← All work
DEEPSplitfare · 2024 · 3 decisions

Disputes without the dread at Splitfare

Payment disputes were the most hated flow in Splitfare — for riders and support alike. We redesigned the resolution journey around evidence gathering and expectations, and cut resolution time by more than half.

My role

Lead product designer

Team

3 engineers, 1 PM, support lead

Shipped

Dispute centre, evidence uploader, status timeline

Hero visual placeholder — swap in real media

Outcomes

52%

Faster dispute resolution

Median time from open to resolved, Q3 vs Q1.

-31%

Support tickets per dispute

Riders self-served evidence upload instead of calling in.

71%

Disputes resolved without escalation

Up from 44% before the redesign.

Process

01

Sit with support for a week

Research

Two days listening to dispute calls and three reading tickets showed the same gap: nobody knew what came next.

02

Rebuild the timeline as a contract

Design

Each status became a named promise with its evidence attached. The timeline turned from a tracker into an agreement.

03

Test with real disputes

Validation

We replayed 30 closed disputes through the new flow with the original parties and checked the story still held.

04

Roll out market by market

Delivery

Dublin first, then London. Each market tuned the evidence fields to local payment behaviour.

Decisions

Decision 01

Gather evidence in the first message, not the third

Support triage was drowning in back-and-forth. The dispute opener now collects photos and order facts in one structured form.

Trade-offA longer first screen raised abandonment slightly. We saved drafts automatically so nobody restarted.

Decision 02

Show the decision rule, not just the status

Instead of In review, the timeline names what is being checked and what settles it. Expectation-setting cut reopen rate by a third.

Trade-offExposing internal rules limits how policy can change. Legal approved a wording that describes principles, not thresholds.

Decision 03

Let both sides see the same picture

Rider and customer previously saw different dispute narratives, which fuelled escalation. One shared evidence view with role-specific notes replaced both.

Trade-offShared views constrain what support can say privately. Escalation notes moved to a separate, access-controlled layer.