HomeCasesPS v London Borough of Wandsworth

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

PS v London Borough of Wandsworth

Upper Tribunal · Jul 14, 2025

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.

Operational lesson

Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.

Record details

CourtUpper Tribunal

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 14, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (C) v London Borough of Sutton [2010] UKUT 184 (AAC)'; Tribunal noted the neutral citation is valid but the title/subject the appellants gave is incorrect (case relates to child support), so the reference was misattributed.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on paragraph 9.169 of the SEND Code of Practice 2015 as supporting a requirement for parental consent to 'off-rolling'; Tribunal found that paragraph does not say that and the citation was inaccurate.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant attributed a passage to B and M v Cheshire East Council [2018] UKUT 232 (AAC) (citing [25]) that the Tribunal found the case does not contain; the case exists but the quoted passage is not present.

Questions this record answers

What happened in PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.
Why does PS v London Borough of Wandsworth matter for legal AI risk?: Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.
What does the public record establish about PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this PS v London Borough of Wandsworth summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Louis J. Blazy v. Department of StateCBCA · Feb 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach LitigationJ.P.M.L. · Feb 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.

Operational lesson

Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (C) v London Borough of Sutton [2010] UKUT 184 (AAC)'; Tribunal noted the neutral citation is valid but the title/subject the appellants gave is incorrect (case relates to child support), so the reference was misattributed.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on paragraph 9.169 of the SEND Code of Practice 2015 as supporting a requirement for parental consent to 'off-rolling'; Tribunal found that paragraph does not say that and the citation was inaccurate.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant attributed a passage to B and M v Cheshire East Council [2018] UKUT 232 (AAC) (citing [25]) that the Tribunal found the case does not contain; the case exists but the quoted passage is not present.

Questions this record answers

What happened in PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'R (L) v Devon County Council [2011] UKUT 192 (AAC)', which the Tribunal found does not exist; judge noted it may be an AI-generated fabrication.

Why does PS v London Borough of Wandsworth matter for legal AI risk?

Valid neutral citations paired with wrong case summaries are a signature AI error; verify the case body, not just the cite.

What does the public record establish about PS v London Borough of Wandsworth?

Which source supports this PS v London Borough of Wandsworth summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.