Arrg, every time I try to drop it, more comes up.
There is a lovely bit in the Communications Act, which the Ombudsman kindly referenced in their reply to my recent questions.
52 (6) (a) says that the ADR stuff does not apply to someone that is himself a communications provider. It then also defines only consumer or small business as 10 or fewer employees.
The definition in the Act of "communications provider" is very wide, and IMHO, covers anyone with a DSL router, but this specific case related to someone who's business was live streaming video and that is a business which is in no doubt whatsoever a "communications provider".
So once again, the ombudsman should not have taken the case, as the end user was, quite simply, not eligible for it.