The following graphs show the Case Outcomes for Broadband, Landline and Mobile from all major telecommunications providers. The Tables indicate Mobile, Landline and Broadband Case Categories from all major telecommunications providers for the years 2018 and 2019.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
Settled: by mutual agreement of the parties. Upheld: fully or partly in favour of the customer. Not upheld: in favour of communications provider.
| Provider | Billing | Contract Issues | Customer Service | Service quality | Equipment | Mis-selling | Security | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT | 30% | 10% | 12% | 22% | 14% | 12% | 0% | 0% |
| EE | 33% | 13% | 13% | 17% | 7% | 9% | 7% | 1% |
| O2 | 23% | 10% | 12% | 28% | 9% | 8% | 9% | 1% |
| TalkTalk | 68% | 5% | 9% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Tesco | 22% | 19% | 8% | 38% | 3% | 0% | 11% | 0% |
| Three | 35% | 14% | 13% | 19% | 4% | 9% | 6% | 0% |
| Virgin | 32% | 20% | 18% | 13% | 6% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| Vodafone | 34% | 22% | 18% | 10% | 4% | 10% | 1% | 0% |
| Provider | Billing | Contract Issues | Customer Service | Service quality | Equipment | Mis-selling | Security | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT | 17% | 14% | 10% | 37% | 13% | 7% | 1% | 0% |
| EE | 14% | 9% | 18% | 36% | 5% | 14% | 0% | 5% |
| Plusnet | 39% | 14% | 13% | 24% | 6% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Post Office | 32% | 9% | 18% | 41% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Sky | 27% | 17% | 18% | 21% | 4% | 12% | 1% | 0% |
| TalkTalk | 24% | 20% | 17% | 32% | 2% | 5% | 1% | 0% |
| Virgin | 29% | 20% | 18% | 19% | 3% | 11% | 1% | 0% |
| Provider | Billing | Contract Issues | Customer Service | Service quality | Equipment | Mis-selling | Security | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT | 13% | 10% | 10% | 45% | 14% | 7% | 0% | 1% |
| EE | 19% | 17% | 8% | 27% | 4% | 17% | 4% | 4% |
| Plusnet | 36% | 12% | 12% | 27% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 1% |
| Sky | 27% | 17% | 14% | 30% | 2% | 11% | 1% | 0% |
| TalkTalk | 25% | 16% | 15% | 36% | 2% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
| Virgin | 29% | 18% | 15% | 24% | 4% | 9% | 1% | 0% |
Please find below the ADR Entity reports for the CISAS scheme.
These include Annual reports and Biennial reports.
ADR Entity Reporting AR 2018-19
ADR Entity Reporting AR 2017-18
The Independent Reviewer is not based at CEDR, nor are they part of that organisation. There are two aspects to the Independent Reviewer’s role.
Throughout the year we publish reports on a quarterly basis showing our performance against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which have been agreed between CISAS and Ofcom.
| Performance Indicator | Target | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than 80% of calls to be answered in less than two minutes. | >80% | 97% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| More than 90% of calls to be answered in less than five minutes. | <10% | 0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 100% of written correspondence to be replied to within ten days. | 95% | 99.5% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| More than 90% of case decisions to be issued within six weeks of the case being accepted. | >90% | 97% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Less than 1% of case decisions to be issued later than eight weeks after the case has been accepted. | <1% | 0.5% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Performance Indicator | Target | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than 80% of calls to be answered in less than two minutes. | >80% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| More than 90% of calls to be answered in less than five minutes. | <10% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 100% of written correspondence to be replied to within ten days. | 95% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% |
| More than 90% of case decisions to be issued within six weeks of the case being accepted. | >90% | 96.4% | 97.7% | 98% | 97% |
| Less than 1% of case decisions to be issued later than eight weeks after the case has been accepted. | <1% | 1% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.5% |
| Performance Indicator | Target | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than 80% of calls to be answered in less than two minutes. | >80% | 99% | 99.7% | 99% | 99.8% |
| More than 90% of calls to be answered in less than five minutes. | <10% | 0.9% | 0% | 0% | 0.1% |
| 100% of written correspondence to be replied to within ten days. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| More than 90% of case decisions to be issued within six weeks of the case being accepted. | 90% | 82% | 96% | >90% | 86% |
| Less than 1% of case decisions to be issued later than eight weeks after the case has been accepted. | <1% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
Note: KPI 4 was missed for the quarter due largely to date calculation error that allowed an extra week for the process. In practice 230 cases were completed in a time frame of between 6 and 8 weeks. KPI 5 was also missed by a small margin (1.2%) due to a small number of cases that required additional review. We believe the issue with KPI4 has now been correctly diagnosed and expect the KPI target to begin to improve from January 2018.
Key performance indicators were changed by Ofcom in late 2017 and retrospectively applied to the 2017 case work
The data below is taken from our CEDR Customer Satisfaction Survey for Consumer Adjudication and Arbitration, specifically in relation to our CISAS Scheme. These figures are updated monthly.
To view the survey results please click here
