Around 85% of consumer complaints received by Property Redress now involve some element of artificial intelligence, according to Sean Hooker, head of Redress at the organisation. Hooker says consumers increasingly use AI to help formulate or structure their arguments, which can make complaints longer and more technical but not necessarily stronger.
How AI is shaping complaints
Hooker observes that what was once a straightforward email may now arrive as a lengthy, highly structured argument complete with technical terminology and legal references. He notes that AI can identify every conceivable issue, turning a relatively simple complaint into a much bigger and more complicated one. At its best, AI can simplify a complex situation, but at its worst, it can send somebody down a rabbit hole of issues that are not necessarily relevant to resolving their complaint.
He cites an example where a consumer complained that their agent had not provided the 'grantor's information'. It turned out they were the freeholder and simply wanted certain information relating to payments. The consumer had come across a technical term, put the issue into AI, and it had built an argument around it.
Focus on the basics, not the length
Hooker advises agents not to get too distracted by the length of a submission or the legal terminology used. Instead, they should go back to the basics: what is the consumer actually complaining about, what happened, what evidence exists, and what can reasonably be done to resolve it. He draws an analogy with standing in front of a judge, where the value is in presenting the facts of the case rather than explaining the law.
He stresses that winning an argument is not the same as resolving a complaint. Property Redress takes a deliberately non-adversarial approach, aiming to establish what has happened and find a fair and practical resolution. AI does not necessarily understand that, and a consumer can become convinced they have a cast-iron case when the practical circumstances or evidence do not stack up.
Distinguishing AI complaints from vexatious ones
Hooker emphasises the importance of distinguishing between an AI-generated complaint and a vexatious complaint. Property Redress has removed the term 'vexatious' from its Terms of Reference. A complaint cannot be upheld without evidence, and AI cannot substitute for the evidence needed to substantiate an argument.
For agents, the challenge includes ensuring their own complaints procedures are robust, with early recognition of complaints and sufficient record-keeping. Hooker also encourages agents to use AI themselves for summarising information and organising evidence, but warns about data: firms need appropriately licensed systems they control, proper training, protocols and guidance, and must understand what happens to information put into AI.
Human first, AI second
Hooker concludes that AI-generated complaints are here to stay, but AI does not have empathy, lived experience or a complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding a complaint. At Property Redress, staff will always try to speak to both parties and ask them to explain to a real person what has happened and what they actually want. The overarching message is the importance of authenticity and remembering that there is a person behind every complaint, and that good service requires human interaction, empathy and understanding.
