Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Belgian Pensions Ombudsman says an AI tool told a new retiree his missed first pension month could be paid retroactively, an answer based on Dutch rules

The Belgian Pensions Ombudsman (Ombudsdienst Pensioenen) published an anonymised example from its casework. According to the Ombudsman, a future retiree with limited digital skills wanted to apply online for an early retirement pension but did not press the send button, so no application was filed and his pension was not paid in his first month of retirement. The Federal Pension Service told him that an early pension can start at the earliest in the month after the application, so that month could not be paid. He checked this using AI and received the answer that a pension can be paid retroactively for up to one year. He complained to the Federal Pension Service and then to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman confirmed that the service's answer was correct, told him that the information he had found concerned Dutch legislation, referred him to the pension services' websites and says it tried in this way to restore his trust in the pension service. It could not recover the missed month because Belgian pension law has no right to correct good-faith errors. The lost month resulted from the unsubmitted application; the AI answer misinformed him about whether it could be recovered. The tool is not named and the dates of the exchange and complaint are not stated; European Pensions reported the case on 9 July 2026.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
9 July 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Impaired Judgment
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Public services · Finance
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
6 claims: 3 documented, 3 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An AI tool, not named by the Ombudsman, that the retiree used to check the Federal Pension Service's answer; the Ombudsman found the information reflected Dutch rather than Belgian pension legislation

Reported harm

According to the Belgian Pensions Ombudsman, an AI tool told a new retiree that a missed month of early-retirement pension could be paid retroactively for up to a year; he complained to the Federal Pension Service and the Ombudsman on that basis, and the Ombudsman found the information concerned Dutch legislation and tried to restore his trust in the pension service.

Outcome

Resolved

The Ombudsman confirmed the Federal Pension Service's answer, could not obtain the missed month retroactively because Belgian pension law has no right to correct good-faith errors, and with the other Belgian ombudsmen recommends a legal framework for such a right.

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tool the retiree used, and the exact question and answer.
  • When the AI exchange, the complaints and the Ombudsman's handling took place.
  • Where the retiree lives.
  • Whether the retiree described distress or other effects; the Ombudsman reports only its effort to restore his trust.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The Pensions Ombudsman's case example states that the retiree checked the Federal Pension Service's information via AI and received the answer that a pension can be paid retroactively for up to one year, that he then complained to the service and to the Ombudsman, and that the information he had found concerned Dutch legislation. The tool is not named and its answer is known only as the Ombudsman summarises it. The missed month itself resulted from the unsubmitted application, not from the AI answer; the AI's contribution is the wrong statement of his entitlement that he acted on.

6 claims: 3 documented, 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported According to the Pensions Ombudsman, a future retiree with limited digital skills did not press the send button on his online early-retirement application, so no application was filed and his pension was not paid in his first month of retirement.

Causal attribution. No AI involvement: the Ombudsman attributes the missed payment to the unsubmitted application.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'gelet op zijn beperkte digitale vaardigheden drukt hij niet op de verzendknop en is er geen pensioenaanvraag ingediend'; 'Tijdens de eerste maand van pensionering ontdekt de gepensioneerde dat zijn pensioen niet wordt uitbetaald'
  • europeanpensions.net(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'after failing to submit an online pension application'
Reported The Federal Pension Service told him that an early retirement pension can start at the earliest in the month after the application is filed, so his first month could not be paid.

Causal attribution. Not an AI claim.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Een vervroegd pensioen kan immers pas ingaan ten vroegste vanaf de maand volgend op deze waarin de aanvraag is ingediend'; 'Zijn eerste maand pensioen zal dus niet kunnen uitbetaald worden'
Reported He checked this information using AI and received the answer that a pension can be paid retroactively for up to one year; he then complained to the Federal Pension Service and afterwards filed a complaint with the Pensions Ombudsman.

Causal attribution. The Ombudsman's account attributes the retroactive-payment answer to an AI tool; the tool's output is known only as the Ombudsman summarises it.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De gepensioneerde controleert deze informatie via AI en krijgt als antwoord dat een pensioen tot één jaar met terugwerkende kracht kan uitbetaald worden'; 'Wanneer hij zijn beklag doet bij de Federale Pensioendienst'; 'De gepensioneerde dient een klacht in bij de Ombudsman Pensioenen'
  • europeanpensions.net(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'later turned to an AI tool, which incorrectly told him that the missed payment could be claimed retrospectively for up to one year'
Documented The Ombudsman confirmed that the Federal Pension Service's answer was correct and told the retiree that the information he had found concerned Dutch legislation.

Causal attribution. The Ombudsman's own finding that the AI-sourced information reflected Dutch law.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De Ombudsman Pensioenen bevestigt dat het antwoord van de FPD correct is'; 'Hij wees de gepensioneerde erop dat de door hem gevonden informatie de Nederlandse regelgeving betrof'
  • europeanpensions.net(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'found the AI-generated response was based on Dutch, rather than Belgian, pension legislation'
Documented The Ombudsman referred him to the pension services' websites and says it tried in this way to restore his trust in the pension service; it could not help him receive the missed month retroactively because Belgian pension law contains no right to correct good-faith errors.

