CTSI given new consumer ADR duties from 6 April 2026
From 6 April 2026, if you hit a wall with a retailer or service and want to avoid court, the system you use to sort it out will be more standardised. The government has confirmed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) will run the UK’s accreditation and oversight for consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
The Regulations were made on 9 March 2026 and apply across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. According to legislation.gov.uk, they sit under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and spell out what CTSI must do, how providers are approved, and what information you can see before you choose ADR.
ADR is the umbrella term for ways to resolve consumer contract disputes without going to court. Think independent adjudication or mediation that looks at evidence from you and the business, then proposes or issues an outcome. It is designed to be quicker and less formal than litigation, while still aiming to be fair.
CTSI is the professional body for trading standards, operating under Royal Charter. Under these rules, it becomes the gatekeeper for consumer ADR accreditation. That means CTSI decides who can be accredited, manages any changes to an accreditation, and can suspend or revoke it if a provider falls short.
If you run an ADR scheme, your application or request to vary an accreditation must follow procedures that CTSI will publish on its website. Applications have to include clear, accessible information about who you are, the kinds of ADR you carry out, the types of disputes you take, any time limits, the possible outcomes, whether cases can be handled in writing or orally, what languages you accept, the fees either side might pay, whether outcomes are binding, when you might refuse a case, and how people can complain.
Charging consumers a fee for ADR is not automatic. Providers who want to do this must ask CTSI to approve their fee provisions. They have to explain the proposed fee, why a fee is needed, how the money will be used, and what steps will be taken so fees improve access to ADR rather than put people off. CTSI must look at that evidence and then send a written decision with reasons on a durable medium, such as a letter or email.
For you as a consumer, one practical change is visibility. CTSI must publish standardised information on its website for every accredited ADR provider and every exempt provider. That means you should be able to check, in one place, who runs the service, what disputes they cover, how the process works, what it might cost, the languages offered, whether the decision will bind the business, and how to raise a complaint if the ADR service itself lets you down.
There is also a transparency test around enforcement. Before CTSI publishes information about enforcement notices it has issued to ADR providers, it must consider the benefit of sharing details that point to systemic problems or matters of wider public interest. In short, the watchdog is encouraged to surface patterns that learners, teachers and consumers should know about.
When an accreditation is suspended or revoked, CTSI must collect key facts from the provider, including what cases are still open, how long it will take to finish or transfer them, and who will take them on if they are moved. CTSI must also tell the Secretary of State when it believes statutory conditions for suspension or revocation are met. This is about making sure disputes do not get stranded mid‑process.
CTSI will also receive fees payable by accredited ADR providers where the law allows. That helps fund the accreditation system, and it creates an incentive for providers to keep their status by meeting the standards set out in the Act and these Regulations.
Oversight does not stop at approvals. CTSI must file a short quarterly report with the Secretary of State within two weeks of each calendar quarter ending, and a fuller end‑of‑year report within four weeks of the financial year end. Those reports will include how many requests to charge consumer fees were approved or rejected and why in outline, how many providers were accredited, limited or refused, how many variations were granted or refused, the average time taken to make those decisions, the average fees paid, and how many suspensions or revocations happened and on what statutory grounds. The annual report must also evaluate how the accreditation system is working and the overall quality of ADR in the UK, and it must be published on CTSI’s website for you to read.
You will see the phrase “durable medium” used a lot in consumer law. Here it means information sent in a form you can keep and read again without it changing, such as a letter or an email stored safely. That matters when decisions, reasons, and rights need to be clear and provable later.
What this means for you is choice with more clarity. From 6 April 2026 you should be able to compare ADR providers using consistent profiles, understand any fees before you agree to use a scheme, and check whether an outcome could be binding on the business. If a provider is sanctioned or loses its accreditation, CTSI’s reporting aims to make that visible and to ensure your case is not left in limbo.
If you run or plan to run an ADR service, the takeaway is to prepare your evidence now. Map your case types, rules and time limits clearly, set out your languages and access routes, audit your complaints process, and if you think a consumer fee is necessary, explain how it will expand access rather than ration it. Keep records that will support CTSI’s quarterly and annual data requests, because reporting timetables are tight.
Finally, a note on impact. The government’s explanatory note on legislation.gov.uk says no formal impact assessment was produced because no, or no significant, impact is expected on the private, voluntary or public sectors. We will be watching the first year’s CTSI report to see whether access, speed and fairness actually improve once the new system takes effect.