From 6 April 2026, accredited Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) providers operating in the UK must publish structured performance data, under regulations made on 11 March and laid before Parliament on 16 March via the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

The Department for Business and Trade confirmed the instrument, signed by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Kate Dearden, and published with an Explanatory Memorandum on legislation.gov.uk. The objective is straightforward: give businesses and consumers clear evidence on how ADR schemes perform, not just promises.

Each accredited ADR provider must, within one month of every accreditation anniversary, send a report to the ADR authority on a durable medium and publish the same data on its website. The duty also applies to any partners where the provider has special ADR arrangements. If a dedicated authority is not appointed, the Secretary of State fulfils that role.

The annual report must set out the number of ADR requests received, the proportion accepted or refused with the reasons, how many were resolved, how many were discontinued and the split of outcomes in favour of consumers versus traders. Providers must categorise cases by the legislation allegedly breached and by complaint type, and state the kind of ADR used, such as mediation or adjudication.

Timing is no longer a black box. Providers must disclose two averages: the time from when a request first hits the provider to resolution, and the time from formal acceptance for ADR to resolution. Any gap between those figures will expose triage or eligibility bottlenecks that users rarely see today.

Quality sits alongside speed. Reports must include compliance rates with outcomes, training provided to ADR staff, available data on trader and consumer confidence and satisfaction, and a description of recurring systemic issues with recommendations to avoid them. That turns provider reporting into an early-warning system for common problem areas.

Where special ADR arrangements exist, providers must say what type of ADR is conducted under those arrangements and how many other providers are engaged. For marketplaces and platforms, that should clarify who actually decides cases and how consistent outcomes are across partners.

Accredited providers must also keep their core information up to date with the ADR authority. Updates cover name, contact details and website; kinds of ADR and possible outcomes; dispute types and sectors covered; procedures and time limits; any pre-conditions; whether ADR can be conducted orally or in writing; fees; languages; whether outcomes are binding; refusal grounds; and the complaints process.

Former accredited providers are not exempt. If accreditation ends, they must file a final report within one month covering the period since their last return and publish it on their website, if they have one. That avoids data gaps when schemes exit the market.

Exempt ADR providers-typically schemes overseen by a sector regulator-must send the ADR authority the same information to the extent it is already provided to that regulator and relates to consumer contract disputes. It must be sent in the same manner and within one month of sending it to the regulator, limiting duplication while keeping datasets aligned.

For SMEs choosing an ADR partner, this is immediately useful. From April you can compare acceptance rates, win–loss splits and case durations across providers rather than relying on marketing claims. Procurement teams should ask for reporting calendars now and map these measures into vendor scorecards and service credits.

Marketplace operators running in-house or hybrid dispute flows should review whether they have special ADR arrangements and ensure the lead provider will capture and publish those outcomes. If services are cross-border, make sure UK-facing data is cleanly segmented and easy for customers to find on the provider’s site.

On timing, the duty begins on 6 April 2026 but reporting aligns with each provider’s accreditation anniversary. A provider accredited on 20 April will need to publish its first annual dataset by 20 May 2027. If accreditation ends, the final report is due one month after the end date.

The regulations define a ‘durable medium’ as paper, email or any medium that lets information be stored for future reference and reproduced unchanged. Expect PDFs or similar formats, which makes side-by-side comparisons simpler for risk and compliance teams building provider dashboards.

For consumers the benefit is clarity. Claims of fast resolution now need to be evidenced. Binding versus non-binding outcomes, fees and languages will be set out plainly, helping people choose the right route to complain and reducing the chance of abandoned cases.

The Department for Business and Trade does not expect a significant cost shock from these rules, but providers that lag on speed, compliance or satisfaction are likely to invest in process and training once comparative data goes live. Competitive pressure, rather than direct sanction, should shift performance.

At Market Pulse UK, we will track published datasets as they appear and assemble comparable indicators-median time to resolution, acceptance ratios, consumer-versus-trader outcomes and compliance rates-so operators and investors can spot improving or weakening schemes quickly.