Browsing by Person "Creutzfeldt, Naomi"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Confusion, gaps, and overlaps: A consumer perspective on the UK's alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) landscape.
(Citizens Advice, 2017-04) Gill, Chris; Creutzfeldt, Naomi; Williams, Jane; O'Neill, Sarah; Vivian, Nial; Citizens Advice
This report is about the help available to consumers who have experienced a problem with a business that they have been unable to resolve on their own. Some of these problems end up in the small claims courts, but increasingly consumers can turn to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes. This report is about the UK's current approach to ADR. The report does 3 things. It provides an up-to-date map of ADR schemes available to consumers in the UK. It presents a detailed comparative assessment of a small selection of these schemes. And it sets out consumer insights drawn from interviews with consumers who have used ADR. The research presented in this report involved desk-based internet research, interviews with ADR schemes, and interviews with consumers. The report comes at a crucial time. There have been longstanding criticisms of ADR provision for consumers and there is wide consensus that the system is incoherent and confusing. The current government has an opportunity to address some of these criticisms in a forthcoming Consumer Green Paper. This is, therefore, an opportune time to be thinking about how to ensure that ADR meets consumers' needs and serves their interests.
Participation as a framework for analysing consumers’ experiences of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
(Wiley, 2020-05-15) Williams, Jane; Gill, Chris; Creutzfeldt, Naomi; Vivian, Nial
This article argues that an analytic framework based on participation is useful for analysing consumer experiences of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providing a complementary approach to analyses drawing on procedural justice theory. The argument is developed by applying McKeever’s “ladder of legal participation” (LLP)1 to a qualitative data set interviews with United Kingdom consumers. The article concludes that applying the LLP in the consumer ADR context results in novel empirical and theoretical insights. Empirically, it demonstrates that – despite low value and transactional disputes – consumers expect high levels of participation from ADR. Theoretically, it argues that the LLP supplements existing approaches by providing an unifying lens for studying consumer experiences by emphasizing the importance of participation, not only as a process value, but also in shaping outcomes highlighting the distinction between genuine and tokenistic provision of ADR.