This ADR stuff is important but I think there is some misplaced hostility to the UK arrangements here. I am not going to pretend it is perfect but I hope I can help a bit with this.
First of all the ADR requirement is not a gambling only issue, it comes from an EU directive and a UK act of parliament. The concept is fine. IF you have a dispute and you reach deadlock rather than resorting immediately to the courts you can ask for an "independent" ADR to review the case. That ADR rulng is intended to be binding upon the firm but NOT binding upon the consumer. The consumer can still go to court (either a full court or the small claims court). An adverse ADR ruling may weaken your case but it does not invalidate it. The ADR is reviewing terms and conditions and the like NOT reaching a legal ruling.
An important part of this consumer protection legislation is that the consumer does not pay for the ADR service. The firm pays. This is an important consumer protection to allow access to the ADR process - it is a good thing - it is not a bad thing implying bias by the ADR chosen by the site and approved (in this case) by the UKGC.
Making consumers pay up front, or pay if they lose does not make the ADR process any fairer, it just makes it unaffordable for many consumers, much as court action is already. The way that the firm has to pay the ADR also means that in many cases even where the firm has a perfectly valid defence they will settle before the ADR process because the full cost of it falls upon them so for small disputes settling is cheaper, and better for the aggrieved consumer, than entering the ADR process.
This new ADR process comes in addition to the firms normal complaints procedure. Now this is where I see Casinomeister helping - during the firm complaint process, before the ADR. The PAB process works well as part of the firms complaint process.
Now obviously Casinomeister could try to become an ADR but the requirements will include financial disclosures to ensure the organisation is properly financed and not about to disappear in bankruptcy. It also will include integrity checks and potential personal licences for those acting as the ADR. There may also be a minimum legal expertise threshold rather than a potentially more relevant check on experience in dealing with messy gambling complaints and disputes. You'd also want a UK office address and maybe a senior board member or the like with a CV that includes being a UK judge to lend credibility and legal reassurance. Certainly a UK resident - but it is not an insurmountable hurdle nor should it compromise personal safety with a an office drop address and personell records held by the UKGC (as discussed in the FAQ link)
This is the list of approved ADRs and it includes the Isle of Man regulator
The list also includes a named individual Joel Goldman with a hotel background
I can't see many firms signing up with him but he shows the accreditation process is possible and may not need the add ons that I suggest above.
It is interesting that a regulator is approved (and used by PokersStars) - my experience of regulators as dispute resolvers is coloued by Malta's complete failure to deal with Purple Lounge and the attitude of Gibraltar that characterises consumers raising complaints as fraudsters, bonus abusers and regretful losers. This is what they said to the House of Commons Committee! Now many complaints will be ill founded but it is clear that for the Gib regulator this has polluted their attitude and impartiality to the point that consumers are seen as evil whilst the industry that pays for them and provides such a high proportion of Gib jobs and tax revenues can do no wrong. Having a regulator do this is not a good thing. To accept unfairness to the consumer they also condemn their own regulation, and their entire existence is industry funded. The ADR may be paid (by statute) by the firm not the consumer but they have a far better prospect of independence than the captive regulator that is Malta or Gib.
To sum up:
ADR process is an additional consumer protection
ADR is binding on the firm not the consumer
Consumers can skip the ADR and go to court
ADR paid for by the firm is GOOD for consumers not a bias
Even if the ADR goes against you courts are open to you still
The EU wide nature of this means that you can sue any UKGC licenced firm in the UK courts - IF they have refused you the ADR open to UK residents that would be a black mark against them
The new ADR rules are good news for UK and EU gamblers. Casinomeister can either focus on helping firms with their complaint process and/or seek ADR approval. TBH I don't see a lot of profit in £350 a complaint but Casinomeister or another customer focussed body getting ADR status would be nice.
As an aside, the new CEO of the UKGC (Sarah Harrison) comes from OfGem. One of the things I have heard about her is that she wants to shift the UKGC to be far more consumer focussed - if you look at the OfGem website and the Gambling Commission website you will see a stark contrast with OfGem about consumers and UKGC about info for licencees. That shift will happen over the next year or two not just on the website but within the culture of the organisation.
As a further aside - I have been dealing with the UKGC for 3 years plus. Whilst I cannot pretend that there are no frustrations in trying to shift them to a more consumer and more proactive position the idea that the people I have met are shiny bottom suits is far wide of the mark. Invariably they have been bright, engaged, committed people that want to do a good job in difficult circumstances. The industry routinely poaches them precisely because they are high calibre, well informed people - with many motivated primarily by helping consumers. Insult them if you like but before you do you may want to meet a few.