"Excellent Service"

I found this service to be efficient, responsive and professional. Ella was particularly very supportive and helpful. Hunt’s communications were clear and timely. I found the website needed a bit of navigation initially but easy to use once I got the hang of it.
I found the whole process to be stress free. After two years of challenging a Cruise Provider who had subsequently closed down all communications on the basis they were right, the arbitrator found in my favour and I was given a full refund and costs.

"There are plenty of training courses in…"

There are plenty of training courses in mediation but the mediation course with Hunt ADR lived up to its expectations. The course is CMC accredited and on completion you can apply to join the CMC as an associate. The course was exceptionally well run with excellent tutors.

"Hunt ADR mediation course"

Recently completed a mediation course with Hunt ADR. Could not recommend more - from the initial preparation to the course content and final assessment support nothing was too much. I would recommend Hunt ADR to any colleague and will certainly look for further CPD/ training with them.

"This was a thoroughly excellent 5 day…"

This was a thoroughly excellent 5 day mediation course and very reasonably priced. Highly recommended!

"CMC Accreditation Course"

Recently, I completed the CMC accreditation programme with Hunt ADR. I have to say that it was the most intense course I've experienced, but the content and role plays we had to undertake during the week prepared us thoroughly for the assessment. The encouragement and support from Gregg, Kelly and John was amazing! Well done for such a great course.

"Beware of using Hunt ADR"

Had so many problems on our holiday with Jet2 that it took nearly a year to get to the final stage. Jet2 came up with every reason under the sun not to supply compensation and finally used Hunt ADR. What a mistake, it appears that Hunt are part of the travel industry cartel with nobody really impartial or independent. The Arbitrator from Hunt only looked at certains areas that went wrong, quoted only partial parts of the Jet2 terms amd conditions which benefitted Jet2 and even made a mistake in the final award letter. What a joke BEWARE of both Hunt and Jet2 because as soon as they have your money there is no way you're getting anything back when things go wrong!
UPDATED
Wish I not used Hunt ADR and gone to small claims court, at least I could have put my point of view across and run through evidence. Hunt VERY selective of what they respond to in their decision letter and take Jet2 t+c's out of context to suit the travel companies agenda.

"Unfit for purpose and biased in favour of the travel industry"

The administration required of claimants who are pursuing a case against a travel agent, via Hunt Arbitration, is not user friendly. The format requirements and the process for uploading files (etc) is incompatible with claimants' Smartphones but is suited to those with full office equipment, such as travel agents. Furthermore, only one of Hunt Arbitration's six items of correspondence that they said was posted by mail, arrived. Similarly, telephoning Hunt Arbitration, always resulted in leaving a message on an answering machine and, at best, a return call would take several days to a week. This was unsatisfactory when the cases have timed deadlines. Meanwhile, it is a stressful time and these obstacles are debilitating. The travel agent / respondent in our case told us that (1) there is no ombudsman for the travel industry, (2) that ABTA is an Association, which takes payment from travel agents and that ABTA will rule in favour their income source. They added, (3) Hunt Arbitration is handpicked by ABTA and will be biased in favour of the travel agent. We hoped this was not true but, certainly, there is no independent ombudsman and we found that Hunt Arbitration accepted the travel agent's untrue narratives that were wholly unsupported with any reliable evidence: the travel agent's untruthful evidence included handwritten notes submitted more than a year into the process that they claimed was the content of a phone conversation, which they claimed to have made but which, in truth, never took place. The content of the fictitious phone call was intended to rewrite history and divert from the truth. The travel agents were not required to prove the phone conversation had occurred but, if required, could not because they had not made the phone call. Meanwhile Hunt Arbitration disregarded the truthful account that we evidenced with the travel agent's Terms and Conditions to support our case, dated and timed emails and official documentation from relevant third parties. The travel agent in our case introduced a fictitious 'landslide' (as an 'act of God') to replace a truthful, temporary rail derailment so that they could rewrite a version of events that favoured their narrative. All the official documentation from the relevant authorities referred to the derailment as it was but the judge agreed it was a landslide and favoured the travel agent's claim. It appears the travel industry can say anything, without proof and in the face of opposing evidence.

"Very clear and competent process and…"

Very clear and competent process and excellent updates on the case from the agent at all times. This made a stressful issue much easier. Thanks

"Failed to administer the arbitration rules"

Failed to administer the arbitration in accordance with the ABTA scheme to favour their ABTA member. The rules of the scheme are written and published by ABTA and you would think it reasonable that cases be processed in line with those rules, but apparently not!

July update - Rather fittingly the reply to my complaint is eleven days later than that allowed in Hunt ADR's complaint procedure. Also worth a note that Hunt ADR also missed the date of reply noted in the correspondence they cite.

August update - CTSI (the scheme custodian) have confirmed they 'will now address the issues that (I) have raised with the ADR body directly and take further action with the body, as necessary. Any non-compliance issues that are identified...will be reported to the Department of Business and Trade.

"Overall very pleased"

Overall very pleased though the portal used for cases is not terribly user friendly and some of the facts provided were misinterpreted in the final ruling, though this did not impact the outcome.