The organisation should be named 'CIDR', the Centre for Ineffective Dispute Resolution. Looking at some of their decision-making, they've likely been on the cider when composing what they are doubtless pleased to term their findings. Like most private ombudsman cowboys, they suck up their funding from the companies they purport to investigate. If they produce too many adverse findings, a company will pull out and take their money with them. It's all a money-go-round scam – really quite incredible that they can continue trading under their current pretext with a straight face. On the (straight) face of it, they claim that their decisions are evidence-based, yet any supporting material that you do submit is not even referenced. Naturally, there is a quota of minor adverse findings that are then cited as evidence of a balanced and fair process. A common thread in most CEDR responses is a goading reference to the fact that complainants are free to go to x court or y tribunal. They are relying on the fact that most people do not have the resources to commit to court action. I congratulate the few (and some have put reviews on here) who do go to court, win big, and expose these charlatans for what they are. A point to ponder – if customers refused to send complaints to CEDR, the cash would dry up, the company would fold, and the shyster water and comms companies they are in bed with would need to find an alternative way to maintain their facade of credibility. The best way to proceed after exhausting the company's internal complaints procedures is therefore likely to be the small claim's court where the judges cannot be bought.