'communication' with the CDRL and TUI will shortly have our response to their nefarious defence of our totally justifyable claim for cancelled flight compensation, that shows without doubt TUI need to "do the right thing" AND PAY UP hence restoring OUR SMILE after 12 mths of their provarications....UPDATE 5th AUGUST 2022 AFTER 6MTHS OF WAITING FOR THE CDRL outcome. Not surprisingly our claim was denied by CDRL despite ROCK SOLID evidence to the contrary -so biased towards AIRLINES AND ARE NOT IMPARTIAL. So now Small Claims Court OR CLAIM COMPANY as TUI ruined our holiday 17 MAY 2021 AND should pay compensation! NOTING RYANAIR FLEW THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD TO TENERIFE no problems...

Claim 12863

Completely and utterly wasted months of my time! To be deceived and ignored. The adjudication succeeded my claim, but still enforced the resolution offered by SCS, which was the whole point for me using Retail ADR as I did not agree with SCS resolution and was disputing it!

SCS failed to repair my sofa on 2 occasions and that is now an ongoing issue which becomes an untimely manner thus in breach of the consumer rights act. They dismissed that. SCS refused the refund which I would be entitled to under the consumer right act less wear and tear, once again Retail ADR also ignored that despite being written in the consumer right act.

Retail ADR unprofessionally dismissed the physical and mental health affects of the ordeal and having to be at war with SCS, who have been utterly unprofessional. They failed to acknowledge any wrong doing of SCS despite succeeding my claim, so for what part they believe I win I do not know!

Retail ADR clearly ignored the evidence I provided for loss of earnings at the fact I have had numerous people out to mysofa across numerous occasions and they want to continue with that! Because people can constantly afford to take time off work loose precious leave days! No, we can not but this was over looked. They refused any form of compensation for the utter service failures given by SCS!

They only detailed their determination after SCS chased, that speaks volumes in itself that they followed SCS wishes! In my opinion under the anti - corruption act, believe there is corruption and bribery between the two companies and that is why consumers never win with ADR as companies can pay them off rather than the customer. My case is a clear demonstration of the corruption as they claimed to have agreed with my complaint yet only sided with SCS for the full resolution and literally have not settled my dispute at all.

No point using them guys, you will just wait 3- 4 months for no outcome that resolves your dispute! They only live for the companies paying them and do not care about consumers, our rights or the detrimental effect this has on us! Unlike the ombudsman you do not even get the option to appeal the decision its basically shut up, put up and let the companies screw you over!

Totally biased, totally unfair, totally unprofessional and beyond unacceptable! They themselves clearly need investigating to uphold a customer dispute yet side with the retailer still!

I am shocked that this company (CDRL) is permitted to state impartiality. It is not impartial. The companies using the service pay to be members and they almost always side with those companies. I naively thought that maybe most of the cases were unfounded, unreasonable, but my case against Curry’s was so clearly in my favour. I had an AEG hob fitted and within a few weeks it stopped working. I called Curry’s and an engineer came out, told me it was a main component failure, a manufacturing fault and that it should be exchanged. Curry’s refused, insisting on sending another engineer. He took the whole hob apart, changed components, it broke again 3 days later. I again told Curry’s it needed exchanging and again they refused. Another engineer attended, again trying to fix it, telling me the last engineer had not done it properly. Again it broke within a few days. I begged Curry’s, but to no avail. I had written to them, called them, tried webchat, spoken to AEG, used Resolver even. They refused to change it, to follow the law. Eventually, through Resolver, they said they would exchange it if I gave them engineers paperwork, an ‘uplift number’ and serial number (which you can’t access unless the hob is out). The engineers left no paperwork, AEG refused to give me an uplift no, saying they’d only deal with Curry’s, and I couldn’t get to the serial no. This was all in Oct/Nov ‘21 and went on for well over a month. Eventually, after crying and begging AEG, they gave me an uplift no, which I gave to Curry’s. Without this, they were refusing an exchange, in blatant breach of my Consumer Rights. They finally agreed to an exchange, but only because AEG authorised it, but still they arranged it for 22nd December, even though it was Nov and it was in stock! When the engineers opened the box, glass shards fell everywhere and in his panic, he scratched my brand new Cube American Fridge Freezer. The hob was smashed. They agreed to come back on the 24th, Christmas Eve. When I called to find out what time, I found out the engineers had lied and had not even rebooked it. I was devastated as it was Christmas. They came on the 29th December. I had no hob for Christmas dinner or Christmas week, plus I had a damaged fridge freezer. CDRL had all the dates, the proof, admission from Curry’s and still found in their favour. Unbelievable. I am now taking this further. Curry’s should be held to account for this. They have damaged my property, ruined my Christmas and refused to follow the law, forcing me to be a gobetween, between them and their supplier. This is not just about money. I don’t care if I get nothing, as long as I get them to change the way they work and treat consumers. CDRL should also be held to account for their abysmal practices. I am shocked by the ignorance of their decision.

