AI can help a person put a difficult complaint into words. It can also produce a submission that makes the underlying problem harder to find.
Britain’s Financial Ombudsman Service is increasing telephone contact with consumers after seeing complaints containing irrelevant or inaccurate AI-assisted material, the Financial Times reported on October 26.
Chief ombudsman James Dipple-Johnstone described one submission in which 37 of 39 references did not fit the complaint. He also acknowledged that AI can help people explain their concerns. ft.com
The response is an operational practice, not a new legal rule or court ruling.
The access-to-justice trade-off
For a consumer struggling to describe a financial dispute, an AI tool may help organize a timeline, identify missing information or make a draft easier to read.
But a polished complaint can also contain inaccurate references or material unrelated to the person’s experience. That creates work for the person reviewing it - and can obscure the facts needed to assess the dispute.
A phone call offers one way to clarify what happened: what product or service is involved, what the consumer believes went wrong, and what outcome they are seeking.
It also raises a practical access question. Some complainants may welcome a conversation; others may find written communication easier because of language, disability, work schedules or the complexity of their case. The challenge is to clarify the complaint without making the process harder to use.
A question for Canadian dispute-resolution bodies
The Financial Ombudsman Service’s earlier response to the UK’s Mills Review considered how AI may affect financial services and complaints. That response provides context for the October interview; it is not the announcement of the increased phone-contact practice. financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Canadian complaint bodies face a similar design question: how can they benefit from clearer AI-assisted submissions while checking that the words reflect the complainant’s actual circumstances?
The first step may be a simple one: ask the person to explain their concern in their own terms, then use the written submission to support - not replace - that account.
Sources: Financial Times interview · Financial Ombudsman Service response to the Mills Review
Related coverage: B.C. Court Warns That Poor AI Filings Can Undermine Access to Justice · Banking Regulators Ask Whether Autonomous AI Agents Can Be Controlled.