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

On writing

By Susan Sterett
Law & Society Review Co-Editor

One thing I know for sure after having co-edited Law and Society Review for almost three years is that just about every college and university would like more publications from faculty members. Many colleges and universities around the world want people to write for peer-reviewed journals, so like other journals, Law and Society Review has been getting an increasing number of submissions. Some journals have big backlogs. Some journals have stopped accepting submissions. Everyone is overwhelmed with content. How can you prepare your paper for LSR? This post will point to a few resources that could help, based in my experience from editing, conversations with other editors, and my conversations at the wonderful 2017 sociolegal studies early career workshop at the University of Cape Town. All have made me rethink how I submit to journals.

A few thoughts, most of which are readily found on the internet. Even so, many people may no…

Law & Society Review is pleased to announce two opportunities for scholars who are from or who write about the Global South. Both opportunities have early January deadlines.

The first opportunity is the Sociolegal Studies Early Career Writing Workshop, March 21-23, 2019, at the University of Cape Town. This intensive workshop, co-sponsored by Law & Society Review, is for a small group of early career scholars from any university in Africa to receive feedback on papers in progress and mentoring on writing/publishing processes. The goal is to help one another toward writing goals and publication. The Workshop will cover travel expenses and accommodation. Applications (including draft paper and letter of reference) are due January 14, 2019. For details, please visit the Early Career Workshop website here. For additional questions, contact pbl-cls@uct.ac.za.

Another opportunity is the Law and Society in Africa conference, April 1-3, 2019, organized by American University Cairo's Law & Society Research Unit. The first Law and Society in Africa Conference, held in South Africa in 2016, was a great success, with more than 100 attendees…

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…