Mediation Case Studies

There are three case studies in this section, the first two cover two party disputes and the third case is a multiparty conflict.

 

Mediation Case Study 1

ISSUES:
Noise
Complaints to the Housing Office

OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED:
LA Housing Office
LA Environmental Health
Police

VISIT PARTY 1
Party 2 owns a fast food business two doors away from Party 1’s property.

Every night, Party 1 is kept awake by the sound of late night customers visiting the shop, sounds from the kitchen and finally, the sound of the shutters being closed.

Party 1’s health is being affected by the lack of sleep and anxiety about the whole situation.

Party 1 is constantly sending Environmental Health Officers and Police to Party 2’s premises. So far, no action has been taken against Party 2, but they have had enough of Party 1’s complaints.

JOINT MEETING
Both parties agreed to attend a joint meeting and this was arranged in a neutral venue. Mediators facilitated the joint meeting and ensured that the parties kept to the agreed ground rules.

During the meeting, Party 2 heard that when they were not working at their premises late at night, their staff were disturbing Party 1. They also found that it had not been Party 1 who had called the Police.

Party 1 heard that Party 2 installed the shutters for security reasons, following several break-ins to the premises. Party 1 also realised that Party 2 had not been aware of what their staff had been doing when they were not present.

Both parties agreed that Party 2 would address the issue of late night noise with their staff and that Party 1 would contact the Council to explain that they no longer needed to visit Party 2’s premises. Party 2 offered to change the shutters, but would need time and money to do this. Party 1 offered to help Party 2 to find a suitable supplier for replacement shutters. Full agreement was reached on all the issues presented at the joint meeting.

Mediation Case Study 2

ISSUES
Ball games
Garage door (damage)
Communication

VISIT PARTY 1
Party 1 lives next door to Party 2 and his teenage son. Party 1 felt that the son was causing her worry and annoyance because he played football near her house and either hit the wall with the ball or kicked it into her garden.

VISIT PARTY 2
Party 2 felt insulted by the allegation and felt his son was being singled out. Party 2 was also angry because the police had been called in. Party 2 was reluctant to take part in mediation.

After the mediation process had been explained to Party 2 they agreed to become involved and to meet Party 1 face to face. Feelings of hurt and injustice had to be listened to and explored before Party 2 was ready to meet Party 1.

JOINT MEETING
Party 1 brought a daughter to the joint meeting for support and Party 2 brought their son. Body language and spoken language were hostile to begin with, but after each party had had the chance to speak and be heard the other party acknowledged the hurt feelings that they hadn't been aware of.

Once the parties understood the others feelings and concerns, the agreement was relatively easy to put together. The parties all agreed how they would communicate in the future. They left the meeting talking about how they could tackle issues they both had with another neighbour.

Mediation Case Study 3 (Multi-party)

REFERRAL:
Local Authority Housing Department – clients all withdrew
Referred again sixth months later by one client

ISSUES:
Ball games
Children fighting and name calling
Racial prejudice
Alleged assaults

RECEPTION INTERVIEW:
Mediators experienced a reluctance on behalf of all parties (except the party who had contacted the service) to become involved in mediation.
Common statements heard were:-
· “It would just be wasting your time”
· “They wouldn’t listen to anything I had to say anyway”
· “Everything is quiet at the moment, we don’t need mediation”
· “I don’t know what good this would do”
· “If mediation started it would just open up old wounds, its better to leave things as they are”

Mediators were very clear about mediation and what could be achieved. They worked with the clients on getting past ‘no’, and obtained a commitment with them to enter into mediation.

More clients were identified as the mediators started their Reception Interviews.

MEDIATION SESSIONS:
Mediators heard accounts of what had happened. There was a lot of common ground, but with different angles on the information provided.

Children (aged 4-12) had been coming in from playing in the street complaining to their parents about name calling. This had been particularly hurtful and offensive. Parents originally responded by instructing their children to ignore it or give as good as they got.

Older children (brothers and sisters of the younger children) became involved. Parents became concerned about the age differences between the children, when things became physical. One child made an allegation that a parent had assaulted them. Parents ended up fighting in the street. The police were called, no arrests were made.

One of the families involved was Asian and new to the area. They had experienced 10 years of racial harassment at their previous home. This had influenced them in this dispute. This family had real fears for their safety and had concerns about meeting some of the other parties in this dispute face to face.

What was acceptable behaviour in different cultures was an issue.

Mediators addressed the clients concerns and encouraged all parties to agree to a joint meeting.

JOINT MEETING:
Clients: 18 people (9 children and 9 adults) from six households were represented at the joint meeting. All of the issues were addressed and the children (who were key players in this dispute) were equally involved in the mediation. A full agreement was reached on all of the issues. A very real and genuine shift occurred in relation to the clients understanding of each other’s culture. Recognition took place and the clients felt empowered to negotiate an outcome that suited them, with the help from the mediators.

INFORMATION:
21 individuals received mediation; 18 people attended the joint meeting; the case took 5 weeks from the initial contact by the mediators; 2 UNITE mediators spent 52 hours on this case and 3 other UNITE mediators helped at the joint meeting