Causal attribution. The Ombudsman connects its effort to restore trust to this case; it does not describe the retiree's own words or feelings.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De Ombudsman Pensioenen heeft op deze manier het vertrouwen in de pensioendienst trachten te herstellen'; 'kon de Ombudsman Pensioenen niet helpen om het misgelopen pensioen alsnog met terugwerkende kracht te ontvangen'
  • europeanpensions.net(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'it was unable to intervene because Belgian pension legislation does not currently recognise a'
Documented The Ombudsman concludes that answers from AI tools are often incorrect when a question is not properly scoped, for example by stating that it concerns a Belgian rather than a Dutch pension and which pension scheme applies, and with the other Belgian ombudsmen recommends a legal framework for a right to correct good-faith errors.

Causal attribution. The Ombudsman's general conclusion and recommendation.

  • ombudsmanpensioenen.be(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'het antwoord vaak niet correct is'; 'uitdrukkelijk vermelden dat het een vraag over een Belgisch- en dus niet Nederlands pensioen betreft'; 'beveelt de Ombudsman Pensioenen dan ook aan een wettelijk kader uit te werken voor de erkenning van het recht op vergissing'
  • europeanpensions.net(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'when questions are asked using AI tools without clearly defining the scope of the query, the answers are often inaccurate'

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Dutch on 2026-10-24 from the Ombudsdienst Pensioenen news page (the item carries no date; the page is served in Windows-1252 and was decoded before reading). Translation by the research agent, an AI. The French news page did not carry the item when read. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-24 (article dated 09/07/26). It relays the Ombudsman's statement and quotes it, so it shares the Ombudsman's independence group. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The case concerns the Belgian Federal Pension Service and was handled by the Belgian Pensions Ombudsman, but neither source says where the retiree lives or where he used the AI tool, so no country is recorded; no court was involved.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-24: Published as a concrete adverse experience with an AI answer about a public pension entitlement: the Belgian Pensions Ombudsman's case example records the AI tool's wrong answer, the retiree's complaints based on it and the Ombudsman's finding that the answer reflected Dutch legislation. The missed month itself resulted from the unsubmitted application.

People described

A retiree in Belgium's public pension system who, according to the Ombudsman, has limited digital skills

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the retiree whose complaint the Pensions Ombudsman describes. Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#public-pension#ombudsman-case-example#wrong-entitlement-information#wrong-jurisdiction-answer

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Belgian Pensions Ombudsman says an AI tool told a new retiree his missed first pension month could be paid retroactively, an answer based on Dutch rules. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-belgium-pensions-ombudsman-ai-tool-wrongly-said-missed-early-pension-month-payable-retroactively

BibTeX

@misc{2026_belgium_pensions_ombudsman_ai_tool_wrongly_said_missed_early_pension_month_payable_retroactively,
  title = {Belgian Pensions Ombudsman says an AI tool told a new retiree his missed first pension month could be paid retroactively, an answer based on Dutch rules},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-belgium-pensions-ombudsman-ai-tool-wrongly-said-missed-early-pension-month-payable-retroactively}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified AI tool

Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess

According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Thuringia police say a man in Altenburg lost about 42,000 euros to investment fraudsters after an AI-made advert showing a well-known politician

The Gera regional police reported on 18 June 2026 that an older man in Altenburg, Thuringia, had fallen victim to investment fraud. According to the police, he found an online advert made with artificial intelligence that showed a well-known politician and promised high returns. After he contacted the fraudsters in mid-May, he gave them personal data and remote access to his computer; they took control of his online banking and made several transfers totalling about 42,000 euros. The police say about 28,000 euros was secured; the investigation continues.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations

On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Bucharest prosecutors say deepfake adverts drew mostly older people to a call centre that sold them unauthorised supplements; six women agree plea deals

The Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal announced in October 2026 that six women had concluded plea agreements in a fraud case over a call centre that, during 2025, sold unauthorised food supplements by telephone. According to the prosecutors, potential victims, mostly older people, were drawn in by deepfake-type online adverts in which the products falsely appeared to be recommended by well-known journalists, doctors and artists; they left their contact details on the promoted site and were then called by operators posing as medical specialists. The agreements say the five women who worked as operators misled 50 people in total, causing losses of 88,600 lei, although the per-defendant figures in the same communique are larger (one operator alone is said to have contributed to misleading 50 people, and the other four 28, 16, 8 and 3 people) and the communique does not explain the difference. The agreed sentences range from nine months to one year and six months, with their application postponed for a two-year supervision period; the agreements were sent to four courts and the main investigation continues.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents