We assumed it was wrong,
fifteen thousand times.

Anyone can build something that sounds confident about the law. The internet is full of confident answers, and a worrying number of them are out of date, half-remembered, or simply invented. We decided the only product worth putting our name on was one we had genuinely tried to break.

1.We started from the law itself

Not summaries of the law. Not articles about the law. The law: every provision we rely on is taken word for word from the official public record, across the Consumer Rights Act, flight compensation rules, tenancy law, and more than twenty other Acts and regulations, and refreshed as the law changes. When Parliament amended renters' rights, our answers changed with it. When a rule isn't in force yet, we don't use it, however tempting.

That's also why every answer shows its sources. Tap any provision we cite and you can read the exact words on the government's own website. We're not asking to be trusted. We're asking to be checked.

2.We refused to let it guess

Numbers are where confident answers quietly go wrong: deadlines, time limits, flight distances, compensation bands. So in this product, numbers are never guessed, they are calculated. The distance from Manchester to Tenerife isn't an opinion, it's arithmetic, and arithmetic is what decides whether you're owed £220, £350 or £520. Your reply-by dates are computed the same way. Every figure you see can be traced to a calculation, not a hunch.

3.Then we interrogated it

Before launch we generated fifteen thousand situations and threw them at the system: pensioners and students, sole traders and furious travellers, people in Glasgow and Cardiff and Belfast, one-line messages and rambling ones, ordinary complaints and deliberate trick questions. We weren't checking whether the answers sounded good. We were hunting for the specific failures that hurt real people:

• Citing law that isn't in force yet. Some consumer protections are on the books but don't apply for years. Quoting them to you would be a false promise.
• Serving the wrong nation's law. Much of consumer law differs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. English tenancy rules mean nothing in Glasgow, and we say so.
• Promising flight compensation on ineligible routes. Whether the rules cover your flight depends on the route and the airline. We check before we promise.
• Treating a business purchase like a consumer one. A café buying an oven has different rights from a family buying a sofa. Mixing them up produces a letter that gets laughed at.
• Misquoting. Every quotation of the law in every answer and every letter is verified, character by character, against the official text. If a quote can't be verified, it doesn't appear.
• Wearing the wrong Act's badge. A real section number pinned to the wrong Act is as false as an invented one. Every citation is checked against the exact Act it claims to come from, and if a sentence cites anything we didn't verify and hand to the writer, code removes that sentence rather than let it reach you.

Every failure we found was fixed, and then the whole battery ran again. Then an independent reviewer, whose job was to break what we'd built, took two separate passes and tried. The fixes held.

And the battery isn't a launch ritual, it's a standing appointment. When we roughly tripled what the product covers, new areas of law, new kinds of letter, we ran the identical fifteen-thousand-case gauntlet again from scratch. On a product three times the size, the rule-breaking rate came out at a third of what it was at launch. The failures it did find, three distinct kinds, were each traced to the root, fixed and re-tested the same day. That's the deal we've made with ourselves: the product never grows faster than the testing that polices it.

4.And we taught it to say "we don't know"

The hardest part wasn't making it clever. It was making it honest. If your situation is outside the ground we've verified, it won't improvise, it will tell you plainly and point you to free help that genuinely knows the territory, like Citizens Advice (with whom, for the record, we have no affiliation; we are entirely independent of Citizens Advice, government and any law firm). We think that's the whole difference between a tool you use once and one you'd send your mum to.

So when you read "where you stand" on this site, you're not reading a chatbot's best guess. You're reading the end of a long argument we had with ourselves, fifteen thousand cases long, that the answer in front of you deserves your confidence.