Artificial intelligence is transforming the way consumers complain about property services, but is it helping people achieve better outcomes or creating unnecessary conflict?
At The Property Ombudsman (TPO), we deal with around 20,000 enquiries annually and accept approximately 9,000 complaints. We have been witnessing first-hand how rapidly AI is changing the complaints landscape.
Our internal research suggests that around 72% of complaints now show signs of AI assistance, compared with almost none just two years ago. This estimate is based on indicators including writing style, structure and legal references.
That is an extraordinary shift, raising important questions about whether AI is generating more complaints, making existing complaints more complicated or helping previously unheard consumers find their voice.
There are, however, undoubtedly some benefits. AI can help people explain their concerns, organise information and overcome confidence barriers that might previously have prevented them from complaining.
For consumers struggling to articulate a genuine grievance, that can be empowering because better communication should, in principle, lead to quicker and fairer resolutions.
However, what we are increasingly seeing is that AI-generated complaints can be two or three times longer than those written without assistance.
The length of the complaint doesn’t necessarily mean better substance. Some submissions contain irrelevant legislation, misinterpreted legal protections and references to cases that simply do not exist.
As a result, consumers are becoming so focused on arguments generated by technology that their actual experience gets lost beneath pages of legal-sounding language.
One recent case illustrates the problem particularly well.
A tenant complained after their letting agent posted a letter through their letterbox giving notice of an upcoming property inspection.
AI subsequently interpreted this routine communication as harassment, before constructing an extensive complaint on behalf of the tenant, supported by legal cases that didn’t exist.
When we explained that posting an inspection notice was a normal and acceptable part of an agent-tenant relationship, the consumer rejected our explanation and escalated matters further, ultimately complaining about our own service.
What should have been a straightforward interaction became a prolonged dispute involving the agent, the Ombudsman and the consumer.
This highlights another unintended consequence: AI can undermine trust by presenting incorrect information with such confidence that people become reluctant to accept professional explanations.
It can also confuse responsibilities, attributing landlords' obligations to agents, inventing legal protections or suggesting remedies that fall outside established dispute resolution processes.
Does that mean AI is causing more complaints? It is too early to make that judgement definitively, but what is clear is that it can increase the volume and complexity of correspondence surrounding an individual grievance.
For agents, particularly smaller businesses, that creates considerable pressure on already stretched resources, but attempting to ban consumers from using AI is neither realistic nor desirable. The important question is how the industry adapts.
My advice is to begin with clear complaints policies, realistic response times and expectations around excessive or repetitive correspondence.
Agents should not feel pressured to respond immediately to every AI-generated challenge. Once concerns have been properly addressed, there should be reasonable boundaries around further exchanges.
Equally, a lengthy complaint should never automatically be dismissed as unreasonable. There may be a legitimate problem buried within it that deserves investigation.
Sometimes the simplest solution is also the most effective - just pick up the telephone.
A direct conversation can reveal more about someone's genuine concerns in minutes than an exchange of lengthy AI-generated documents. Following that conversation with a short written summary also helps establish a shared understanding.
Agents can also use approved AI tools to summarise complex complaints and identify the main issues, provided personal information is safeguarded and outputs are checked for accuracy.
At TPO, we are exploring additional guidance and AI prompts within our online complaints process to encourage clearer, more focused submissions.
Crucially, consumers should not face charges or unnecessary barriers simply because their complaints are lengthy or AI-assisted, but nor should we lose sight of the human element. The Property Ombudsman is committed to maintaining human oversight in our own decision-making, regardless of how useful technology becomes.
The real measure of progress will not be how quickly technology can produce a complaint or response, but whether it helps agents and consumers understand each other and resolve genuine problems fairly.
Ultimately, better complaint handling is not about who can generate the most convincing argument. It is about understanding what happened, establishing the facts and finding a fair resolution.
