The arbitration clause is known as a Scott -v- Avery (1855) clause.
Reference Scott v Avery (1855) 5 HL Cas 811
Inter alia the House of Lords opined that the clause did not offend public policy, was enforceable and had advantages to recommend it.
The clause is also known as an
ouster clause because it specifically ousts the jurisdiction of the courts.
Not every dispute might actually be suitable for arbitration as where, for example, something like fraud is alleged.
A difficulty facing jdcarn is that, even as a consumer, they knowingly entered in to a binding contract containing an arbitration condition.
Without being harsh, it will be pointed out that if you knowingly enter a contract you will be subsequently bound by it's terms.
You might be effectively estopped from accepting the condition on forming the contract and rejecting it subsequently.
In the alternative, you will probably be deemed to be aware of the condition before the contract was formed.
I have doubts about the unfair terms argument.
It will be argued that an arbitration provision advantages a consumer by offering a less costly method of resolving a dispute than would be the case with formal litigation.
Against this, formal arbitration will involve legal costs.
Leo mentions the FSPO option.
Link to the complaints procedure
www.fspo.ie
Most insurers subscribe to the scheme.
Be aware that it costs nothing in terms of legal fees to submit a case to the FSOP.
Any finding of the FSOP on a dispute is legally binding on both parties.
However, all parties to a FSOP decision are entitled to appeal.
The kicker is that the appeal will be to the High Court by way of a motion - a judge will hear the appeal.
There will be 3 parties to the case ; the FSOP, the original complainant and the institution / insurer.
There are significant legal costs implications with that procedure.