[2008] EWHC 2172 (TCC), 19 September 2008.The case shows that when dealing with consumers, care must be taken to ensure that the implications of arbitration clauses are properly explained. The applicant building company (M) applied for permission to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent homeowner (B). M had been contracted to build an extension to B's bungalow with a contract referring all disputes to arbitration. After a dispute arose, M sought to commence arbitration by appointing an arbitrator (H). Following advice, B refused to submit to arbitration because the arbitration clause could be unfair. With an agreement signed only by M, H found in M's favour. Held: application refused. The arbitrator was not validly appointed under the Arbitration Act 1996, where the joint appointment of a sole arbitrator was required and the defendant refused to agree. Furthermore, the existence of an arbitration clause did not exclude or hinder a consumer's right to take legal action. The arbitration clause caused a significant imbalance to the defendant to her detriment and was thus unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The arbitration award did not have to be enforced.