UK public bodies face surge of AI-generated complaints

The rise of the AI clog

Public bodies across the United Kingdom are reporting a significant surge in correspondence generated by artificial intelligence. This phenomenon, which some observers have dubbed an 'AI clog,' began as a small trend in 2024 but has quickly escalated into a major operational challenge. Organizations are finding themselves swamped by a high volume of letters and legal challenges that were previously much harder for laypeople to produce.

Before the widespread adoption of tools like ChatGPT and Gemini, writing a formal complaint or objecting to a local planning application typically required significant effort. Citizens usually had to spend time researching specific topics, filling out complex forms, or possessing specialized knowledge to sound authoritative. Now, generative AI tools act as free personal assistants that can turn a simple idea into a professional-sounding legal demand in seconds.

While these tools were marketed to provide productivity gains for businesses, they are creating a new type of burden for the public sector. The ease of generation means that individuals can now bombard authorities with requests that require human employees to spend hours sifting through. As The Guardian reported, this shift is making requests much more complex and time-consuming to process for even the most experienced caseworkers.

Impact on local government

Local authorities are feeling the pressure across a wide variety of services, from adult social care to missed bin collections. Because these bodies operate on fixed budgets, an increase in complaints does not come with extra funding to handle them. Deborah Evans, the chief executive of Lawyers in Local Government, notes that the sheer length of the correspondence is often a primary indicator of AI involvement.

The average length of complaints received by local authorities has jumped from about two pages to significantly longer lengths. In some extreme cases, Evans has seen AI-generated documents that are as long as 200 pages. These documents often use specific formatting, such as heavy use of bullet points and repetitive phrases, which are hallmarks of current chatbot outputs.

Councils are seeing specific spikes in certain types of appeals, such as parking disputes. For example, the leader of Enfield council noted a significant uptick in residents using AI to appeal council decisions. This creates a situation where public resources are diverted toward managing automated 'slop' instead of addressing the core issues of the community.

Legal and employment hurdles

The 'AI clog' is also manifesting in the legal and employment sectors, where chatbots can mimic the tone of a professional lawyer. These tools can pull in case law and refer to specific statutes, though they often do so inaccurately. A common issue is that the AI might cite legal precedents from different countries, such as Canada, which are not applicable to the local jurisdiction.

Business owners are reporting that AI-generated complaints can be overly supportive and validating, giving people misplaced confidence to pursue litigation. One technology start-up founder noted that a former employee used AI to challenge a dismissal, resulting in a different tone and wording than a human would typically use. This has led to a surge in employment tribunal claims, which rose by 28% between April and June compared to the previous year.

Experts at Hamilton Nash have observed that these AI-generated complaints are often 'unnecessarily verbose' and can exaggerate minor incidents into major offenses. A recurring problem is that while the messages sound intimidating, they often fail to state what resolution the complainant actually wants. This forces employers and public bodies to spend more time trying to decipher the actual request hidden within the automated text.

Strained public resources

The sheer volume of requests is putting a physical and mental strain on the staff who must process them. In the offices of some Members of Parliament, staff members have reported feeling exhausted as they work longer hours to keep up with the workload. The GMB union found that casework levels in many offices have doubled or more, with staff carrying the load without additional support.

Transport for London (TfL) reported a record 4,769 freedom of information requests in the 2025-26 period, marking a 5% increase over their previous peak. The organization also noted a rise in appeals that appeared to be AI-generated, often containing highly technical and inaccurate assumptions. These requests require human verification to ensure that the public body provides accurate information while managing the influx.

Because many of these requests are technically valid, public authorities are still legally required to answer them even if they contain inaccuracies. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) warned that AI-generated requests can be repetitive and contain misdirected demands. This means that even if the content is low-quality, the administrative cost of responding remains high for the government and other public bodies.

Potential solutions and next steps

To combat the flood of automated correspondence, some organizations are looking for ways to set stricter boundaries. Some ombudsman services are already considering imposing word limits on complaints or designing online templates to restrict how much information can be attached. Other researchers have suggested that authorities could make it harder to complete applications by charging fees or blocking bots from government websites.

There is also a growing discussion about using AI to fight AI, with some councils exploring tools to summarize long emails or draft initial responses. For instance, Wiltshire council is looking into using AI to summarize long emails, while Stroud district council discussed using Microsoft’s Copilot for report writing. However, critics warn that relying on machines to filter out other machines could lead to a loss of the 'human touch' in public service.

The UK government has already issued guidance to civil servants on how to use AI tools safely, emphasizing the need for human review of all work. As the situation evolves, experts suggest that public bodies may eventually have to set stricter rules on what types of correspondence they will accept. Without these measures, there is a risk that public services will become completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of automated output.