Spotlight Series: John Munton

What is alternative dispute resolution and how does it help consumers?

A core part of the Consumer Code for Home Builders (the Code) is the redress scheme we provide which helps home buyers resolve disputes with their builders. Our Independent Dispute Resolution Scheme (IDRS) is a form of alternative dispute resolution(ADR) and is provided for us by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR). We caught up with John Munton, Director of Dispute Resolution Services at CEDR, to find out more about ADR and its benefits for consumers.

Can you explain CEDR’s role as an ADR provider?

CEDR is a not-for-profit organisation that operates different types of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) – including adjudication, arbitration and mediation/conciliation – to resolve disputes between consumers and traders. We are approved to do this work by four competent authorities: Chartered Trading Standards Institute; Ofcom; the Civil Aviation Authority; and the Gambling Commission.

For the Code, CEDR offers an adjudication service for disputes that cannot be resolved though the builder’s own complaints process. Both home buyers and builders have the opportunity to put forward evidence to an expert adjudicator, who will review it and issue a written decision to resolve the dispute. The adjudicator’s final decision will become binding on the builder if the buyer chooses to accept it.

Unlike mediation/conciliation, which facilitates negotiation between parties, adjudication involves an impartial and legally-trained adjudicator assessing the facts, applying relevant laws and industry rules, and delivering a decision without requiring agreement from both sides.

Can you explain the main benefits of ADR and how it differs from other forms of redress?

ADR provides a faster, more cost-effective, and less adversarial approach to resolving disputes than court proceedings. ADR works in a very similar way to ombudsman schemes, with similar powers. It allows disputes to be settled efficiently, often within weeks or months, compared to the lengthy and expensive litigation process. ADR is typically free for consumers, as is the case for the Code’s IDRS, or at very low cost, reducing financial barriers to justice.

The process is impartial, with independent adjudicators, arbitrators or mediators assessing evidence fairly, ensuring balanced outcomes. ADR is confidential and helps preserve relationships by promoting dialogue and negotiated settlements rather than escalating conflicts.

Businesses benefit by avoiding costly legal fees while gaining insights from dispute trends to improve service quality, which in turn can improve the buying experience for future customers.

How important is independence and how do you ensure that is maintained?

Independence is critical to ensure impartiality, fairness, and public confidence in the process. CEDR maintains independence by adhering to strict regulatory standards, ensuring our adjudicators and mediators have no conflicts of interest, and applying transparent, unbiased decision-making processes. ADR professionals act neutrally, considering all evidence without favouring any party.

CEDR follows best practice in governance and ethics as recommended by the Ombudsman Association and the Code’s IDRS service is subject to regular reviews by the UK Government-appointed Competent Authority, Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI).

What skills are required to become an adjudicator?

Adjudicators must have legal training as well as a combination of analytical, decision-making, and communication skills to deliver impartial and legally sound decisions.

They must be able to critically assess complex evidence, interpret legal and regulatory frameworks, and apply them fairly to reach impartial, well-reasoned decisions that are free from bias. Strong decision-making skills enable adjudicators to issue clear, justified rulings, while attention to detail helps them identify key issues and ensure procedural compliance.

Sector knowledge is highly beneficial, as familiarity with industry regulations, codes of practice, contracts, and practices informs decision-making. The Code’s panel of adjudicators includes experts in law, engineering and surveying.

What do you believe are the main misconceptions about ADR?

Many people think ADR providers are government-run ‘quangos’, but the truth is we are independent, receiving no government funding but being subject to scrutiny by government-appointed competent authorities. We receive most of our funding from case fees that we charge to businesses when a dispute is raised about them.

Another common myth is that ADR providers always favour consumers and are acting on their behalf as a customer champion. CEDR is impartial, and adjudicators assess cases based on the evidence provided, acting more like a judge to reach fair and balanced decisions based on the information presented by both parties.

Some believe businesses can ignore ADR decisions without consequences. However, non-compliance with decisions can lead to sanctions and reputational damage depending on the industry. A key strength of ADR is the financial costs of claims – whether in the form of compensation, remedial work, or administrative expenses – which creates an incentive for businesses to meet higher quality standards from the outset, reducing the likelihood of disputes.

However ADR providers are not regulators and therefore cannot impose fines or enforce industry-wide rules. In addition, adjudicators cannot award unlimited payouts. These are capped depending on the scheme, and generally limited to actual costs incurred by the buyer.

Why are financial awards often less than the amounts consumers claim for?

