Public institutions across the UK, including local authorities, law firms, and MPs’ offices, are grappling with a massive increase in automated correspondence. The phenomenon, often described as an “AI clog” or “agentic flooding,” involves a surge of complaints, requests, and legal challenges drafted by artificial intelligence. What began as a minor trend in 2024 has grown into an overwhelming volume of communications that are significantly more complex and time-consuming for staff to address than traditional inquiries. “I t started as a trickle in 2024 and now it’s an onslaught. Administrator or personal assistant, these chatbots are helping turn laypeople into experts by giving access to a free – albeit sometimes unreliable – legal adviser. Routine tasks could be automated and carried out far more quickly, giving the human workforce more time for creative endeavours, the developers of AI tools promised huge productivity gains for employers and their staff: dull. Organisations are sounding the alarm that their operations are being gummed up by ever greater volumes of correspondence, with the concept of low-quality “AI slop” now mainstream. As does the inclusion of certain phrases or use of bullet points, local authorities believe the length of correspondence is an indication that it has been artificially generated. Many of his clients are receiving correspondence that is either entirely AI-generated or relies heavily on wording from AI tools. The complaints received by employers are described as “unnecessarily verbose” and containing “embellished or exaggerated claims that portray relatively minor incidents as major offences”.
Hollie Wickens, a senior caseworker for a Labour MP, notes that half of the emails her office receives now appear to be AI-generated. Despite her ten years of experience, she describes the current workload as “definitely more taxing.” This shift has forced some offices to stop responding to automated “click to email your MP” campaigns to prioritize direct constituent needs. Similarly, the GMB union, which represents parliamentary staff, reports that AI has not lightened the administrative burden, as casework levels remain consistently high.
Researchers at the Hertie School in Berlin, the Cooperative AI Foundation, and GovAI have identified this trend as “agentic flooding,” where generative tools allow individuals to create high volumes of sophisticated, albeit often repetitive, content. Deborah Evans, chief executive of Lawyers in Local Government, which represents 5,600 local authority lawyers, observes that while AI can be a useful tool, it has fundamentally changed the nature of public interaction. The majority of complaints are now roughly ten times longer than they were before the widespread adoption of tools like ChatGPT, with some reaching up to 200 pages. That was until the rapid growth of ChatGPT – which turns four later this month – Claude, Copilot, Gemini and other generative AI tools over the past couple of years. With AI credited for some of this year’s better than expected UK GDP growth, there are signs of those gains in parts of the economy. According to “Every sector is experiencing very similar issues,”, Deborah Evans, the chief executive of Lawyers in Local Government (LLG), an organisation that represents 5,600 lawyers working in local authorities. “Obviously AI is a wonderful tool that enables people to do things very, very quickly and it can make a complaint sound incredibly professional, very formal.”. According to the majority are now 10 times longer,, Evans. “You get some huge ones. The worst one I’m aware of at the moment is about 200 pages long,” she says. It might find some great case law from Canada or somewhere. [AI] is also slightly prone to hallucinations so it does occasionally make things up.”. Some business owners worry that AI’s tendency to be overly supportive and validating can give people misplaced confidence to pursue a legal case.
These automated messages frequently treat complaints as formal legal claims, often referencing statutes and case law that may not apply to the specific jurisdiction of the public body. Evans warns that this leads to inefficiencies, as every pound spent processing these complex, often inaccurate AI-generated claims is money diverted from essential local services, such as social care or waste management. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has acknowledged the problem, noting that AI requests are often long, repetitive, and contain misdirected demands, though it maintains that public bodies must still respond to these inquiries in a human capacity. Applying for a job, writing a complaint or objecting to a local planning application typically required considerable effort: time to research a topic, fill in a form or write a formal-sounding email, with specialist knowledge often also required, at the start of this decade. Which can relate to issues from adult social care services to missed bin collections or objections to planning applications. “Local authorities have one p, local authorities are experiencing surging numbers of complaints. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), found that many public authorities received more requests in 2025, the information rights watchdog. But huge amounts of time for human employees to sift through and respond to, these only take moments for users to create. Who was let go on performance grounds, is challenging their dismissal through an employment tribunal, although the entrepreneur insists the process was handled correctly. “You can tell by the, one of its former employees.
Local leadership is also feeling the strain. Enfield council leader Alessandro Georgiou reports a significant uptick in parking appeals generated by AI. Meanwhile, organizations are exploring technological solutions to manage the influx; Wiltshire council is investigating AI tools to summarize lengthy emails, and Stroud district council is utilizing Microsoft’s Copilot to assist with report writing. Journalist Jamie Bartlett suggests that, eventually, public bodies may have to adopt their own AI filters or set stricter protocols for the types of correspondence they accept.
The private sector is facing similar pressures, particularly within the legal system.
One technology start-up founder noted that AI’s tendency to validate a user’s perspective has led to more aggressive pursuit of legal action.
The founder reports anticipating £30,000 in legal fees to defend against a dismissal challenge, contributing to a broader backlog.
Government figures support this trend, showing that employment tribunal claims rose by 28% between April and June compared to the previous year, totaling 14,000 cases from single claimants. Resulting in 70,000 open single claims at the end of June, the number of concluded cases also fell during the quarter.
Expert Jim Moore confirms that many businesses are struggling to manage this new reality, where the barrier to drafting a formal legal challenge has effectively vanished.
