An increase in the number of complaints written with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) are placing significant additional demands on schools, local authorities and other public bodies, according to evidence gathered by the BBC.
AI tools can produce detailed arguments, often citing regulations, case law and Acts of Parliament. In some cases, complaints that would previously have fitted on a single sheet of A4 have expanded to 20 pages or more.
Public sector organisations report that these complaints can contain inaccuracies, including incorrect references to legislation, creating additional work for complaints teams and legal advisers.
However, supporters argue that AI is making the complaints process more accessible, particularly for people who find written communication difficult. Dawn Harverson, who struggles with writing, said AI had made it easier for her to raise concerns.
“In the past, you’d be able to pick up the phone and speak to somebody,” she told the BBC. “We’re all pushed down this road to send emails, and so somebody who’s neurodivergent or intimidated by the written word will just simply not complain.”
The use of AI to challenge decisions is becoming increasingly widespread, with social media users sharing examples of AI-assisted appeals against parking fines and benefits decisions.
Deborah Evans, chief executive of Lawyers in Local Government, which represents around 5,600 local authority lawyers, said she welcomed the role AI could play in helping people exercise their right to complain. However, she warned that it had also contributed to an increase in trivial or unjustified complaints, as well as greater complexity.
She said a straightforward complaint about an issue such as missed bin collections could now become a lengthy document containing case law and references to multiple Acts of Parliament. Complaints teams may then need to seek legal advice, increasing costs and potentially slowing responses.
Evans estimated that meeting the increased workload through additional staffing alone could require councils to double the size of their complaints workforce.
Some authorities are therefore considering alternative approaches, including forms designed to limit the length and scope of complaints. Critics, however, argue that measures of this kind could risk restricting legitimate challenges and reducing accountability.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has also urged people to use AI with discretion, noting that it has seen an increase in AI-assisted legal challenges to its decisions.
The same trend is emerging in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said in May that FOI teams were reporting higher volumes and greater complexity in requests, including cases where legislation had been misquoted or where significant clarification was required before a request could be processed.
The ICO has warned that, without practical support, the growing use of AI could place additional pressure on FOI teams, potentially contributing to delays, errors and further complaints.
Lynn Wyeth, a digital officer at the National Association of Data Protection Officers, described AI-assisted requests as creating a “hidden workload”, citing longer correspondence, clarification exercises and more complex appeals.
She argued that public authorities should also be supported in using AI themselves to manage the additional demand.
The challenge for public bodies is to preserve the accessibility benefits of AI while preventing unnecessary complexity and administrative burden.
Harverson argues that, like any other tool, AI needs to be used thoughtfully. Simply submitting an elaborate AI-generated complaint without considering whether the additional detail is necessary may create work without improving the case.
The experiences shared with BBC Radio 5 Live illustrate the issue. Some public sector workers reported receiving increasingly lengthy AI-generated complaints containing inaccurate references to legislation. Others said they were using AI to condense complaints of more than 50 pages into concise responses, which they found effective.