Financial awards in ADR are often lower than the amounts consumers claim because adjudicators must base decisions on evidence, fairness, and reasonable compensation. Consumers may perceive greater financial harm than can be legally or factually substantiated, and if they fail to provide sufficient proof, the award may be adjusted accordingly.

When it comes to compensation for inconvenience or distress, adjudicators often exercise discretion which can result in varied award amounts, but the maximum awarded for inconvenience is often capped. The Code, for example, limits inconvenience compensation to £2,000 for properties reserved from 1 January 2024.

ADR aims to compensate for actual losses rather than to punish businesses, so we cannot award punitive damages. Consumers also have a responsibility to mitigate their losses, and if they could have reasonably reduced the financial impact themselves, this may lower the amount of compensation they are entitled to.

Businesses that have already provided partial resolutions may see this reflected in the final award to ensure fairness to both parties. Legal and contractual limitations, such as terms restricting liability, can also influence compensation decisions. Ultimately, sums of money awarded by adjudicators are based on fairness, evidence, and industry rules rather than the amount claimed by a consumer.

To what extent does the Code’s IDRS improve quality in home building?

The Code’s IDRS has been operating for almost 15 years. It plays a significant role in improving outcomes for consumers by holding builders accountable for poor service, encouraging adherence to best practices, and providing a structured process for resolving disputes.

The IDRS also offers builders valuable learning opportunities by identifying common issues in complaints, allowing them to refine processes, improve customer communication, and adopt industry best practices to prevent recurring problems.

The Code uses the feedback from disputes to provide guidance on quality standards, dispute prevention, and effective complaints handling, helping businesses proactively enhance their service.

What advice would you give to consumers looking to raise a dispute via the Code’s IDRS?

The Code’s IDRS is the third and final step in the Code’s complaints process. Before we can adjudicate, consumers need to raise their complaint with their builder and if this is not resolved, contact the home warranty provider for a reference number for the IDRS application.

Consumers should state clearly on the application form what remedy/remedies (such as payment, works etc) they are seeking and gather and organise all relevant evidence they want the adjudicator to review, such as contracts, receipts, emails, and correspondence, to support their claim effectively. This can be sent to us electronically or by post. Throughout the process, remain factual and objective, avoiding emotional arguments and focusing on evidence-based claims.

We strongly encourage consumers to take time to reflect on the final decision and fully understand the outcome, particularly if it is not what they hoped for. Sometimes a decision may be found in favour of the buyer but the amount awarded is lower than they requested. This can result in consumers rejecting a decision within minutes of its publication (meaning the builder is not required to comply at all), only to come back in the following days seeking to accept it. However, once the decision is rejected there is no going back.

How should builders respond to a dispute?

Builders are required to cooperate with the process as a condition of their Home Warranty provision, and should approach the process professionally and proactively to ensure a fair and efficient resolution.

Once a case is raised, builders must comply with any deadlines and procedural requirements set by CEDR, ensuring they submit all necessary evidence, such as contracts, service records, correspondence, and policies. Maintaining a clear, factual, and professional approach is essential, avoiding emotions or defensiveness.

Builders have the option to settle a dispute within the process if they are willing to provide the remedies the buyer has asked for. They can also let CEDR know if they consider the claim to fall outside the jurisdiction of the IDRS, which will be assessed by an adjudicator.

Builders must comply with an adjudicator’s decision (if accepted by the buyer) and implement any required actions within the timescale directed. Ignoring adjudication decisions is a breach of Home Warranty provider requirements and can lead to compliance / disciplinary action being taken.

What happens if a builder doesn’t comply with an adjudicator’s decision?

The adjudicator’s final decision becomes binding on the builder if the buyer accepts it and any non-compliance is reported to the Code’s Secretariat by CEDR.

For applications made to the IDRS from 1 April 2025, the Code is piloting a process which will empower adjudicators to award an additional sum of money where a builder does not comply with a final decision that has been accepted. A builder will be liable to pay the buyer £5.00 for each calendar day following the agreed compliance deadline that the adjudicator considers the builder to be non-compliant. The total sum will be paid to the buyer once the builder has complied.

Consumers may also pursue legal enforcement if their builder does not comply, such as applying for a County Court money judgment or issuing a statutory demand if financial compensation is awarded.

However, in most cases, builders do comply within the agreed timeframe and the ADR process enables consumers to resolve disputes quickly and effectively.

For more information, take a look at the following resources:
For consumers:
Complaints pack – what you need to know about raising complaints and disputes
How does the IDRS work
IDRS Resources

For builders:
Right First Time – Complaints Handling
Code Compliance Starter pack
New charges for non compliance