AI Consumer Small Claims Toolkit — Scenario-Led Packs
Skip Court — Find the Free Route First
Executive Summary
In a nutshell
A scenario-classified self-help toolkit that walks UK consumers through the correct pre-court route before they ever touch Money Claim Online — Consumer Rights Act demand → Section 75 chargeback → ABTA/ATOL/FOS/ADR → Trading Standards — and only triggers a Letter Before Action and MCOL pre-fill if the right route fails. The differentiator vs Garfield AI (B2B unpaid debt only) and CaseCraft / CourtPilot (single-letter, claim-first) is scenario classification first — broken laptop, dodgy builder, holiday refund, gym ghost-charge, vet overcharge, faulty white goods — each gets the right cheaper, faster route surfaced before a £35-£455 court fee gets near anyone's bank. UK MCOL searches up 50% YoY, CRA 2015 at 27,100/mo, and Garfield AI has explicitly flagged consumer expansion as a future move — the window is open but not for long.
The Story
Meet the user
Fiona bought a £900 ASUS laptop from a high-street retailer for her daughter's first year at uni. Six weeks in the screen flickered out. The retailer "investigated" for five weeks and came back with "no fault found, manufacturer warranty only." Fiona knew that wasn't right — something about thirty days, something about Section 75, but every advice page she Googled at midnight contradicted the last. Citizens Advice had a template letter but no idea what to do next. MoneySavingExpert forums had eight conflicting stories. A solicitor wanted £200 just to look at it. Two months later she's drained, the laptop's still in a box, and her daughter's borrowing one off a flatmate.
Then she finds Claim Pilot. She picks "broken laptop" from the scenario list. The tool asks four questions — when bought, how paid, what the retailer said — and tells her plainly: "You paid by credit card, your purchase is over £100, the retailer has refused. Don't go to court yet. The fastest route is a Section 75 claim with your credit card provider — average resolution 4 weeks, no fee. Here's the letter, here's the evidence checklist, here's what to do if they say no." She pays £29. Three weeks later her credit card refunds £900. She didn't need a court. She didn't need a solicitor. She needed someone to sort the routes.
Scores
How does this idea stack up?
7.8/10
1.94M civil claims filed UK in 2025 (+12% YoY); 27,100/mo searches for "consumer rights act 2015"; clear B2C gap left by Garfield AI
MCOL searches up 50% YoY (8,100→18,100); MSE forums full of "I tried, gave up" stories; retailers routinely stonewall valid CRA claims
Standard LLM + content stack, no SRA registration needed for self-help. Main complexity is scenario taxonomy + ombudsman routing rules
Garfield AI cleared SRA path May 2025; CaseCraft launched July 2025; DMCCA 2024 raising consumer-rights awareness — window is open, but closing
Consumer disputes are permanent and structural; LLM scenario routing compounds with each case logged; CRA 2015 unlikely to be repealed
Solo-buildable in 6-8 weeks; Stripe + Next.js + Claude API + structured prompts; no special infra
Strongest
Pain
MoneySavingExpert and Reddit show this is a problem people actively give up on, which is the textbook signal of unmet need.
Watch out
Timing
Garfield AI publicly stated B2C expansion is on the roadmap. If they ship a consumer product first with their SRA halo, you become the cheaper-but-unregulated alternative.
Pain Point
The problem
“One step away from issuing legal proceedings — small claims draft ready, about to send a Letter Before Action. Currys have been passing me round for six weeks.”
— Typical MoneySavingExpert thread on faulty goods, mid-2025
Three intersecting problems make consumer claims a slow-motion disaster. First, information overload, decision underload. Citizens Advice has the law. MSE has the war stories. Which? has the templates (paywalled). Rocket Lawyer has the document but not the route. Nobody puts it together. Average consumer searches 8-12 sources before giving up or filing badly.
Second, wrong route first = wasted months. A consumer with a credit-card laptop purchase doesn't need MCOL — they need Section 75 (4 weeks, free). A holiday refund doesn't need a Letter Before Action — it needs ABTA's free dispute resolution. People skip these because they don't know they exist, then end up paying £35-£455 in court fees for something that should have been free.
Third, court is a cliff edge. MCOL has 18,100 searches/mo and is rising fast (+50% YoY), but it's terrifying to use. The form is unforgiving. Lose, and you can be on the hook for the other side's costs. People either over-file (waste of money) or under-file (give up entirely).
Search intent is unambiguous: "consumer rights act 2015 refund" (1,600/mo), "consumer rights act 2015 used car" (1,300/mo), "consumer rights act 2015 faulty goods" (1,300/mo), "section 75 claim" (1,300/mo, +30% YoY). These are people in the middle of a dispute, looking for clarity, willing to pay for it.
Want reports like this every Thursday?
One validated UK business opportunity per week. Free.