Skip to main content

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: What We Expect of Ombuds in the UK

Naomi Creutzfeldt, University of Westminster & Ben Bradford, University of Oxford

Our article in the 50th anniversary LSR no 4 explored how people in the UK think about ombuds services and what encourages them to accept the decisions reached during dispute resolution processes.
Much empirical evidence points towards the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating acceptance of the decisions made by legal authorities. Moreover, people seem to be more attuned to the quality of the process concerned rather than the outcome it delivers. The procedural fairness of legal authorities – the extent to which they make decisions in an unbiased fashion and adhere to principles of dignity, respect and voice – has consistently been found to be a more important predictor of trust, legitimacy and decision acceptance than the outcomes they provide.
This research has mainly taken place in the context of the police and courts. However, one reason for the importance of procedural fairness may be the social, cultural and practical power of these institutions. The fairness with which this power is used is an important question for many people.   Much less attention has been paid to institutions that provide informal dispute resolution, like ombuds, whose status as legal institutions is much more recent and uncertain.
            Ombuds deal with complaints from ordinary citizens and consumers about most public bodies (e.g. healthcare), and in relation to the provision of goods and services in the private sector (e.g. telecoms, financial services, energy). The services provided by ombuds are free of charge to citizens, meaning that ombuds are accessible to individuals who could not afford a court case.
            Working with ombuds services in the UK we fielded a survey aimed at people who had recently been through a dispute resolution process. We asked questions about their perceptions of the fairness of the procedures used by the ombuds and the outcomes the ombuds was able to deliver. For this paper we analyzed those questions using a sample of 1,306 recent ombuds users.
            Our results show that people’s overall perceptions of the case in which they were involved, and of the ombuds service concerned, are influenced by perceptions of both process and outcome. If people get the outcome they expect from an ombuds, they think the procedure is fair and will then accept the decision they have been given. But, equally, if they feel the process was conducted in a fair manner they are more likely to accept the decision even if it went against them. There are many factors that motivate people to accept ombuds decisions. – this is not a case of either/or – yet outcome does appear to be more important to users of ombuds services than it is in the case of, for example, citizens encounters with police officers.
One reason for this may be that ombuds services mean less to people at a symbolic or ideological level than the police and courts, making them more transactional and instrumental during this type of dispute resolution process. If it is the symbolic as much as the actual power of the police that makes people so attuned to the procedural fairness of police officers, it may be that the ombuds institution has yet to establish itself in peoples’ minds as an institution similar in nature to the police and courts.
 


Popular posts from this blog

Ten Insights Regarding Sexual Harassment

By Loan Le, President of the Institute for Good Government and Inclusion The #MeToo explosion has demonstrated how common sexual harassment is and how quiet the settlements are, or how much people have not complained. It’s long been named as illegal sex discrimination in the United States,as a result of feminist movements. Sociolegal scholars explain what happens to complaints on the ground, an exercise of political power if ever there was one. Amy Blackstone, Christopher Uggen and Heather McLaughlin argued in Law and Society Review, assailants often choose women who are least likely to complain. As Anna Maria Marshall and Abigail Saguy have argued, people and workplace organizations explain problems in ways that limit their meaning as unequal working conditions, or sexual assault. The news in the United States has taken over other ways of explaining women’s disadvantages at work, including in the academy. We have yet to see systematic discussion of problems in the academy. Her…

End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law

By Anette Bringedal Houge & Kjersti Lohne, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo
(Image from Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, 2014, hosted by UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

In our recent article, End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law, we question the taken-for-granted center-stage position of international criminal justice in international policy responses to conflict-related sexual violence. We address how central policy and advocacy actors explain such violence and its consequences for targeted individuals in order to promote and strengthen the fight against impunity. With the help of apt analytical tools provided by framing theory, we show how the UN Security Council and Human Rights Watch construct a simplistic understanding of conflict-related sexual violence in order to get their message and call for action across to wider audiences and constituencies – including a clear and short caus…

Early view comes to LSR

You can now access articles as soon as they are ready for publication rather than wait until the whole issue is out. We also invite you to sign up for content alerts on the Wiley site, so you learn as soon as an article is available.