Artificial intelligence is making it easier for people to produce long, detailed and formal-looking complaints. Schools, academy trusts and other public bodies are increasingly receiving correspondence which refers to legislation, policies and legal principles and which may run to many pages.
AI can make it easier for a parent, employee or other individual to explain a genuine concern. However, it can also produce repetitive or exaggerated wording, include incorrect legal references and turn a relatively straightforward issue into a much larger document.
For busy education leaders, the challenge is to respond fairly and properly without allowing the length or legal tone of the document to make the issue appear stronger or more complex than it really is.
Length does not necessarily mean strength
AI can produce polished writing very quickly. A complaint may therefore look as though it has been prepared by a lawyer, even where the legal analysis is inaccurate or does not apply to the facts.
AI-generated or AI-assisted documents may:
- Refer to legislation or guidance that does not apply.
- Misquote the law or apply the wrong legal test.
- Repeat the same point in several different ways.
- Add allegations or legal labels that the individual may not fully understand.
- Claim large amounts of compensation without evidence.
- Fail to explain clearly what happened, when it happened and what outcome is being sought.
- Schools should not dismiss a complaint simply because AI may have been used. The right approach is to identify the genuine concerns, consider the available evidence and follow the relevant procedure fairly.
The pressure on school resources
Most schools do not have a large complaints or legal team. A lengthy submission can take significant time for a headteacher, school business manager, HR adviser, clerk, governor or trustee to review.
There can also be pressure to answer every sentence separately. That is not always necessary. A clear and proportionate response should focus on the main issues, the evidence considered, the decision reached and the reasons for that decision.
Where the document is unclear, it may be reasonable to ask the person to confirm the specific concerns, relevant dates, people involved, evidence relied upon and outcome sought.
Parental complaints and employee grievances are different
Schools should first identify which process applies. A complaint from a parent about the school or a member of staff will usually be considered under the school’s complaints procedure. A grievance raised by an employee about their own employment will normally be managed under the school’s grievance procedure.
Some correspondence may raise several different issues at once. For example, a document may include a parental complaint, an allegation about staff conduct, a data protection issue and a safeguarding concern. These issues may need to be separated and managed under different procedures.
Identifying the correct route at the beginning helps the school avoid delay, duplication and confusion.
When a complaint becomes a legal dispute
The same AI tools used to write complaints can also be used to prepare appeal documents, letters before action, employment tribunal papers and other legal claims.
These documents can look formidable but may still contain basic weaknesses. They may fail to connect the facts to a recognised legal claim, misunderstand who is responsible or seek a remedy that is not available.
Schools should take any threatened legal action seriously, but they should not judge the strength of a case by the number of pages submitted. Early legal advice can help identify the real issues and the most proportionate response.
Requests for large amounts of information
AI-assisted correspondence may include wide requests for emails, records, electronic documents or metadata. Schools should consider carefully which legal process applies to the request and whether the information sought is relevant and proportionate.
Good information management is important. Schools should preserve relevant records, avoid unnecessary deletion and seek advice where a request is unusually broad, sensitive or connected with threatened proceedings.
Supporting staff named in complaints
Complaints can become personal, particularly where individual teachers, leaders, governors or support staff are repeatedly named. This can be stressful even where the allegations are not upheld.
Schools should keep affected employees appropriately informed, explain the process being followed and consider what wellbeing or pastoral support may be needed. Information should only be shared with those who need it, and the school should avoid reaching conclusions before the facts have been considered.
Practical steps for schools and trusts
- Follow the usual complaints or grievance procedure. The use of AI does not make a complaint invalid.
- Identify the central factual concerns and the outcome being requested.
- Ask for clarification where allegations, dates, people or requested outcomes are unclear.
- Group repeated or overlapping points rather than answering the same issue several times.
- Check legal quotations and references rather than assuming they are correct.
- Set a reasonable and proportionate scope for any investigation.
- Keep the response calm, clear and in plain English.
- Maintain a record of the evidence considered, decisions made and reasons given.
- Protect confidential information about pupils, employees and third parties.
- Seek HR or legal advice early where the matter is complex, highly sensitive or likely to escalate.
A balanced approach
AI can improve access for people who find it difficult to organise their thoughts or express themselves in writing. Schools should therefore avoid making assumptions about a person or the seriousness of their concern simply because AI appears to have been used.
At the same time, the individual remains responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. AI should not replace facts, evidence or personal accountability. The school’s role is to deal with the substance of the concern, not to become distracted by how the document was produced.
Training from HR Connect and Legal Connect
HR Connect and Legal Connect offer education-focused training on navigating parental complaints and employee grievances produced or supported by AI. The training is designed for headteachers, senior leaders, school business professionals, HR teams, governors and trustees and can be delivered face to face or virtually.
The session provides practical guidance on:
- Recognising the common features and risks of AI-assisted complaints and grievances.
- Identifying the core issues within long or legalistic documents.
- Deciding which school or employment procedure applies.
- Setting a fair and proportionate scope for a response or investigation.
- Asking effective questions where the submission is unclear or exaggerated.
- Responding in clear, human and measured language.
- Managing confidentiality, data protection and the risks of staff or parents entering sensitive information into public AI tools.
- Supporting staff and reducing the risk of unnecessary escalation.
The aim is to give education leaders the confidence to deal with AI-assisted correspondence fairly and consistently while protecting staff time and maintaining a clear focus on evidence and proper process.
To discuss training for your school or trust, contact HR Connect or Legal Connect.
Final message
AI is changing how complaints, grievances and legal correspondence are written, but it does not change the basic principles of fair decision-making. Schools should focus on the facts, follow the correct procedure, respond proportionately and keep a clear record of their decisions.
Do not be intimidated by volume. Focus on the substance of the concern and seek advice where the matter is likely to become complex or contentious.
.png)