My case is strong but the numbers are thin
The events are proved and the case for payment is well argued, but the figures are a spreadsheet nobody in my team fully trusts.
Updated: . By Jack Butler-Kettle, Construction Claims Consultant.
What's happening?
A convincing story can come with round numbers, percentage uplifts and rates nobody can source under pressure. The events may be well documented. But the value still needs quantities, periods, allocations, calculations and a stated basis that someone else can follow.
A strong case with figures nobody can defend still gets paid on the figures. Keep your case on cause and on your right to be paid separate from the money side. Leave unsupported heads visible, rather than folding them into a confident total.
The fix is a sourced schedule. Its workings show what is supported, what is conditional and what the records cannot support.
The solution
Treat your account of what happened as an input to test against the records. Organise the source data first. Then build each head with a document, a period and a calculation that anyone can trace. Show unsupported heads rather than hiding them in the total.
Delay & Disruption Claim rebuilds the numbers this way. Every missing source or assumption is recorded beside the calculation it affects, so each figure stays open to checking. Your case on time and on your right to be paid stays with you, your solicitor or the right specialist.
Example
Illustrative example. The scenario and figures are invented.
The facts
A piling subcontractor's claim, written with its solicitor, proves three events from the correspondence. It comes with a spreadsheet totalling £1,150,000 that nobody in the commercial team can defend under questioning. The rates are round, a percentage uplift sits on every line, and the crane rate has no source.
What happens
- The account of events is taken as the input and tested against the records.
- The source data is organised first: 61 weekly labour allocation sheets, the plant hire invoices, the daywork sheets and the subcontract rates.
- Each head is then built with a document, a period and a calculation. Labour comes from the allocation sheets, not from the gang sizes in the account.
- The hire agreement shows the crane at £1,400 a week, not the £2,000 in the spreadsheet.
- The uplift comes off every line. The overhead it was meant to cover becomes a head of its own, conditional on the accounts.
- Every assumption sits beside the calculation it affects. Whether the money is owed stays with the solicitor, and the delay events with a programming expert.
The schedule rebuilt
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Spreadsheet as received | £1,150,000 |
| Sourced to documents | £890,000 |
| Conditional on the accounts | £110,000 |
| Not supported by the records | £150,000 |
The outcome
The rebuilt schedule shows £890,000 sourced to documents, £110,000 conditional and £150,000 the records cannot support. The claim goes out with the sourced schedule. The main contractor's surveyor challenges four lines of it, not the whole thing.