When AI Complaints Go On Too Long Radio 4 and the Problem of Overlong Messages

A complaint can be perfectly valid and still fail because nobody can face reading it.

That is the uncomfortable point raised by the discussion around AI-written complaints, including a Radio 4 broadcast on Monday 24 August. AI tools can help people put frustration into words. They can give shape to anger, confusion, poor treatment, delays, bad service, unsafe experiences, and unfair decisions.

But they can also turn a simple problem into a five-page monologue, the irony that this post is in part AI generated is not lost on me.

For the person complaining, that feels serious and thorough. For the person receiving it, it can feel like fog. The key facts are buried. The requested outcome is unclear. The emotional force gets diluted by repetition.

The problem is not that people are using AI to complain. The problem is that AI often writes complaints in a way that sounds formal, long, and complete, while making them harder to act on.

Long complaints can make a clear problem harder to see.

AI can help people complain, but it does not know when to stop

There is a good case for using AI to draft complaints.

Many people know something has gone wrong but struggle to explain it. They may be tired, upset, dyslexic, neurodivergent, writing in a second language, or dealing with a stressful system. A blank page can make a simple complaint feel impossible.

AI can help by:

• turning notes into sentences

• making the tone calmer

• arranging events in order

• checking spelling and grammar

• suggesting what information to include

• helping someone ask for a specific outcome

  
  

That is useful. In some cases, it can make complaint processes more accessible.

The trouble starts when the AI is left to perform seriousness. Most AI writing tools have a habit of reaching for phrases such as “I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction” and “this matter has caused considerable distress and inconvenience”. Those phrases are not always wrong, but they are often repeated, expanded, and padded.

A two-sentence issue becomes a page. A page becomes a dossier. The complaint starts to sound bigger, but not clearer.

AI does not instinctively know what a complaints handler needs. It does not know the policy being used, the time pressure on the reader, or which facts matter most. It will often include every possible argument because it treats more text as more help.

That is where the human writer still matters.

A strong complaint is not the longest version of the truth. It is the clearest useful version.

Why overlong complaints often do less work

A complaint is not a diary entry, a legal bundle, or a novel. It is a request for someone to understand a problem and do something about it.

That means length must earn its place.

When a complaint runs too long, several things happen.

The first problem is attention. People reading complaints are often working through many at once. This does not mean they are careless or indifferent. It means they need to identify the issue quickly so they can route it, assess it, and respond. If the complaint opens with several paragraphs of general dissatisfaction, the reader has to hunt for the event itself.

The second problem is priority. Long AI-generated messages often treat every point as equally important. A late delivery, a rude email, an unclear refund policy, and a wider moral argument may all appear in the same tone. The reader cannot easily tell what needs fixing first.

The third problem is evidence. AI can sound confident without adding proof. It may produce polished paragraphs that give the impression of substance while failing to include order numbers, dates, names, reference codes, screenshots, or earlier correspondence. Those details matter far more than dramatic wording.

The fourth problem is trust. A complaint that sounds generic may make the reader wonder how much of it reflects the complainant’s real experience. This is unfair in some cases, because the underlying issue may be genuine. Still, a heavily AI-written complaint can read as distant from the person affected.

The fifth problem is delay. If the complaint is unclear, the organisation may have to ask follow-up questions. That slows everything down. The person complaining then feels ignored, while the organisation may simply be trying to work out what happened.

A complaint should reduce confusion, not create more of it.

Editing is where an AI draft becomes a usable complaint.

What a readable complaint actually needs

Most complaints improve when they answer six questions in plain English.

1. What happened?

2. When did it happen?

3. Who was involved, if known?

4. What was the impact?

5. What has already been done to resolve it?

6. What outcome is being requested?

   
   

That is the spine of the complaint. Everything else is support.

A clear complaint might be only 200 to 400 words. A complex complaint may need more. The point is not to force every serious problem into a tiny box. The point is to make the main issue visible before adding detail.

A useful structure looks like this:

Opening

Say what the complaint is about in one sentence.

Timeline

Set out the key events in date order.

Impact

Explain the practical or personal effect. Keep it specific.

Evidence

List what is attached or available.

Requested outcome

State what would resolve the matter.

Contact and reference details

Include reference numbers or account details where appropriate, without sharing unnecessary personal information.

