Sally Lindsay
The Tenancy Tribunal is drafting guidelines on artificial intelligence use amid concerns that people are using the technology to generate unnecessarily lengthy submissions – often filled with nonsensical legalese and claiming huge amounts of compensation – that complicate cases and clog up the system.
Tribunal users say AI is making it easy for tenants to put together grievances running to hundreds of pages, often containing unverified information, which still need to be considered even if they lack merit.
David Faulkner
David Faulkner, general manager at of property management at Property Brokers, warned that cases bloated by AI technology are draining resources and pushing back genuinely urgent cases in the tribunal’s hearing queue.
“The system isn’t built for it and adjudicators will drown in paperwork and stress will rise on all sides,” he said.
Faulkner said to a recent case taken against Property Brokers, involved a tenant who submitted a 101-page written report, along with a further 215 pages of evidence and photos, claiming $40,000 in compensation.
After two hearings, an adjudicator awarded the tenant just $80.
Fraser Coombes
Ray White Hamilton Property Management managing director Fraser Coombes recounted two similar cases when tenants claimed compensation of $100,000 – the maximum the tribunal can award – using documentation be believes was generated using AI.
“The whole kitchen sink was thrown at us,” he said. The cases resulted in one tenant being awarded $2,028, the other $378.
Coombes is not surprised AI is being used by tenants to justify large claims. “With the advancement of artificial intelligence it is not difficult to put something quite comprehensive together and make it read like the tenant is an expert, when in fact they are not.
“A tenant can have the best application in the world and sound like a clued-up tenancy law expert, but if they can’t present or articulate what’s in their application when sitting in front of an adjudicator, it falls down quickly.”
Under pressure
While the Property Brokers’ case resulted in an award of just $80, Faulkner said it involved calling expert witnesses, provided evidence of compliance, and preparing a detailed timeline of events.
“I cannot understate the pressure this puts on the team, as well as the owners of the property.
“The time, effort, and resources involved in building our defence in this case paid off. [However,] the pressure of the case affects the emotional wellbeing of the team members – particularly the property manager. The owners, who had done nothing wrong, faced an anxious wait, wondering whether they were going to be confronted with an enormous fine.”
He says the dilemma the tribunal now faces is how it prioritises cases to ensure justice is delivered fairly and quickly.
“More tenants will utilise AI in their claims, which is understandable if the tools are available to them.”
Coombes said that if long-complex AI-generated applications giving property managers a time-management headache, they must be doing the same for the tribunal.
“It’s already slow to get the tribunal – about nine weeks on average – and adjudicators will now have to spend extra time reading these long and complex cases littered with AI legal speak and trying to find actually where the merit of the case is inside screeds of pages making up the claim.”
Despite the unnecessary complexity, Coombes says it is good to see sensible rulings still coming from adjudicators.
“An observation is whether the tribunal should investigate using AI to analyse claims with hundreds of pages of evidence before it to find the nub of the case and justification. It would probably save a lot of time and expense.”
Evolving technology
Tenancy Advisory director Sarina Gibbon said there had been an increase in more complex and sometimes meritless cases being lodged with the tribunal.
Sarina Gibbon
But she suggested it was a result of AI being relatively new, with users who did not understand how to harness it properly, resulting in ambit claims with little chance of success.
Gibbon believes the problem will ease as the emerging technology improves.
“What is happening is a lot of people are engaging with AI with very little knowledge of the RTA [Residential Tenancies Act] themselves. So they’re buying into AI hallucination, they’re buying into this tremendous amount of bloat that AI produces.”
“But if you take a step back and consider the overall intent of a tenancy-specific tribunal, which is really set up to promote cheap and expedited justice or dispute resolution … if AI enables more applicants to put forward cases, is that helpful? Yes. It’s serving justice and giving access to justice to more people.
“I’m confident AI is going to get us to a point where it’s going to be a help rather than a hindrance.”
AI guidance on the way
The tribunal itself acknowledged a rise in material which was apparently AI generated, but said some of it had proved helpful and its overall impact on tribunal operations was difficult to determine.
“Tenancy Services and the Tenancy Tribunal have seen an increase in the apparent use of AI in the materials that we receive,” a spokesperson told LawNews.
“In some instances, the apparent AI-generated material has added significantly to the length and complexity of the claims. In other cases, the apparent AI-generated material has been concise and relevant and assisted the tribunal in identifying and understanding the relevant issues.
“The tribunal received nearly 30,000 applications last year, most of which had no obvious AI component, so it is difficult to determine the overall impact of this increased AI use on the tribunal as a whole.
The impact of the use of AI is something we will keep an eye on, and to assist parties in ensuring that their use of AI is proportionate and appropriate, the tribunal will issue guidance for the use of AI in Tenancy Tribunal matters in the coming months.”
0 Comments