Update: I am very amused by the CDRL response. This is a body that is funded by its members. Curry’s is one of the companies that pays to be a member. I provided all the evidence, proof of purchase, proof of when the product failed, proof of the numerous attempts to repair it, proof of the damage to my brand new American fridge freezer. I even had proof of the dozens of calls made, the additional 5 days of leave I had been forced to take, the hours and hours waiting on hold, the recording of the call on the eve of Christmas Eve, where I broke down crying, after being told that the engineer was not coming as advised. All of this was ignored by CDRL in favour of Curry’s. I was given the £75 offered by Curry’s in compensation, but still left with a damaged fridge freezer and never compensated for the fact that they blatantly ignored Consumer law, which states that if a product is proven to have a serious manufacturing fault within 6 months, then you have to give one attempt to repair, before a refund can be made. I did this and demanded the refund when the repair failed. I was forced to allow a 2nd repair, which also failed. Curry’s still refused to refund. This is Consumer Law, UK law, not subjective. CDRL still came down on the side of Curry’s, claiming they had acted fairly, yet they say they are impartial. Bring back Trading Standards! CDRL is funded by these companies, so I suppose it was stupid to think that they would rule against them. A clear case of ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you!’

I spent a lot of time and effort putting a formal complaint in against Carpetright through CDRL as Carpetright had provided abysmal service for the money I had paid to them and ignore all enquiries sent to their customer service email address so I had to go to a third party in CDRL. What an absolute waste of time that was, CDRL are obviously paid by their members and take the decision to side with them regardless of what the complaint is. It's a waste of time organisation and if you have a complaint against a company you are best of going straight to the small claims court and avoiding CDRL altogether.

In reply to your comments below, please read all your reviews. Clearly from the reviews left it is evident that you as an organisation are not independent as you find in favour of your paid retail members as that is how your service is funded. Therefore you’re not an independent adjudicator. As an organisation you have dreadful reviews across the board. Maybe it’s time you reassess your organisation.

There's no way of getting through you Ella you rang you left no number no email.Aldo on the Internet there's no way getting through .This service is hopeless should be shut down fooling people that need help.

CDRL is biased to supporting their member companies. They do not offer any help supporting the complainant even when their emails continuously went into my junk resulting in missing a response date in their on-line complaint system. They expect the general public to be familiar with complaint systems and how they perform. Their complaint service does not work.

Adjudicator did not consider evidence that was presented and said that evidence was not presented.
Slow and cumbersome dashboard system.
Unclear process puts individuals using it at a disadvantage to companies who have experience with the system.
CDRL's own complaints and feedback forms do not work. Entering a complaint or feedback does nothing.

Edit: this reply is materially incorrect and misrepresents me as disagreeing with the outcome, but my issue is that due process was not followed as the Adjudicator failed to consider evidence.