Here is a simple example:

I am complaining about the delayed repair to my boiler at [address or account reference]. I first reported the fault on 4 February and was given appointment reference 12345. The appointment on 8 February was cancelled with two hours’ notice, and the next available date offered was 19 February. This has left the household without heating during cold weather. I have attached screenshots of the appointment confirmation and cancellation message. I would like the repair completed urgently and a written explanation of why the first appointment was cancelled. I would also like you to consider compensation for the delay and lack of notice.

That version is not flowery. It does not try to sound clever. It gives the reader something to act on.

A weaker AI version might spend 700 words describing disappointment, unacceptable standards, emotional distress, and expectations as a valued customer, while forgetting the appointment reference.

The short version wins.

How to use AI without letting it take over

AI is best treated as a drafting assistant, not the author of the final complaint.

The safest way to use it is to give it constraints. Do not ask, “Write me a complaint.” That invites length, drama, and padding. Ask for something limited.

Try prompts like these:

• “Turn these notes into a complaint of no more than 250 words.”

• “Use plain English and avoid emotional or exaggerated language.”

• “Put the events in date order.”

• “Start with the main issue in the first sentence.”

• “End with the outcome I want.”

• “Do not invent details.”

• “Create a bullet-point timeline from these notes.”

• “Make this shorter and easier for a complaints team to read.”

  
  

The phrase “do not invent details” matters. AI may fill gaps with plausible wording, especially if the notes are vague. That can lead to claims that are not quite true. In a complaint, accuracy is more important than polish.

After the AI draft appears, cut it hard.

Look for sentences that begin with broad claims, such as:

• “I find this situation unacceptable”

• “This has fallen far below the standards expected”

• “I have been caused great inconvenience”

• “I trust this matter will be dealt with promptly”

• “I reserve all my rights”

  
  

Some of these may be suitable in certain contexts, but they rarely need repeating. One clear sentence about impact is better than three paragraphs of outrage.

A good editing test is simple: if a sentence does not help the reader understand what happened, prove what happened, or fix what happened, remove it.

A simple timeline often beats a polished wall of text.

Organisations need to adapt as well

This is not only a problem for the public. Organisations that receive complaints need to accept that AI-written messages are now part of normal communication.

Treating every long complaint as a nuisance would be a mistake. Some will describe serious failures. Some will come from people who needed help to write at all. The writing style may be artificial, but the experience behind it can still be real.

Complaint teams can respond better by looking for the core facts rather than reacting to the length or tone.

They can also make their own processes clearer. Many complaint forms still invite rambling because they provide one large empty box and little guidance. A better form asks for the information in sections:

• what happened

• when it happened

• who was involved

• what evidence is available

• what outcome is wanted

  
  

This helps everyone. It gives the complainant a clear path. It gives the organisation better information. It also reduces the temptation to paste in a long AI-generated letter.

Organisations should avoid punishing people for using AI. A better response is to design systems that make concise complaints easier.

They can also publish examples of good complaints. Not legalistic templates. Not defensive scripts. Just simple examples that show how to write clearly.

A complaint system should not reward the person who can produce the longest, most formal message. It should help identify what went wrong and what can be done next.

The best complaint is easy to read and hard to ignore

The rise of AI-written complaints reveals something older than AI itself. People often believe that a complaint has to sound weighty to be taken seriously.

So they add more.

More background. More adjectives. More formal phrases. More paragraphs about disappointment. More references to fairness, standards, and distress.

Yet the strongest complaints are often stripped back. They are calm. They name the problem. They give the key facts. They show the impact. They ask for a fair outcome.

That does not mean removing emotion completely. Complaints are often about things that genuinely upset people. But emotion works best when it is specific.

“I had to take a second day off work because the appointment was cancelled at short notice” is stronger than “this experience has caused significant inconvenience”.

“My mother missed her transport because the call handler gave us the wrong time” is stronger than “your service has been extremely disappointing”.

Specific beats dramatic.

Readable beats long.

Human beats generic.

A concise complaint gives the reader a clear next step.

The discussion prompted by Radio 4 matters because AI will keep shaping everyday writing. People will use it for complaints, appeals, school emails, council queries, medical admin, insurance disputes, and customer service problems.

That is not going away.

The job now is to use it well.

Before sending an AI-written complaint, read it once as the person who experienced the problem, then once as the person who has to fix it. If the second reader would struggle to find the facts, shorten it.

A complaint does not need to sound impressive. It needs to be understood.