Pension scheme complaints (IDRPs) in the age of AI – what are the issues and risks, and what should trustees, employers, and administrators do?

AI is reshaping the pensions industry already and is likely to only continue to do so over the coming years. This is already happening in respect of pension scheme complaints from members (“IDRPs”) – with administrators, trustee boards and where necessary employers dealing with IDRPs that appear to have been drafted by AI. Indeed, the Chair of the Pensions Ombudsman recently commented on the topic.

Are AI-drafted IDRPs valid?

Whilst this is an unsettled area of law and The Pensions Regulator is yet to comment, we would typically expect that an IDRP is not invalidated simply because it was drafted by AI.

This position is consistent with The Information Commissioner's Office's (ICO) new guidance on responding to freedom of information (FOI) requests. Whilst the FOI regime applies only to public bodies, it does provide useful input on this point more widely.

The ICO states that AI-drafted requests are not inherently invalid, although the guidance urges organisations to expect more verbose, error‑strewn requests because of the technology. Even if it includes inaccurate information, an AI-assisted FOI request is not exempt from the FOI process. 

The ICO suggests that organisations consider including wording on their webpage regarding the usage of AI to make an FOI request. The ICO provide some useful suggested wording on this, with the key extract being:

“AI tools can be helpful, but they can also introduce errors or create overly complex requests that increase the burden on public bodies and cost to the taxpayer.

When using AI to help draft an information request, please make sure the final wording has been checked and reflects your actual information needs.”

Potential issues and risks with an AI-drafted IDRP

It is likely that an AI-drafted IDRP will suffer from the same deficiencies as the FOIs that this ICO guidance is intended to address, for example: 

• Stating and relying on incorrect information (e.g. incorrect case law and statute), 

• Not being sufficiently personalised to the complaint (e.g. not providing the personal information required to assess what happened and/or whether a non-financial injustice award is payable); and / or

• Including irrelevant information or unsustainable allegations which obscure the key issues that need to be addressed. 

These developments increase the risk that IDRP complaints take longer to investigate and resolve. The AI tool may also have given the member false expectations as to what they are entitled to, which risks more second stage IDRP outcomes being referred to the Ombudsman. We are seeing an increasing number of IDRPs arising in Schemes who are embarking on risk transfer activity, increasing the need for speedy resolution which these issues frustrate. 

Practical steps to take regarding IDRPs

We recommend that administrators and trustee boards mark this topic as “one to watch” over the coming months, in particular by seeking to understand:

• whether the scheme is receiving AI-drafted IDRPs, and 

• whether there has been a material increase in IDRPs received.

All scheme memberships are different and so we expect that different schemes will be impacted by AI-drafted IDRPs differently – with some possibly not being impacted. 

The trustee board and administrators who manage IDRP processes may think it worthwhile to:

• Implement a revised IDRP process whereby: (1) each IDRP is scanned by an AI tool to assess whether it was AI-produced (as universities are doing for students’ work), and (2) if it was, then subjecting it to a slightly different procedure (to assess and address the potential deficiencies that are common with AI-produced documents, e.g. misinformation and lack of personalisation) at an early stage potentially before a full response is provided; and/or

• Implementing wording similar to that in the ICO’s FOI guidance, onto the scheme’s webpage and/or the scheme’s IDRP document / complaint form. 

We work closely with AI specialists from our firm and in the industry to understand how the technology is likely to impact our clients. Please do reach out to Chris Brown, Callum Duckmanton, Suzanne Padmore, or your usual Burges Salmon contact if you would like to discuss this further. 

This article was written by Callum Duckmanton (Solicitor), Chris Brown (Partner) both in our Pensions & Lifetime Savings Team, and Suzanne Padmore (Partner) in our dedicated Pensions Disputes Team. 

AI can turn a straightforward service complaint into something long, complex and adversarial — sometimes filled with irrelevant legal arguments, inaccurate references or invented case law. The nub of the complaint can quickly become buried and complaint handlers can’t see the wood for the trees.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-evans-37303a23_localgovernment-ai-complaintshandling-share-7497965225602699264-zHF7/?rcm=ACoAAAzEWqYBmo7l7IkR6cLJThNUBhytk1kSaMs