{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T05:34:34.883Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"ombudsman","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":0,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-student-complaints-ombudsman-upholds-autistic-students-complaint-over-ai-misconduct-zero-mark-cleared-on-reconsideration","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A student with autism was invited to respond to allegations that they had included large sections of AI-generated content in an essay submission.'; 'The student said that they had not used AI to write their essay. They provided details of their essay preparations, planning and notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA case summary, a student with autism was invited to respond to allegations of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay, denied using AI, and provided details of their preparation, planning and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the record; one source; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A disciplinary panel considered the student’s written evidence and also compared the essay to some other examples of the student’s work. It decided that academic misconduct had occurred. As a penalty, the student received a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass.'; 'The provider rejected the student’s appeal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, a disciplinary panel considered the student's written evidence and compared the essay with other examples of the student's work, found academic misconduct, and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the student's appeal.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the provider's decisions; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They raised concerns about the reliability of AI detection software used by the provider. The student explained that the detection software had previously flagged another essay they had written for suspected use of AI but in that case it had been agreed that the student had not used AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In the appeal the student raised concerns about the reliability of the provider's AI detection software, saying it had previously flagged another essay of theirs for suspected AI use when it was agreed they had not used AI.","causal_attribution":"The student's account as summarised by the OIA; the earlier flag is not independently described; reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified).'; 'We were satisfied that the panel had engaged with the substance of the student’s essay, and not only relied on the AI detection software report.'; 'We concluded that the panel had not given sufficient reasons for the decision it had reached'; 'We recommended that the provider reconsider the case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The OIA found the complaint Justified: it was satisfied the panel had not relied only on the AI detection software report, but found it had not properly considered the student's points and evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons; it recommended reconsideration and a review of the provider's regulations.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's own decision; documented."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The student let us know that when the provider reconsidered the case, it decided that there had not been any academic misconduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the student, when the provider reconsidered the case it decided there had been no academic misconduct.","causal_attribution":"The student's report to the OIA, relayed by the OIA; the provider's reconsideration decision is not inspected; reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We are the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The OIA is the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.","causal_attribution":"The body's own description; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass for alleged AI use, before the provider found no misconduct (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, on reconsideration, the provider found no misconduct (student's report to the OIA)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","kind":"regulator_decision_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). OIA case summary in its July 2025 series on AI and academic misconduct (page metadata dc.date 2025-07-08). The OIA anonymises the student and the provider; the outcome of the reconsideration is what the student told the OIA.","independence_group":"oia-case-summary-cs072501"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/about-us/","kind":"official_page","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). The OIA describes itself as the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales; used only to identify the body, not to locate the provider.","independence_group":"oia-about-page"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","accessibility"],"unknowns":["When the essay was submitted and the misconduct decision made.","Which provider and which detection software were involved, and what the report said.","How much weight the panel gave the detection report relative to the comparison with other work.","Whether the student's record and mark were restored after the reconsideration."],"geography":{"basis":"The OIA reviews complaints about higher-education providers in England and Wales, but the summary does not name the provider or say where it is, and the OIA is not a court; no country is recorded from the scheme's remit alone. The jurisdiction field gives GB as the scheme's jurisdiction.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the higher-education ombudsman reports that an AI detection report was before a panel that gave an autistic student a zero for alleged AI use, and that it upheld the student's complaint about that decision. On the student's report to the OIA, the provider then found no misconduct. The student and the provider are anonymous, the event date is not given, and the detection report's role is stated as the OIA describes it.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The OIA summary says the provider used AI detection software, that the student challenged its reliability, and that the disciplinary panel had the software's report, which the OIA found the panel did not rely on alone, together with comparisons with the student's other work when it found misconduct and gave a mark of zero. The detection report thus informed a human decision about the student. The summary does not give the report's score or name the software, and the panel's weighting of the report against the other evidence is not stated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ombudsman upholds autistic student's complaint over AI-misconduct zero mark from panel with detection-software report; student says provider later cleared them","summary":"A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student with autism who was accused of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay. The student denied using AI and submitted planning and notes. A disciplinary panel, which had the provider's AI detection software report and compared the essay with other work by the student, found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the appeal, in which the student said the same software had earlier flagged another of their essays in a case where it had been agreed they had not used AI. The OIA found the complaint Justified: the panel had not properly considered the student's evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons. It recommended reconsideration and changes to the provider's rules, and the student told the OIA that on reconsideration the provider decided there had been no misconduct. The provider and the software are not named.