AI Conveyancing Complaints: How Should Firms Respond?

AI-assisted conveyancing complaints are changing how clients challenge delays, fees and advice. A buyer who previously struggled to explain their dissatisfaction can now produce a detailed complaint in minutes. For conveyancing firms, the challenge is to identify the concern, check the evidence and respond in a way that helps resolve it.

A formal letter does not necessarily mean a stronger complaint. Equally, the involvement of AI does not make a client’s concern less deserving of attention.

What the research says about AI conveyancing complaints

The Legal Ombudsman’s October 2026 research included a review of 100 residential conveyancing complaint files. Its published table recorded indicators of AI use in 50 of those files.

Among those 50 files, AI’s impact on complaint resolution was assessed as positive in 36%, neutral in 28% and negative in 36%.

These findings come from a limited casework sample and assessments of AI indicators. They should not be treated as a measure of AI use across every conveyancing complaint.

However, they give firms a practical reason to review how they handle client dissatisfaction. You can read the Legal Ombudsman’s research on AI and complaints for the findings and methodology.

A complaint about delay may really be about communication

Consider an illustrative purchase where the conveyancer is waiting for information from a managing agent. The client hears little for three weeks, worries about losing the property and uses AI to draft a complaint alleging negligence and demanding compensation.

The firm’s first reaction might be that the delay was outside its control. But that only addresses part of the concern.

Did the firm explain what was outstanding? Did it tell the client what it was doing to obtain the information? Were earlier promises about timing realistic?

A conveyancer may have progressed the legal work appropriately while leaving the client poorly informed. The complaint investigation needs to examine both.

Our earlier article on no sale no fee conveyancing and delayed title investigation explores another situation where a client’s understanding of progress may differ from the firm’s working approach.

Reports on title may face closer scrutiny

AI can also help a client formulate questions about advice received before exchange. A leaseholder facing unexpected costs might ask an AI tool to review their report on title and identify what the conveyancer should have explained.

The resulting complaint could raise important questions. It could also misunderstand the lease, overlook an explanation elsewhere in the file or rely on an obligation that does not apply.

The firm should therefore review the actual documents and advice, including:

• The relevant title or lease provision.
• What the report on title said about its practical consequences.
• Any separate correspondence or discussions with the client.
• Whether the advice addressed the client’s stated plans for the property.
• What the client says they would have done differently if properly informed.

A signed acknowledgement is useful evidence, but the investigation should also consider the clarity and content of the advice. Our article on inadequate leasehold reports on title explains why the quality of the report matters.

Fee complaints need a clear explanation of the work

A client may use AI to compare the final bill with the original quotation and challenge additional charges for leasehold work, lender requirements or an unexpected title problem.

A useful investigation checks the quotation, exclusions, subsequent cost updates and the work undertaken. Referring the client back to lengthy terms may leave the central question unanswered: when were they told the additional work would cost more?

The response should explain the disputed charge in everyday language and identify the relevant communication. Where the firm’s explanation or cost update was inadequate, it should address that failing directly.

Check inaccurate legal claims without dismissing the complaint

An AI-assisted letter may cite an irrelevant rule, invent a case or assume that every conveyancing delay amounts to negligence. Firms should verify material legal references before relying on them.

However, an incorrect citation does not answer whether the firm failed to return calls, explain a risk or update the client about costs.

For example, a response might say:

We have not been able to verify the case referred to in your letter. We have nevertheless investigated your concern that you were not told about the additional charge before the work was undertaken.

This keeps the investigation focused on the allegation that can be checked against the file.

A practical approach to AI-assisted conveyancing complaints

The Legal Ombudsman has published guidance for firms handling AI-assisted complaints. For conveyancing teams, a useful working approach is:

1. Identify the concerns. Summarise the issues and clarify anything ambiguous with the client.
2. Build the chronology. Check instructions, documents, enquiries, advice, cost updates and progress reports.
3. Examine responsibility. Establish what caused the problem and how the firm communicated it.
4. Understand the impact. Ask what inconvenience or loss the client attributes to the service and what outcome they want.
5. Give an evidence-based response. Explain the findings, any remedy and the available escalation route.

A lengthy complaint should not lead to an equally lengthy response by default. A short explanation supported by the relevant evidence may be easier for the client to understand.

Keep the complaints process accessible

Some clients will arrive with a polished AI-assisted letter. Others will express the same dissatisfaction in a short email or telephone call.

The quality of the presentation should not determine the attention the concern receives. Firms should offer appropriate help to clients who struggle to explain their complaint and avoid making formal legal language a condition of being heard.

Complaint handling should also remain within the applicable timetable. The Legal Ombudsman’s best practice guidance explains that an unresolved complaint can generally be referred to it after eight weeks from being raised with the firm, subject to its scheme rules.

For further context, see our article on Legal Ombudsman time limits for conveyancing complaints and the Ombudsman’s current complaint handling guidance.

Using AI to prepare the firm’s response

A firm might use an approved AI tool to organise a chronology or prepare a first draft. The complaint handler must still check the output against the complete file and make the assessment themselves.

Before entering client information, consider confidentiality, data protection and the firm’s approved arrangements for using the tool. Check that a summary has not omitted a material email or converted an assumption into a finding.

Each factual statement, legal reference and proposed remedy should be reviewed before the response is issued.

Use complaints to improve the next transaction

A complaint can expose a recurring weakness: unclear cost updates, inconsistent progress reports or advice that is technically detailed but difficult to understand.

Those weaknesses also affect whether clients recommend the firm or return for another transaction. Our earlier post asks why a conveyancing client might choose a different firm next time.

AI may change the wording of the complaint. The firm’s task remains to understand what happened, explain its findings and put matters right where appropriate.