Top tips for FE Colleges: managing complaints in the age of AI

The impact of AI on complaints

Accessible, free generative AI tools have reformed how complaints are raised in the education sector, as they have in other fields. Although AI itself is not necessarily a problem, and can enable better engagement, we have seen a growing trend in AI complaints which:

Are lengthy, repetitive and complex;
Are legalistic, often misstating the law;
Facilitate higher volumes of correspondence being sent; and
Are adversarial in tone, making (often misguided) threats of legal action.

Such complaints often increase the administrative burden on colleges and escalate disputes, drawing out the process.

Complaints procedures

Before tackling the challenges presented by AI-generated complaints, colleges must understand the fundamentals of complaints handling. FE colleges have some flexibility in structuring their complaints procedures but, for DfE-funded colleges, the Accountability Agreement requires Colleges to:

Have procedures in place for acting on feedback and complaints;
Keep a log of complaints, accessible to the DfE upon request;
Ensure learners know about the procedures;
Ensure procedures are clear and accessible, published on the college's website and provided during onboarding;
Resolve complaints in accordance with their own procedures and any DfE guidance; and
Provide a written outcome to complainants.

Processes should be fair and transparent, and reasonable adjustments must be made for those with disabilities.

Some complaints raise further requirements. For example, complaints concerning HE courses delivered by FE colleges may fall within scope of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) scheme, and there are certain statutory requirements around managing data protection complaints. These matters are not explored in this article.

Communication strategies

When managing AI-generated complaints, it is best to:

Keep it concise: AI-generated complaints are often lengthy. It is important to focus on the complaint's substance and extract the core issues, and it is rarely appropriate to mirror the complaint's length. Providing a concise, factual response can help to de-escalate tensions.
Follow policy timescales: AI-generated complaints often assert deadlines with no legal or regulatory grounding. Here, colleges should avoid responding reactively, instead relying on their procedures and relevant statutory timelines.
Avoid legal arguments: Some AI-generated complaints reference points of law, often incorrectly. Colleges should not engage in legal arguments as doing so could invalidate the terms of their insurance, and should take legal advice if concerned.
Manage communications: For repetitive or complex complaints, it may be appropriate to establish a central point of contact, to achieve consistent responses and avoid duplication of effort.
Be proactive: Taking internal action proactively, ensuring transparency around actions and adopting a constructive and empathetic tone can support de-escalation. In some cases, a meeting or call can resolve misunderstandings more effectively and avoid prolonged written correspondence.

Procedure and proactivity

Being prepared for complaints can help to prevent unnecessary escalation. Many AI-generated complaints are unwieldy and conflate several issues, not all of which are best managed as complaints, and identifying the correct process for an issue may be challenging where points of contention blur the boundaries between different processes.

It is important to have accessible policies with a clear scope, timescales and definitions of "complaints" and "complainants." This can help with categorising issues and managing expectations. At the outset, colleges should try to identify whether communications should be treated as:

A complaint;
A subject access request;
A freedom of information request;
A safeguarding concern; or
Another type of issue (such as a potential claim or query falling outside of the scope of the complaints procedure),

and manage each issue within the correct process(es).

Many complaints policies were written before the widespread use of generative AI, so colleges may wish to review whether their policies adequately address:

Procedures for managing excessive or repetitive correspondence;
Communication protocols; and
Unacceptable behaviour.

Record keeping

With the increased volume and repetition of complaints in the AI-age, it is imperative that colleges keep clear records of correspondence. Maintaining a central record of communications allows colleges to:

Track repetitive allegations;
Identify patterns of behaviour; and
Have an audit-trail demonstrating that concerns have been properly considered and procedures followed, should matters be escalated externally.

Colleges must continue to manage complaints appropriately and comply with their legal obligations when doing so (e.g. in relation to GDPR), even when communications appear to be AI-generated. If colleges are uncertain about how to proceed, a legal advisor may be able to support.