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-08","aiSystem":"AI detection software used by the provider, whose report the disciplinary panel had alongside comparisons with the student's other work; not named in the OIA summary","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI-text detector","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the OIA case summary, an autistic student who denied using AI received a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass from a panel that had an AI detection report; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, the student told the OIA, the provider later found no misconduct.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass and later cleared, according to the OIA case summary. The student did not use the detection software, so is counted among other people harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","primarySourceLabel":"OIA case summary CS072501, AI and academic misconduct, July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","higher-education","ai-detection","zero-mark","ombudsman","autism","complaint-upheld"]},{"id":"2025-student-complaints-ombudsman-finds-zero-mark-reasonable-for-dissertation-with-unacknowledged-ai-use","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'During the viva, the student told the examiners that they had used AI to help them write their dissertation.'; 'The student agreed that the AI material was not referenced.'; 'the student had not acknowledged their use of AI on the form.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA case summary, a student asked to attend a viva over concerns about their dissertation told the examiners that they had used AI to help write it, agreed that the AI material was not referenced, and had not declared the AI use on the form the provider required.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the record it reviewed, including the student's own disclosure; one source; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It decided that the student had committed academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero.'; 'The provider rejected the student’s appeal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, the provider's panel decided that the student had committed academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero, and the provider rejected the student's appeal.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the provider's decisions; the provider's own records are not inspected; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They were disappointed that they received no credit for being honest about using AI in the viva, or for the time and effort they invested in their dissertation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, the student complained to it, disappointed at receiving no credit for being honest about the AI use in the viva or for the time and effort invested in the dissertation.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the student's complaint; reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We are the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The OIA is the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.","causal_attribution":"The body's own description; documented."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we found it Not Justified).'; 'the penalty applied was proportionate and in line with its procedures.'; 'It was satisfied that the student’s attention had been properly drawn to this information, including via a previous academic misconduct process.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The OIA found the complaint Not Justified, concluding that the provider's final decision was reasonable, that the student had a fair opportunity to respond and that the penalty was proportionate and in line with the provider's procedures; it noted that the student's attention had been drawn to the AI policy, including via a previous academic misconduct process.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's own decision; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"mark of zero on a dissertation for unreferenced, undeclared AI use (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the student was disappointed to receive no credit for disclosing the AI use (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072503/","kind":"regulator_decision_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). OIA case summary in its July 2025 series on AI and academic misconduct (page metadata dc.date 2025-07-08). The OIA anonymises the student and the provider.","independence_group":"oia-case-summary-cs072503"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/about-us/","kind":"official_page","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). The OIA describes itself as the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales; used only to identify the body, not to locate the provider.","independence_group":"oia-about-page"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["When the dissertation was submitted and the misconduct decision made.","Which provider and which AI tool were involved.","How much of the dissertation the AI material made up.","Whether the student had other consequences, such as a capped resit or an effect on the degree."],"geography":{"basis":"The OIA reviews complaints about higher-education providers in England and Wales, but the summary does not name the provider or say where it is, and the OIA is not a court; no country is recorded from the scheme's remit alone. The record's jurisdiction field gives GB as the scheme's jurisdiction.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a response to AI use: the higher-education ombudsman reports that a student who disclosed unreferenced, undeclared AI help with a dissertation received a mark of zero, and it found that sanction reasonable. The student and the provider are anonymous in the source, and the event date is not given.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The OIA summary says the student told the examiners that AI had been used to help write the dissertation and agreed that the AI material was not referenced; the provider found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero for that use. The penalty is the institution's response to the AI use. No output of the AI tool toward the student is described, so no relation describing the AI system's own action is recorded. The tool is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Student complaints ombudsman finds a zero mark reasonable for a dissertation the student said was written with help from unacknowledged AI","summary":"A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student who was called to a viva over concerns about a dissertation and told the examiners there that AI had been used to help write it. The student agreed the AI material was not referenced and had not declared the AI use on the form the provider required. A panel found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero; the provider rejected the student's appeal. The student complained to the OIA, saying they received no credit for being honest about using AI or for the time and effort invested. The OIA found the complaint Not Justified, concluding that the provider followed its procedures, gave the student a fair opportunity to respond and applied a proportionate penalty. The summary does not name the provider, give the date of the events or say which AI tool was used.