I was sent a link to a compensation voucher by the Respondent but the link did not work. No compensation was actually made available to me.

This was in my evidence but the Adjudicator did not consider it. If the Adjudicator determined that a broken link and false promise of compensation was sufficient that seems either wildly unfair, or shows that they believed the Respondent's claim of offering compensation without considering my evidence that it was not actually available to me.

I would also like to highlight the inconsistency between these two points in the reply:
- There was no evidence to demonstrate any further monetary loss occasioned by the retailer's delay to warrant an increase on the value.
- We are unable to provide any guidance or advice in respect of what evidence should be submitted in support of a claim

As I originally posted, the unclear process puts individuals using it at a disadvantage to companies who have experience with the system.

Garbage determination. Clearly on business side.. After reading your reply you clearly show you are. First of all you are discussing details of the case online. I'm sure that is in itself illegalm secondly how do you expect a consumer to prove a product ime conservatory is faulty when 3 roof panels shatter inexplicably which even they admit has never happened.....except common sense would tell you that there is a problem with the material... yet I need to prove this? Your adjudicator is also a failed legal professional and I sent you the details.... as I said I'll wait for the 4th panel to implode and pursue via small claims your body is a joke and uses failed legal ppl to supposedly adjudicate when common sense tells you 3 glass roof panels imploding is a problem with the product.

Total waste of time. Made complaint against IKEA due to faulty sofa cover. Initially they offered new cover but because one couldn’t be sourced due to the sofa being discontinued (wonder why) they decided not to honour their offer and blame me for pulling the zip too hard which was total nonsense. To cut a long story short they just kept asking the same questions until I got so fed up and went away. CDRL was complete waste of time and did nothing to help. Wonder what the point of them is. Seems like some scam company maybe getting money from the government and doing nothing to help anyone? Not sure. Anyway don’t waste your time!

Absolute waste of time and seeing the poor reviews am wondering if this organisation is independent. They ask if you accept or reject the decision yet there is no appeal process anyway. You cannot call because of covid (oh that old crock!) and when I tried to fill in the ratings got and error message, how convenient. As with Hermes they know people wont be taking them to court so the buyer loses even if they are clearly at fault. I am finding more and more that online retailers in particular, are regularly ripping people off overcharging and then ignoring you. CDRL need investigating.

ASOS blocked my account forever, apparently I returned too many orders. However, considering my returns behaviour was completely lawful under distant selling regulations, I filed my claim with CDRL requesting that ASOS unblock my account.
But to my dismay, the adjudicator rejected my claim. Upon reading the final determination, it seemed like the adjudicator was solely focused on reciting support for the respondent’s position whilst ignoring the merits of my case. The flaws in the respondent’s comments went unquestioned and the compelling evidence of my claim was neither tested let alone acknowledged. Also to make matters worse, the adjudicator refused to suggest any remedies, which left my dispute unresolved and feeling very one-sided. The result was of course unsurprising having seen the online reviews before making my complaint.

A total waste of time! The Adjudicator has made a factual error in the final report which favours the respondent, who's Company subscribes to the alleged CDRL Independent Service - I do not think it's an independent service!!! Off to Court now, something we should have done several months ago and totally ignored the respondent's offer of an Independent review which has only delayed the outcome.

What a waste of time! I had a problem with a SCS sofa which they said was 'normal' for that sort of sofa. SCS suggested if I was not happy with their decision I should go to these people for an 'independant ajudicator' to review.

Everything has to be done online, so you never actually get to deal with a human being.

When it got to the Final Comments part, I explained that the sofa was getting worse, but was not allowed to add any more photos without being requested to supply them. I wrote 'photos available' after my description of how bad it was now.

It took 3 months to come to a decision during which time I was sat on a garden chair, as it was more comfortable than the sofa. Then they come out with the gem of 'I did not supply any supporting evidence that the problem had worsened' and found in the retailers favour.

Independant?? I'm not so sure...........