Proportionate or Appropriate? How Do Citizens Assess the Suitability of Different Dispute Mechanisms?

Recent discussion in policy circles in the UK has focused on the importance of 'proportionate' dispute resolution to deal with people's problems with public services. The meaning of 'proportionate' is difficult to define but is often assumed to mean 'low cost', while at other times it is based on achieving resolution of disputes, short of a full court or tribunal hearing. Socio-legal scholars have recognised that there are potential conflicts between different requirements of dispute mechanisms. This paper considers the views of citizens in this debate.Recent research on complaints about local authority community care services showed that some potential complainants were deterred by the idea of 'complaining'. However, these can be contrasted with people who were more assertive in making a complaint, who focused instead on justifying the act of complaining, either because they felt it would help other people or because their problem had been sufficiently serious. The important point is that people stressed that they had made an appropriate complaint, contrasting themselves with people who might complain inappropriately. People often justify their disputes in terms of the public good while policies on dispute resolution usually work on the premise that disputes are individualistic. This paper considers different understandings of the idea of 'proportionate' and 'appropriate' dispute resolution mechanisms and of the relationship between individual and collective action in disputes about public services. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]