Automating the complaints process: what to automate, what not, and where to start
Automation is not a goal but a division of labour: the system does the repetitive work, people make the judgement. For each step in the process: what is manual work today, what can be automated and what should remain human.
Why automate the complaints process now?
The demands on complaints handling in the Dutch rental sector are rising. The Future-Proof Rent Tribunal Act (Wet toekomstbestendige huurcommissie), passed by the Dutch Senate on 29 September 2026, ends the route by which housing association tenants can take a complaint about the association's conduct to the Rent Tribunal (Huurcommissie). According to the Dutch government it takes effect on 1 January 2027. From then on, the complaints committee's advice is usually the last step before the subdistrict court, so a complete, well-documented case file matters more than ever (see our guide for the secretary). At the same time, many organisations have to handle more cases with the same people. More manual work will not close that gap; a smarter division of the work will.
So the question is not whether you automate, but what. Explore below where the gains lie at each step.
Rule of thumb: automate what repeats itself, never what requires judgement.
Where to start
Start with intake and deadline tracking. That is where the gain shows fastest, the risk is smallest and support is greatest: nobody will miss retyping emails or keeping a list of deadlines. From there, case file management, hearing support and reporting follow naturally, because they rest on the same data.
Choose a system that follows your rules of procedure, not the other way round. What to look for when selecting one is set out in our nine testable requirements for complaints committee software, and the criteria for a portal in choosing a digital complaints portal.
The limit: you do not automate the judgement
One limit deserves to be stated explicitly. Systems can prepare a draft, supply the legal context and make every reference verifiable. But the judgement, the weighing of interests and the reasons for the decision stay with the case handler or the committee. Be wary of any solution that suggests otherwise, and insist that every legal reference can be checked in one click.
Adminio is built on the same principle. The assistant prepares, and every reference it gives opens the source in one click. Where the sources say nothing, it says so. The decision stays with the committee.
Frequently asked questions
The gain lies where manual work repeats itself: retyping at intake, gathering documents, taking and writing up minutes, and building reports. On top of that comes a gain in quality that matters more than the hours: deadlines that are tracked, a case file you can rely on, and advice that rests on the same verifiable reasoning.
No. Automation takes over the repetitive work: registering, organising, tracking, writing up and preparing. Assessing the complaint, hearing the parties and reaching a decision remain human work, as they should.
With intake and deadline tracking: that is where the gain shows fastest and the risk is smallest. First map the channels through which complaints arrive and where deadlines are tracked today. The rest of the process can grow from there.
It should be the other way round. A good system follows the steps, deadlines and templates of your own rules of procedure. Always ask a supplier how much of your rules can be configured without paying for custom work.
Adminio automates the complaints procedure from intake to advice and annual report, while the judgement stays where it belongs: with people.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Last updated: .