The mediation cal is a waste of everyone's time and is not suitable for these types of cases. However, the powers that be have decided that what used to be a voluntary thing is now mandatory. There is no requirement to engage with he mediation. The only mandatory requirement to "attend" the call.
In a small claims telephone mediation, what you experienced is, unfortunately, very typical, even if it felt poor in quality. The mediator is not a judge, not the claimant’s representative, and not there to explain the law or the claim to you. Their role is limited to checking that both sides are willing to negotiate, carrying offers back and forth, and seeing if a figure can be agreed. Because of that, when you asked questions at the start, it is standard for them to say things like “I can’t advise” or “I’m not obliged to provide that information”. It is unhelpful but common.
You were fully entitled to say that liability is denied and that your offer is £0. That is still a genuine offer. The mediator should treat that as participation in mediation, which in fact they did by taking your £0 position to the other side and returning with the claimant’s counter-offer of £300. What you said, along the lines of “liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue”, is a sensible formulation and does not amount to a refusal to mediate. Some mediators work from a script and, when they hear “I deny liability and I am not paying anything”, they mentally tick a box that there is no basis to negotiate and start to question whether mediation is “suitable”. That is lazy, but it happens. The important point from the court’s perspective is that you attended, you listened, you clearly stated your position, and you made an offer, even if that offer was £0. The fact that no money changed hands does not mean you refused mediation.
For your own records (not for the court, because mediation is without prejudice), you can simply note that you attended the mediation, confirmed that you denied liability, offered £0, the claimant wanted £300, and no agreement was possible. That is a perfectly acceptable outcome. In parking and other bulk-litigation claims it is entirely standard for the claimant to start at or near the full claim value and hope that you will fold, and rejecting that and holding your ground at £0 when you deny liability is a reasonable stance. The mediator’s job is just to pass that back, and if neither side moves in a way that creates overlap, the session ends. A mediation that ends with “£0 versus £300, no settlement” is normal.
The mediator’s rudeness and apparent eagerness to cut the call short, while unpleasant, is also not unusual. Some mediators are courteous and patient; others are brisk to the point of being rude. They are working to strict time slots and sometimes treat the process like a production line. That does not excuse the behaviour, but it explains the rushed tone. You can complain to HMCTS about the service and the mediator’s manner if you wish. Any complaint would be about the quality of the service, not the outcome, and it will not affect the progress of the claim. It is mainly a matter of principle and feedback.
The one aspect that is genuinely not how the system is supposed to work is the handling of your N180. The form specifically allows you to nominate someone to attend mediation on your behalf and to provide their contact details. If those details were on the N180 filed with the court, the Small Claims Mediation Service should have had them available and either contacted that person or at least noted their details. Being told during the call that they did not have that information strongly suggests either an administrative error or that the mediator did not bother to check the file properly. This does not invalidate the mediation, but it is a legitimate ground for complaint and something you can later record in your witness statement. You can say that you properly completed the N180 with a representative’s details, that those details were not used, and that the mediator told you they did not have them, despite them being clearly set out on the Directions Questionnaire. That shows you tried to engage with ADR correctly and that any failure lay on the system side, not yours.
Procedurally, mediation has simply failed and the case will now move on. The claim will be or will already have been transferred to your local court. In due course you will receive a Notice of Allocation with a hearing date, directions, and deadlines for filing witness statements and evidence. Substantively, nothing you said in mediation can be used against you on the merits of the case, because mediation is on a without prejudice basis. You have not admitted liability, you have not made any monetary offer, and the claimant still has to prove their case in front of a judge in the usual way.
There is no reason to be worried about how this reflects on you. On the facts you have described, your conduct was reasonable, clear, and entirely consistent with denying liability. The problems you encountered, such as the mediator’s tone, the refusal to answer questions, and the apparent ignoring of your nominated representative, are service issues, not legal problems and not matters that put you at any disadvantage in front of the court.
You can email the following as a formal complaint to the SCMS at scmreferrals
@justice.gov.uk:
Re: Formal complaint about mediation conduct
Dear Small Claims Mediation Service,
Claim number: [claim number]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
Mediation date: [date of mediation]
Mediator: [name if known]
I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the conduct of the telephone mediation in the above-referenced claim. I do not seek to challenge the outcome of the mediation itself. My concerns relate to (1) the mediator’s manner and perceived rudeness, and (2) the failure to act on information I had already provided on the N180 Directions Questionnaire.
First, at the start of the call I attempted to ask some basic questions about the process and about whether the claimant’s representative had authority to settle. The mediator refused to answer, stating in substance that they were not obliged to provide this information. When I then stated words to the effect of: “Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue,” the mediator immediately asked whether I was rejecting mediation.
I had clearly indicated that I was willing to participate and had put forward an offer, albeit of £0, reflecting my denial of liability. Despite this, the mediator’s tone throughout was brusque and dismissive. I was frequently interrupted, there was little attempt to acknowledge or clarify my position, and the overall impression was that the mediator was keen to curtail the call rather than facilitate a constructive discussion. I found this demeanour unprofessional and not in keeping with the neutral, facilitative role I would reasonably expect from a court-provided mediation service.
Secondly, when I completed the N180 Directions Questionnaire I provided full contact details for a person authorised to attend mediation on my behalf. During the mediation call I was told that the mediation service “did not have” any such information. I have checked my own copy of the N180 and can confirm that the representative’s details are clearly and correctly recorded. It therefore appears that either this information was not accessed at all, or it was not acted upon, and my nominated representative was never contacted or involved.
For the avoidance of doubt, I did engage with the mediation process: I attended the arranged telephone appointment, confirmed that I denied liability, put forward an offer of £0, considered the claimant’s counter-offer of £300, and maintained my position. No agreement was reached. Any shortcomings in the process arose from the mediator’s approach and from the failure to use the representative details that had already been supplied to the court.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that you:
1. Log this as a formal complaint about the service provided in this mediation.
2. Review the mediator’s conduct, including the call recording, in relation to their manner, interruptions, and suggestion that my position amounted to a rejection of mediation despite my clear participation.
3. Investigate why the representative details given on my N180 were not available or used, and confirm what steps will be taken to ensure that such information is properly checked and followed in future.
4. Confirm that, on your records, I am not treated as having refused mediation or failed to engage with ADR in this matter.
I would be grateful for a written response addressing the points above.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your contact details]
