By ProMediate · 9 October 2026
A customer complains about a £100 charge.
The business refuses to refund it.
Emails are exchanged. The customer becomes frustrated. The business maintains that it has done nothing wrong.
Six months later, the customer has spent dozens of hours pursuing the complaint, while the business has incurred substantial staff and management time dealing with it.
Why?
The answer may be that the complaint is no longer about £100.
It has become about fairness, respect and the need to be taken seriously.
When a Complaint Becomes a Grievance
Academic researchers William Felstiner, Richard Abel and Austin Sarat described how disputes develop through a process of “naming, blaming and claiming”.
An individual first recognises that something has gone wrong.
They then attribute responsibility to someone else.
Finally, they demand a remedy.
But what happens next can transform the dispute.
A customer who initially wanted a refund may become angry because their correspondence is ignored.
They may feel that the business is dismissing them, questioning their honesty or refusing to acknowledge an obvious mistake.
The original complaint becomes part of a much larger grievance.
The customer now wants recognition that they have been treated unfairly.
Why an Apology Matters
Research by Jennifer Robbennolt, published in the Michigan Law Review in 2003, examined the influence of apologies on legal settlement decisions.
Her experimental research found that apologies can improve prospects for settlement, although their effectiveness depends on their content and circumstances.
A genuine acknowledgement of responsibility may have a different effect from a limited expression of sympathy.
This helps explain why some complaints cannot be resolved simply by offering money.
A customer may want the business to recognise that something went wrong.
They may want an explanation, an apology or reassurance that the same thing will not happen again.
A business may regard these requests as unnecessary when it has already offered compensation.
But the customer may regard them as the most important part of the resolution.
Why Both Sides Think They Are Being Reasonable
Psychological research by Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer and Babcock explored how people assess fairness from their own perspective.
The same tendency can affect consumer complaints.
The business may believe that its policies were applied correctly.
The customer may believe that the policies themselves are unfair or that they were treated disrespectfully.
Each may genuinely believe that its position is reasonable.
A financial offer can therefore be interpreted differently by each side.
What the business regards as a generous goodwill gesture may be seen by the customer as inadequate or insulting.
The Psychology of Rejecting Offers
Russell Korobkin and Chris Guthrie examined psychological barriers to litigation settlement in research published in 1994.
Their experiments demonstrated that settlement decisions can be influenced by framing, fairness considerations and the identity of the person making an offer.
A customer who distrusts a business may reject a proposal partly because it comes from that business.
The customer may assume that any offer is designed to protect the company’s interests.
Equally, the business may interpret the customer’s refusal as evidence that the complaint is unreasonable.
This mutual distrust can make direct negotiation increasingly difficult.
In later work, Chris Guthrie and Russell Korobkin considered how these psychological factors bear on the role of advisers, suggesting that a lawyer can help a client assess a settlement proposal on its merits rather than by reference to who made it.
The Importance of Being Heard
Tom Tyler’s research into procedural justice demonstrates the importance of fair treatment and the opportunity to have one’s voice heard.
People care about the process through which decisions are made, not simply the outcome.
This has significant implications for complaint handling.
A complaint procedure which is technically correct but dismissive or unresponsive may intensify a grievance.
By contrast, a process which gives the customer an opportunity to explain their concerns, receive a reasoned response and feel respected may help restore confidence.
This is one of the important functions of independent alternative dispute resolution.
Why Businesses Should Not Regard ADR as Weakness
Some businesses worry that offering ADR may be interpreted as an admission that they have acted improperly.
But offering independent dispute resolution is not the same as admitting liability.
It demonstrates a willingness to engage with a complaint through a fair and structured process.
For consumers, agreeing to ADR does not mean abandoning their rights.
It provides an opportunity to have their concerns considered without immediately pursuing court proceedings.
Depending on the applicable scheme, ADR may involve mediation, conciliation, adjudication or another recognised process.
Not every complaint will settle, and not every complaint is suitable for the same form of ADR.
But early, constructive engagement can prevent disagreements from becoming entrenched.
The Courage to Resolve
There is a tendency to admire the customer who declares that they will pursue a complaint “on principle”, whatever the cost.
Equally, a business may regard refusing a refund as necessary to avoid setting a precedent.
Sometimes those positions are justified.
But sometimes both parties become trapped by the need to prove that they were right.
The real question should be whether continuing the dispute is likely to produce a better outcome.
A resolution may involve compensation, an explanation, an apology, corrective action or an agreement about what happens next.
It need not involve either party conceding every point.
The courage to resolve a complaint lies in recognising that fairness is not always the same as victory.
Academic References
- Felstiner, W.L.F., Abel, R.L. and Sarat, A. (1981). “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming.” Law & Society Review, 15(3–4), 631–654. View publication (DOI)
- Korobkin, R. and Guthrie, C. (1994). “Psychological Barriers to Litigation Settlement: An Experimental Approach.” Michigan Law Review, 93(1), 107 onwards. View publication (University of Michigan repository)
- Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C. and Babcock, L. (1993). “Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining.” Journal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 135–159. View publication (DOI)
- Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press. View abstract (NCJRS)
- Robbennolt, J.K. (2003). “Apologies and Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination.” Michigan Law Review, 102(3), 460–516. View publication (University of Michigan repository)
- Guthrie, C. and Korobkin, R. (1997). “Psychology, Economics, and Settlement: A New Look at the Role of the Lawyer.” Texas Law Review, 76, 77 onwards. View publication (Vanderbilt scholarship repository)
About ProMediate Consumer ADR
ProMediate provides independent consumer alternative dispute resolution services for participating businesses and consumers.
The availability and type of ADR depend on the relevant scheme and its rules. Not every consumer dispute is eligible for ProMediate ADR — please check the Consumer ADR page, the ADR Scheme Rules and the list of Participating Traders before referring a complaint.
ProMediate Consumer ADR is separate from, and not part of, the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service, which is provided by the courts for claims already issued in the small claims track.
- Consumers: see Make a Complaint and Our ADR Process.
- Businesses: find out how to join our ADR scheme.
- Questions: contact us.
Visit promediate.org for information about our consumer ADR services.