Can the practice of pre-trial settlement of disputes significantly reduce the burden on the judicial system and ensure fair resolution of conflicts in the field of consumer rights protection? What are the obstacles to the widespread use of mediation procedures, and what are the real possibilities for non-judicial resolution of disputes between buyers and sellers of goods and services?
Can pre-trial settlement really help?
Yes, and even more so. Imagine that you bought a phone, and a week later it started to glitch. You write a claim to the store, and there they immediately offer: "Okay, we understood everything, here's a new device or a refund." All, the conflict is exhausted in three days. You are satisfied, the store saved on lawyers, and the judge did not waste time on the analysis of banal everyday life. On a national scale, this is a colossal unloading for the courts. Instead of waiting for years for a meeting to return money for a broken kettle, people get the result here and now.
As for justice, then it all depends on the honesty of the parties. If both parties are determined to solve the issue, mediation is an ideal option. You yourself control the process and the result, and do not give your fate to the hands of a judge who may be in a bad mood or just formally approach the case.
So why don't we still solve everything through mediation?
This is where the most interesting part begins. There are several powerful brakes:
1. The cult of "going to court and punishing." We often have the idea in our heads: "I don't just want to get my money back, I want this store to suffer! Fines, legal costs, moral damage!". Mediation is about compromise. And when emotions are high, it is difficult to negotiate. People want to win, not to negotiate.
2. Ignorance and distrust. For an ordinary person, a court is an understandable (albeit long) procedure. And who is a mediator? Where to look for him? Is he really independent? What if he is in collusion with the seller? There is little information, and trust in the institution is also lacking.
3. Weak motivation for business. It is sometimes easier for large companies to wave off a dozen small claims and fight in court in turn, than to build a system of quick pre-trial settlement. While the penalties for ignoring the consumer are small, it is simply not profitable for them.
4. "Paper" approach. Often, local employees (in stores, banks, and telecom operators) are simply not authorized to resolve issues on the spot. They have a script: "Complain officially." They are afraid to take responsibility and offer an unconventional solution.
And what are the real possibilities?
They are huge, but they are still used by 10 percent. The real potential is when the pre-trial procedure becomes not just a right, but a mandatory first step. For example, before accepting a claim for consideration, the court will require proof that you tried to resolve the issue through mediation or an official claim.
And for out-of-court dispute resolution, it is necessary to develop simple and understandable tools.:
1. Online platforms. So that you can file a complaint through the app and track its status.
2. Public admissions offices and specialized associations. For example, consumer protection societies should have full-time mediators.
3. Penalties for evasion. If a company has received a valid claim and simply ignored it without offering an alternative, the fine should be such that it would be cheaper for them to negotiate right away.
In the end, it all comes down to one simple thing: while going to court will be easier (psychologically or because of habit) than negotiating, the system will be overloaded. But as soon as the pre-trial mechanisms become fast, transparent and beneficial for both sides, the judicial system will breathe a sigh of relief.