Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Request for Stage 3 Review – Mediation Complaint (Ref: [insert])

Dear User Investigations Team,

I request a Stage 3 review of my complaint concerning the mediation appointment of 27 October 2025. I remain dissatisfied with the Stage 2 response provided by Ms A Lee. I set out below the parts of that response I do not agree with and wish to be reviewed.

1. The mediator’s opening and impartiality were not properly addressed
The Stage 2 response states only that the mediator “relayed the details of the claim” after explaining their role. My complaint was that the mediator delivered a narrative of the claimant’s reasons for pursuing the claim, which went beyond relay and appeared as advocacy. This point was not evaluated; it was simply stated that the mediator followed process. I request review of whether it is appropriate for a mediator to present one party’s motivations in detail before hearing the other party at all.

2. Failure to address the refusal of the claimant’s representative to identify themselves
The Stage 2 response says neither party is required to confirm attendance details to the other. My complaint is not about a requirement but about the mediator accepting a refusal to provide identity when asked. The mediator did not merely “share what was authorised”; they relayed that the representative refused to identify themselves. This has implications for fairness and transparency. This issue was not dealt with and requires review.

3. Confidentiality was applied incorrectly to justify refusing to record procedural matters
The Stage 2 response repeats that mediation is confidential but does not address the specific concern: the mediator refused to record even the procedural fact that the claimant’s representative would not identify themselves. Confidentiality is about the content of negotiations, not about suppressing procedural irregularities. I request a review of whether “confidentiality” was applied correctly in this context.

4. Mischaracterisation of the reason the call ended
The Stage 2 response says mediation “cannot continue” once a defendant disputes the claim. This is factually incorrect. HMCTS mediators deal with many cases where the defendant disputes liability; mediation proceeds unless both parties refuse to make any offer. My position was that I would not negotiate with an unidentified representative. That is materially different from refusing mediation outright. The Stage 2 response incorrectly states the call ended because I disputed the claim. I request review of this mischaracterisation because it affects fairness and accuracy of the mediation record.

5. Stage 2 did not address the mediator’s refusal to relay my stated position
The mediator refused to relay my position (“liability denied; £0 offer; claimant’s representative has not confirmed their identity or authority”). The Stage 2 response does not address this at all. This is a central procedural failure, and I request it be reviewed.

For the above reasons, I ask that my complaint be fully reviewed at Stage 3.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]
[Address / Email]

WITNESS STATEMENTS must be provided by all parties by 2nd January 2026.