We know that it is a complete waste of everyones time. However, you have to jump through the hoops, and you have done so.
However, you do have ground for complaint about the useless mediator.
1. Mediator’s Neutrality and Conduct
The mediator appeared to paraphrase or justify the claimant’s position, effectively giving a “speech” on why the claimant was pursuing the case. That is not the mediator’s role. A mediator must remain strictly impartial, facilitate balanced dialogue, and not appear to advocate for either side.
2. Failure to Confirm the Identity and Authority of the Claimant’s Representative
You, the defendant reasonably asked for the claimant’s representative’s full name, position, and confirmation of settlement authority.
The mediator should have relayed that request and, at minimum, confirmed the person’s role and firm. Instead, the response — “we are not obliged to give our details” — is unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the mediation service’s obligation to ensure both parties can identify who they are dealing with.
The mediator’s statement that they had “confirmed” the representative’s authority, without evidencing how, could be construed as taking responsibility for verifying something they could not properly verify.
3. Refusal to Record or Relay a Material Statement
When you asked that your position be recorded — that the claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and that your offer was £0 — the mediator said they would not record or relay this, and that the call was “private and confidential”.
This is incorrect: while the mediation discussions are confidential in substance (without prejudice), the mediator must record the outcome and relevant procedural notes (e.g., “party requested confirmation of authority; representative refused; party declined to negotiate further”). Refusing to note such points prevents an accurate record and deprives you of procedural fairness.
4. Procedural Fairness and Service Quality
The mediation lasted barely seven minutes, apparently consisting mostly of the mediator summarising the claimant’s case and then closing the session without properly exploring resolution. This suggests a failure to provide a meaningful mediation opportunity.
5. Grounds for Complaint
You should make a formal complaint to the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service, citing:
• Apparent bias or partiality in the mediator’s tone and content.
• Failure to ensure transparency about the identity and authority of the claimant’s representative.
• Failure to record your stated position.
• Failure to facilitate a fair process, resulting in an unproductive and truncated session.
Suggested Course of action
A concise, factual complaint should be sent to: "HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service – Complaints" with the case number, mediation date, and time.
The complaint should focus on procedural failings and impartiality, not on the merits of the claim itself.
You can email the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service with the following and CC yourself:
Subject: Formal Complaint – Conduct of Mediation on 27 October 2025
Case Reference: [Insert Claim Number]
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the mediation call held on Monday 27 October 2025 at 10:10am, which I attended as the Defendant in the above-referenced case.
HMCTS had declined my earlier request to reschedule the mediation date, despite advance notice of an unavoidable family commitment. Consequently, I had no alternative but to take the call from a safe location en route to my destination.
The mediation consisted of two brief calls totalling approximately seven minutes and, in my view, did not meet the standards of impartiality, transparency, or procedural fairness expected from the HMCTS Mediation Service. I outline my concerns below:
1. Lack of Impartiality
The mediator opened the session by giving what amounted to a summary of the claimant’s case and reasons for pursuing it. This created the impression that the mediator was advocating for one side rather than facilitating balanced dialogue between both parties.
Under the Civil Mediation Council (CMC) Code of Conduct, Section 2.1, mediators must “act fairly, impartially, and without bias towards any party.” The HMCTS Service Standards similarly require mediators to “remain neutral and ensure that both parties have equal opportunity to be heard”. I do not believe those standards were met.
2. Failure to Ensure Transparency Regarding the Claimant’s Representative
I asked for confirmation of the claimant’s representative’s full name, position, and settlement authority. The mediator relayed the following response:
“We are not obliged to give our details, but my name is [Justice] and I work for the Litigation Support Team of DCB Legal”.
The mediator then stated, “I have confirmed they are authorised to act on behalf of the claimant”.
Under CMC Code Section 2.3, mediators must ensure that “each party has sufficient information to participate effectively.” A party cannot meaningfully engage in settlement discussions without knowing the identity and authority of the opposing representative. The mediator’s handling of this issue was inadequate and created uncertainty over whether the claimant’s representative had any lawful authority to negotiate.
3. Refusal to Record a Material Statement
When I asked for my position to be recorded—that the claimant’s attendee had not confirmed settlement authority and that my offer was £0—the mediator refused, stating that the call was “private and confidential” and that no record would be made.
I understand that mediation discussions are confidential; however, CMC Code Section 3.2 clarifies that mediators must “record and report the outcome accurately,” including any procedural points that affect the fairness of the process. Refusing to note my statement meant the official record failed to reflect the true circumstances of the mediation.
4. Unreasonable Truncation of the Mediation Session
The entire mediation lasted barely seven minutes and ended abruptly with the mediator stating that the matter would now proceed to court. There was no meaningful attempt to facilitate discussion, summarise positions, or explore potential settlement.
HMCTS Service Standards state that mediators should “facilitate open communication and explore possible areas of agreement before concluding.” That standard was not followed.
In summary, I believe the mediation process on this occasion was procedurally defective and failed to meet both HMCTS and Civil Mediation Council standards of impartiality, fairness, and transparency. I request that this complaint be investigated and that I receive a written response detailing your findings and any remedial action to ensure compliance in future mediations.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
Defendant
[Address / Email]