It's a fair question, and we'd rather answer it head-on than hope you don't ask. You could paste your complaint into a big AI chatbot tonight, for free, and get back something confident and articulate. Here is exactly why we wouldn't send that letter, and what we built instead.
In our own testing, the model once reached for a section of an Act it had never been given. Our guard caught it and forced a rewrite; a chatbot has no guard. Every citation here is served from the official text, or struck out before you see it. That's not a figure of speech: if a sentence cites anything we didn't verify and hand to the writer, code removes the sentence. A real section number pinned to the wrong Act gets the same treatment, because it's just as false.
Ours stands on the statute book as it reads today, fetched from legislation.gov.uk, with repealed sections cut, not-yet-in-force sections excluded, and a weekly check that tells us the moment Parliament moves. That last part matters more than it sounds: some consumer protections are on the books now but don't take effect for years. Quoting them to you would be a false promise, and a chatbot has no way of knowing the difference.
The Consumer Rights Act doesn't cover business purchases, several housing Acts stop at the English border, and a private seller owes you less than a shop does. We check who you are, where you are and who you're up against before a single section is cited. A café owner with a broken oven and a family with a broken sofa have different rights, and a letter that mixes them up gets laughed at by the first person who reads it properly.
Flight compensation bands come from route arithmetic. Deadlines come from date arithmetic. Statutory interest comes from the rules themselves. A chatbot's numbers are often right, which is worse than always wrong, because you can't tell which day you got. Every figure on this site can be traced to a calculation, not a hunch.
Every citation links to the government's own copy of the law, with the operative words highlighted so you can see precisely which phrase does the work. We're not asking to be trusted. We're asking to be checked.
The real worry with pasting a chatbot's words into a dispute is what happens when the other side checks, and they will: invented, out of date, or not applicable to you. Everything above exists so that can't happen here. And it changes what you end up holding. A chatbot conversation ends with a wall of text and a job: check it, fix it, format it, work out the deadline, find the right recipient, send it. Ours ends with the job done. One flow, built that way from the first line of the architecture:
None of this makes the big AIs bad at what they're for. They're the wrong tool for this: your case, today's law, checkable words, and a letter that lands. That's what we built instead. If you'd like to see quite how far we went, read how we built it, including the fifteen thousand ways we tried to break it first.
Free to check. The law itself, cited and checkable. If it backs you, your formal letter is £2.99.
Tell us what happened →