Are CIGA violating the ADR rules?

My CIGA 25 year guarantee does not have a 'maintenance clause'.  Yet the CIGA inspector quoted the clause as a condition of the the guarantee.

This clearly is nonsense so I raised the issue with CIGA and was given the following response

From viewing the original guarantee issued to this property it is confirmed that clause 3 was not inserted and has been introduced subsequently. It must be noted however that there has been independent confirmation by arbitration providers that it is an inherent responsibility for the homeowner to maintain their property is in a good state of repair especially if there is.

[Note The sentence looks incomplete because this is from CIGA who can't string words together coherently]

This always bothered me because

1. ADR outcomes are meant to be confidential
2. There is absolutely no notion of legal precedence with ADR outcomes. 

Each arbitration is based on the information provided by CIGA and the claimant and not with reference to any previous cases. In fact two identical claims could walk away with different outcomes but as it's bound by confidentiality there is no way of each claimant sharing the information. This is a real weakness of ADR because if ADR outcomes keep showing CIGA to be incompetent then no one will ever know.

It's actually pretty unethical of CIGA to present previous ADR outcomes in this legalese way as it may dissuade claimants early in the CIGA concern process by giving the gravity of 'independent confirmation'.  I would regard this as a form of intimidation.

What do CEDR say?

Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), an independent dispute resolution body that provides the CIGA arbitration service under approval from the competent authority, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSi).

When CIGA sent me the ADR paperwork I noted the following clause in the Arbitration rules

6 Confidentiality

6.1 The parties undertake not, at any time, to disclose to any person any details of the arbitration, except where necessary to uphold the Award or to seek legal advice.”

'Any details' is broad but in my view would include disclosing the issues regarding maintenance noted above.

I asked CEDR if they thought CIGA had violated the rules of the scheme.
Their initial response was that they must remain impartial and it's up to me if I want to use the scheme.

After a more specific request

Providing that no data protected details are being disclosed within that information, the company is free to use examples of previous Arbitrations in things such as case studies.

I really was not happy with this. Although the rules state that CEDR themselves can publish case studies provided personal data is protected, the rules are very clear that CIGA are a party bound by clause 6.1.

I wrote the following reply:

Dear Consumer Services Team,

Thank you for your reply. Just to clarify on your last email.

I thought the CEDR agreement wording was quite explicit.

6.1 The parties undertake not, at any time, to disclose to any person any details of the arbitration, except where necessary to uphold the Award or to seek legal advice.”

To me that would not allow the company to use  “any details” as examples from previous arbitration in case studies. not just personal details.
I had seen that CEDR can publish outlines as you say but I read the I don’t think that extends to CIGA in the way the agreement is written.
I’ve spoken to consumers who have are afraid to discuss with other consumers ANY details of their ADR case for fear of legal action.

If what you say is true, might CIVALLI who support victims of Cavity Wall insulation also be able to publish case studies , of course providing that no data protected details are being disclosed within that information?

kind regards

Their reply

Dear Mr xx, Thank you for your email. CIGA is directly involved with the Arbitration cases and are as such not a third party. CIVALLI would not be a party involved with the Arbitration. Kind regards

Some further request just led to a brick wall.

Please note that we do  not regulate CIGA nor deal with complaints regarding issues such as data protection, or how CIGA use details of Arbitration within their internal processes. You may wish to seek independent legal advice if you feel this is necessary. 

Slightly odd wording 'internal processes' but it's clear that CEDR are completely unconcerned about this. They don't think it's their responsibility to apply the scheme's rules. They get income from these claims regardless of the outcome and so it's not in their interest to pursue this with CIGA.

Just to be clear. This is in no way a criticism CEDRs arbitration process. They are bound by impartiality rules etc and I have no experience of using them. But on this meta issue, I don't agree at all that CIGA are allowed to use outcomes in their own 'case studies' or 'pseudo case law' as I like to term it.

Consumers who have gone though ARD are petrified of sharing any information in case legal action is taken against them. I'm sure CIGA would send in the lawyers if a consumer publicly disclosed outcomes.