Nationalconciliationservice Opiniones 

My experience is they use unqualified staff to assess the cases on opinion and ignore facts. They are probably in the pocket of the organisations who fund them. It does not appear independent.

1★ Review – National Conciliation Service (NCS)

I engaged with the National Conciliation Service in good faith after exhausting the RAC’s internal complaints process, expecting an independent and balanced review of the evidence. Unfortunately, my experience fell well short of that expectation.

The central issue in my case was straightforward: a clear sequence of events supported by a timeline, photographic evidence, and a third-party repair invoice. However, the review process failed to properly engage with that evidence.

Most concerning was that the case had to be revisited after the conciliator initially attempted to conclude it without addressing a key technical point. This alone demonstrates that the original review was incomplete. Despite this, the final determination still failed to properly assess the full sequence of events.

There was also a clear imbalance in how evidence was treated. Assertions made by the business were accepted without independent support, while my evidence — including photographs and documented timeline — was discounted due to the absence of “independent submissions.” This inconsistent evidentiary standard undermines confidence in the impartiality of the process.

The final response compounded this by including internally contradictory reasoning, stating that the case was concluded “notwithstanding any other facts,” despite the review itself having required further investigation after challenge.

When I raised a formal complaint, the response did not engage with these procedural concerns and instead relied on generic statements about the process, effectively mischaracterising the complaint as dissatisfaction with the outcome rather than addressing the deficiencies in how the review was conducted.

Overall, my experience is that the process lacks:

Rigorous and consistent evaluation of evidence
Transparency and accountability in decision-making
Meaningful engagement with the substance of complaints

I approached NCS expecting an independent ADR process. Instead, I found a system that appears procedurally weak, inconsistent, and ultimately ineffective in resolving disputes.

Based on my experience, this organisation is beyond bad I would not recommend using this service.

No wonder the customer service at companies like Arnold Clark isn’t too worried about NCS. This organization seems to be just for show and a tick-box exercise. Here is something the organization states when dealing with your complaint:
“Can I claim compensation for stress?
No. Unlike a civil court, the NCS’s conciliation/mediation process cannot deal with claims that are not easily quantifiable, such as compensation for stress, illness, inconvenience, or loss of earnings. However, if you have suffered a demonstrable financial loss and incurred additional costs due to the trader’s alleged negligence or actions, we may be able to assist you further. It should also be remembered that as the claimant in the matter, the burden of proof ordinarily rests with you to provide evidence to prove or support your case, and you are also expected to mitigate any loss—in other words, take steps to minimize any losses.”
See the words like “not easily quantifiable”, “burden of proof rests with you”, and “take steps to minimize any losses”. It is just a joke of an organization.