Trumis / Organisations
Your complaints page, but someone actually listens.
Trumis replaces the long form with a conversation. People say what happened in their own words — any language, voice or text, even screenshots — and your team receives a structured, verified, evidence-backed complaint lodged under your complaint-handling policy. This page is the buyer's view: what you receive, what it costs, how it holds up in procurement. The technical contract lives at developers.
The document · How intake works · Record-keeping & RG 271 · Security & privacy · Pilot to licence · Support
What your team receives
This is a complete, unedited document generated by the live Trumis engine from a fictional conversation with a fictional energy retailer — a person reporting a coercive counter interaction and a broken refund promise, with two screenshots of their support chat attached. Every claim in it was ticked by the person before it was written.
FORMAL COMPLAINT — SERVICE EXPERIENCE Lodged with the organisation under its complaint-handling policy PART 1 — PARTIES AND CONTEXT This complaint is made to Acme Energy about the service I received, and is lodged under its complaint-handling policy. The conduct complained of is principally that of a person acting for the organisation, described in my account as: “the branch manager”. The organisation is responsible for the conduct of those acting on its behalf. The facts set out below are within my own knowledge, and I reviewed and confirmed each stated circumstance before lodging this complaint. PART 2 — WHAT HAPPENED In my own words, this is what happened: This complaint concerns the matter recorded in my correspondence with Acme Energy, involving $380. The full correspondence record is annexed; times are as captured. What I told them at the time: — [26 Jun 1] “You said the $380 overcharge would be refunded within 5 business days. Can you confirm?” — [6 Jul 09] “It has been 7 business days and no refund has arrived.” The captured record ends with my message unanswered. In my own words: I was in the Acme Energy office on Collins Street on 3 July around 2pm about my bill. The staff member at the counter, who said he was the branch manager, told me my hardship application was 'not his problem' and that if I kept asking they would just close my account and send it to debt collectors. I had been promised on the phone on 26 June that the $380 overcharge would be refunded within 5 business days. It never came. I felt humiliated in front of other customers. That's everything. I just want this dealt with. Before lodging this complaint I reviewed and confirmed each of the following circumstances: — The way I was treated was aggressive, demeaning or harassing. — I was threatened with the suspension, closure or restriction of my account or service to make me comply. PART 3 — CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF 1 — THREATENED DETRIMENT A person acting for the organisation threatened to suspend, close or restrict my account or service in order to compel me to abandon a legitimate request. Whether the person held actual authority to carry out the threat does not lessen its coercive effect, and I ask that this conduct be specifically investigated. 2 — CONDUCT TOWARDS ME The behaviour towards me was intimidating, demeaning or harassing, and fell short of the standard the organisation's own service commitments describe. OUTCOMES SOUGHT 1. Written acknowledgement of this complaint within the timeframe set by your complaint-handling policy 2. A written assurance that my account or service will not be suspended, restricted or otherwise adversely affected in connection with this complaint, together with an explanation of the threat that was made 3. A written response addressing each confirmed circumstance above, including what your investigation found and what will change 4. Escalation details for your internal review and for the relevant ombudsman, should I be dissatisfied with the response This document was prepared with the assistance of FairClaim, an automated legal information service. It does not constitute legal advice. If your matter is complex or the amounts at risk are significant, you should seek advice from a qualified legal practitioner or financial counsellor before proceeding. ANNEX — CORRESPONDENCE RECORD Reconstructed from screenshots provided by the complainant of their correspondence with the Acme Energy support chat; reviewed by the complainant; quotes verbatim as captured. [26 Jun 1] Complainant: You said the $380 overcharge would be refunded within 5 business days. Can you confirm? [26 Jun 1] Acme Energy Support: Yes — the refund of $380 has been approved and will reach your account within 5 business days. [6 Jul 09] Complainant: It has been 7 business days and no refund has arrived. — Prepared with Trumis, the complaint companion — trumis.com.au
Notice what your resolution team is not doing with this complaint: reconstructing the timeline, chasing the branch, guessing which promise was made, or asking the person to retell the story. The particulars — location, date, the person involved, the exact promise, the exact threat — arrived on first contact, each one confirmed by the complainant.
How intake works on your page
- People talk, in their language. English, 中文, Tiếng Việt, العربية, Ελληνικά — voice or text, no form fields, at most one gentle question per turn.
- Evidence is read on their device. Screenshots of chats and letters are OCR'd in the browser; images never leave the person's device. The reconstructed record is approved by the person before it's used.
- Claims are ticked, not assumed. The AI never decides merit — a deterministic rules engine does — and nothing is written unless the person explicitly confirmed it. Your team can rely on what it reads.
- You receive it, not us. The person sends the complaint to your complaints inbox from their own email (embed), or your systems capture the structured object directly (API). Trumis encrypts and retains complete intake records for up to 24 months.
Record-keeping, RG 271 and ombudsman schemes
General information about how Trumis output fits common obligations — not compliance advice. Your compliance team owns the mapping for your organisation.
- Complete complaints on first contact. ASIC's RG 271 expects financial firms to address the issues a complaint raises within the response window (30 calendar days for most complaints). Structured intake means the response clock starts on a complaint your team can actually action — the single biggest driver of blown IDR timeframes is reconstruction time.
- Receipt records remain available. The complaint email arriving in your inbox (or the API object landing in your case system) is your operational record of receipt, timestamped by your own infrastructure. Trumis also retains the encrypted intake for up to 24 months under audited, tenant-controlled and platform-administrator access. The complainant keeps their own device copy.
- Identity, particulars, and preservation. Documents carry the complainant's identity as they typed it, the location, date and people involved, and a records-preservation request — the details AFCA, the TIO and state ombudsmen ask complainants for, captured before escalation ever happens.
- Escalation-aware. Consumer-side documents name the correct external scheme with response clocks. Complaints that reach an ombudsman as "the organisation never understood my complaint" are the expensive ones; intake that listens is how they stop.
- Auditable merit decisions. Every generated complaint maps
to named arguments in a maintained legal knowledge base
(
grounds.passed_argumentsin the API) — you can see why the engine considered grounds to exist.
Security and privacy posture
- Encrypted intake archive: no individual account is required and complete records are retained for up to 24 months — the full model is at trumis.com.au/security.
- Hosting on Vercel, served from Australia, API compute pinned to Sydney. The one overseas flow (AI provider processing of conversation text, typically US) is disclosed in the Privacy Policy — APP 8 relevant.
- The embed is a sandboxed iframe: no scripts in your page context, no access to your DOM, and verified partner branding resolves server-side so it cannot be impersonated.
- We answer security questionnaires and support your pen-testing of a pilot; we're open about not yet holding SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / IRAP — the architecture minimises what such an audit would need to protect.
- Vulnerability disclosure: security.txt.
From pilot to licence
- Week 0 — pilot, self-serve. Paste the one-line embed on a test or live complaints page. Free, watermarked, complaints pre-addressed to your inbox. No contract, no call required.
- Evaluate. Your team reads real intake output. We're available at info@trumis.com.au throughout.
- Licence. A written agreement covers verified branding (registered partner id + your page origins), watermark removal, API keys with raised limits, support commitments, and data-processing terms. The commercial model is at pricing.
Support
One address: info@trumis.com.au. We acknowledge within two business days; licensed agreements carry defined support and availability commitments. Live service state: status · integration contract: developers · API changes: changelog.