The Government has confirmed the start date for the UK’s new consumer alternative dispute resolution regime. Under Statutory Instrument 2026/284, Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 takes effect on 6 April 2026, with specific transitional provisions to ease the switch for providers and customer‑facing firms. The instrument was made on 11 March 2026. The plain read for managers: ADR is moving from a largely voluntary model to a mandatory accreditation regime, and the clock starts in three weeks. (Source: legislation.gov.uk.)

What changes in practice is governance and accountability. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) will run the accreditation system and ongoing oversight for ADR providers in non‑regulated sectors, including setting processes for applications, variations and potential suspensions. That role is set out in the Department for Business and Trade’s Explanatory Memorandum to the separate Conferral of Functions Regulations made alongside the ADR package. This puts a single gatekeeper in charge of accreditation quality and reporting. (legislation.gov.uk)

The commencement instrument also activates three schedules that matter operationally: Schedule 25 lists exempt ADR providers, Schedule 26 sets accreditation criteria, and Schedule 27 contains consequential amendments. For most SMEs the immediate task is to confirm whether a current scheme is exempt or must be accredited, then check your provider’s timetable against your own service and complaints volumes. (Source: legislation.gov.uk.)

To avoid a cliff‑edge, government has created a defined ‘relevant period’ running from 6 April 2026 to 5 October 2026. Consumer disputes first referred to an ADR provider during this window can still be handled even if the provider has not yet secured accreditation, and the usual ban on charging fees to consumers is disapplied for those cases. In other words, cases that start in the window are carved out from the new prohibitions. (Source: legislation.gov.uk.)

There is a second carve‑out for ‘special ADR arrangements’-for example bespoke arrangements a business has made with an ADR provider. If a dispute is referred under those arrangements during the same window, the consumer‑fee ban in section 294(3) does not bite for those cases, and the arrangements can continue for those in‑scope disputes. The Act defines when a case is regarded as ‘started’, which is the first referral under the relevant rules or procedures. (Source: legislation.gov.uk; see also DMCC Act notes on Chapter 4 definitions.) (legislation.gov.uk)

There is a catch. If an ADR provider submits an accreditation application before 5 October 2026, the provider’s own window closes early on the date that application is granted, refused or withdrawn. From that point, any new disputes coming through must follow the new regime in full. Practical takeaway: ask your provider for their application date and decision timeline, and plan your customer communications accordingly. (Source: legislation.gov.uk.)

For SMEs, cashflow and customer journey are the two design variables. If you currently pass some ADR costs to consumers, model a switch to zero consumer fees on cases referred after your provider’s window closes or after 5 October 2026-whichever is earlier. If your sector relies on special ADR arrangements, sense‑check whether those will be covered by your provider’s accreditation or an exemption listed in Schedule 25, and prepare a fall‑back route if not. (Source: legislation.gov.uk.)

Terms and conditions need a light but clear refresh. Update complaints pages and post‑purchase emails to explain which ADR scheme you use, whether it is accredited or exempt, and what consumers can expect on costs and timelines during the transition. The DMCC framework makes notification duties and definitions explicit, so ambiguity in customer comms is now a risk factor as much as a service issue. (Background on accreditation powers and oversight: DBT memorandum.) (legislation.gov.uk)

Compliance managers should also map any cross‑border dispute handling. The new UK rules sit alongside EU ADR reforms and platform policies, but the UK framework now centres on accreditation and enforcement at home. The legislative notes to the Act make clear that ADR must be independent, impartial, effective and transparent-standards CTSI will monitor via quarterly and annual reporting to the Secretary of State. Build those expectations into your service‑level conversations with providers. (legislation.gov.uk)

A worked example helps. Say your provider files for accreditation on 1 July and receives approval on 2 September. Your ‘relevant period’ for new referrals ends on 2 September, not 5 October. Disputes first referred on or before 1 September can continue under the transitional carve‑outs, including any consumer fee structures you already disclose; referrals from 2 September must meet the new prohibitions and accreditation‑based rules. Document this in your internal guidance so frontline teams give consistent answers.

Two more points to bank. First, this ADR chapter sits within a wider consumer law overhaul: the DMCC Act already strengthened the Competition and Markets Authority’s consumer enforcement powers from 6 April 2025, and ADR now follows with accreditation and oversight. Second, government has flagged further secondary legislation on information duties and fee schedules for accreditation itself, so expect more operational detail from CTSI in the months ahead. Keep a watching brief and budget a small admin line for any accreditation costs. (debellolaw.com)