Homebuyers using artificial intelligence to draft complaints and questions are creating additional work and delays in property transactions, according to conveyancing firm RG Law.
The firm reports that clients are increasingly using AI to generate lengthy lists of questions without full understanding of their transaction’s context, forcing conveyancers to pause work to correct assumptions before proceeding with purchases.
The warning emerges as the Legal Ombudsman’s latest data shows residential conveyancing remains the most complained-about area of legal practice, accounting for 36% of all complaints accepted. Conveyancing complaints rose 41% year-on-year, with poor communication, delays and failure to progress among the most common concerns.
Leasehold transactions affected
RG Law states the problem is particularly pronounced in leasehold transactions, where key information may be outstanding from managing agents, freeholders or the seller’s solicitors.
In one case cited by the firm, a buyer used AI to draft a complaint demanding outstanding information within seven days and threatening to withdraw from the purchase. The correspondence did not account for the property being leasehold, or that the draft contract pack had only arrived nine weeks earlier.
Another client submitted questions on fire-safety works, asbestos, reserve funds and future costs. Some had already been addressed in reports provided to the buyer, while other information was still outstanding from the seller’s side.
Loren Ringshall, Conveyancing Case Manager at RG Law, said: “It is understandable that clients may use AI to help formulate questions. The difficulty is that AI does not understand the complete history of the transaction or which party is responsible for providing information.”
She added: “It can produce a response that sounds authoritative, but is based on assumptions, general information or an incomplete picture of the case.”
Cost implications
Ringshall noted the issue is not that buyers ask questions, but that AI can turn reasonable concerns into demands that don’t match the progress of an individual transaction.
“When we receive a lengthy list of AI-generated questions, each point must be checked against the file and answered accurately,” she said. “That can involve revisiting reports, reviewing previous correspondence and contacting other parties, taking time away from the next stage of the transaction.”
The firm warns there is also a cost implication where AI-generated correspondence creates work that would not otherwise have been necessary. The issue adds to existing challenges in the sector, which has seen increased scrutiny over dispute handling and regulatory measures aimed at improving standards.
No AI declaration required
The Property Ombudsman has ruled out requiring consumers to declare if they have used AI in their complaints. The Ombudsman’s Lesley Horton said its rulebook governs agents rather than the people complaining about them.
“The Property Ombudsman’s Codes set standards for property agents, not consumers, so we would not seek to require complainants to declare whether they have used AI,” she said. “Nor should legitimate complaints face unnecessary barriers.”
The development highlights growing tensions between technological adoption and established property transaction processes, with implications for transaction timelines and costs across the sector.