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-08","aiSystem":"An AI tool the student used to help write a dissertation, according to the student's statement in the viva as summarised by the OIA; the tool is not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the OIA case summary, a student who said in a viva that AI had helped write their dissertation, without referencing or declaring it, received a mark of zero; the ombudsman found the decision reasonable.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a mark of zero, according to the OIA case summary. The student used the AI tool, so is counted among participant users.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072503/","primarySourceLabel":"OIA case summary CS072503, AI and academic misconduct, July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:14:17.472302+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:14:17.472302+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","higher-education","dissertation","zero-mark","ombudsman","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-revolut-chatbot-said-loyalty-points-worth-1119-pounds-ombudsman-raised-compensation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In September 2025 Mr M got in touch with'; 'Revolut through its chatbot.'; 'It said it would refund £22.38 to his account'; 'and deduct the 1,119 loyalty points he’d earned using that feature.'; 'he was told then that 1,119 points equated to £22.38'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In September 2025 the customer contacted Revolut through its chatbot to ask for a refund of loyalty points earned through its spare change feature; Revolut said it would refund £22.38 and deduct the 1,119 points, which Revolut later described as the chatbot telling him the points equated to £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The chatbot confirmed it could refund 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture.'; 'It said this had a cash value of £1,119.'; 'chatbot confirmed it had done that.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four days later the chatbot confirmed it could refund the 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture, said they had a cash value of £1,119, and confirmed it had processed the refund.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision; the chatbot's own statements."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'A few hours later the chatbot said the'; 'information it had given was incorrect and the refund of £1,119 wasn’t being processed.'; 'Mr M then asked to speak to a ‘live agent’ who confirmed that the refund of £1,119 was'; 'It said it had'; 'issued a refund for £22.38.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Later that day the chatbot said its information was incorrect and the £1,119 refund was not being processed; a live agent then said it was being processed; the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'There’s no doubt Revolut gave Mr M the wrong information.'; 'Revolut misled Mr M'; 'not once but on several occasions over the course of that day.'; 'Mr M was never entitled to £1,119'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ombudsman found there was no doubt Revolut gave the customer wrong information, repeated later the same day, and that it misled him on several occasions over that day; the ombudsman held he was never entitled to £1,119.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's findings."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the financial pressure of'; 'losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising.'; 'He also gave us a letter from his GP that'; 'confirmed his heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches, and persistent overthinking.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The customer told the ombudsman the financial pressure of losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising, and provided a GP letter that, according to the decision, confirmed heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches and persistent overthinking.","causal_attribution":"The customer's account and his GP's letter as summarised by the ombudsman; the ombudsman also noted he was likely aware the higher figure was wrong."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I uphold this complaint and direct Revolut Ltd to pay Mr M a further £50 on top of the £50 it’s'; 'already paid him'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Revolut had paid £50; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Revolut to pay a further £50.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's final decision."}],"effects":[{"label":"told by the chatbot that his points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, then reversed; described financial pressure and anxiety","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","kind":"ombudsman_decision","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-15 from the Financial Ombudsman Service PDF (full text, two pages). The decision names neither the customer (Mr M) nor the date it was issued; it asks for acceptance before 5 February 2026.","independence_group":"financial-ombudsman-service-drn-6062372"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date the decision was issued (the text gives only the 5 February 2026 acceptance deadline).","Whether the customer accepted the decision.","The chatbot's technology and the chat transcript.","Where the customer lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is by the Financial Ombudsman Service and amounts are in pounds, but it does not say where the customer lives or where the exchanges took place; no country is recorded from the ombudsman's remit or the currency.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience with a bank's chatbot: an ombudsman's final decision records the chatbot's statements that the customer's points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, finds that Revolut misled him on several occasions that day, and raises his compensation for the impact.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Financial Ombudsman Service's decision sets out what Revolut's chatbot told the customer: that 1,119 loyalty points had a cash value of £1,119, that it could refund them as a goodwill gesture and had processed the refund, and hours later that this was incorrect. A human live agent then also confirmed the £1,119 refund. The ombudsman found Revolut gave him wrong information on several occasions that day and awarded compensation for the impact. The decision calls the system a chatbot and does not describe its technology.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100","summary":"In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.","incidentDate":"2025-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Revolut's customer chatbot, which answered a customer's requests to cash in loyalty points and stated the refund value and whether it had been processed","aiProduct":"Revolut chatbot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Revolut's chatbot told a customer his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed the refund, then reversed itself; the customer described substantial financial pressure and anxiety, and the ombudsman raised his compensation to £100.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the customer whose complaint the Financial Ombudsman Service decided (Mr M in decision DRN-6062372). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Financial Ombudsman Service final decision DRN-6062372 (Revolut Ltd), acceptance deadline 5 February 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["customer-service-chatbot","banking","wrong-refund-information","ombudsman-decision","loyalty-points"]}]}