Mr A instructed the firm to help him buy his first home. When the purchase completed, Mr A raised a complaint about the service he’d received.
His complaint showed common hallmarks of AI usage:
A formal introductory paragraph
A template-like structure with numbered subheadings
Bold text to highlight words
A strong emphasis on the failings and their seriousness, rather than on their effect on him
The absence of a proposal for resolving the complaint
The firm responded by email, mirroring the headings in Mr A’s complaint letter. In the response, the firm offered to discuss the complaint with Mr A. Mr A rejected that offer, saying he preferred to handle the matter in writing.
A lengthy exchange of emails followed, with the firm responding under each heading of complaint, and Mr A arguing that the failings were more serious than the firm described.
With a final offer being rejected, the firm recognised that the matter was not going to be resolved by further discussion. Its next email to Mr A:
Summarised its position on the issues of complaint;
Repeated its apology for the effect of those where it believed it had been at fault;
Repeated its latest financial offer;
Made clear this was the final response to the complaint; and
Gave full details of how to contact the Legal Ombudsman.
Where it is likely that a consumer has relied heavily on AI to compose a complaint, look to avoid mirroring the style in response. Prefer an invitation to discuss the complaint and find a resolution to a back-and-forth of unproductive emails.
If the consumer then insists they want everything in writing, keep responses concise, clear and focused on resolution.
Consumers who use AI to help with their complaint will see some benefits in making the allegations clear, but it won’t always help to resolve the complaint. When not used to best effect, it can push consumers away from resolving their complaint.
