They say they never instructed the changes I've claimed
Our application includes changes we were asked to make, and the main contractor's answer is that nobody instructed them.
Updated: . By Jack Butler-Kettle, Construction Claims Consultant.
To stop the next one going the same way, see why to get it in writing before the work starts.
What's happening?
Your application lists changes your team carried out. Your main contractor's Payment Notice, the notice saying what it will pay, values them at nil with one line: not instructed. Some directions were given on walk-rounds, some by people who have since left the job, and some sit in messages nobody has opened since.
Drop them all and you lose the good ones. Press them all as one block and the weak ones drag the rest down. Check each item on its own. Who asked for it, and did they have authority under your subcontract? Was it confirmed in the required form and time? Was the work really outside your scope?
An unconfirmed direction can still be backed by drawings, emails and site records. A missing document does not prove no direction was given, and memory alone does not prove one was. Meanwhile the notices in each payment cycle decide what is paid this month, so watch their dates while you gather the evidence.
The solution
Go through the refused items one by one and rate each on its evidence. Look at the direction, who gave it and their authority, any confirmation, the drawings and the records of the work. Name the items that rest on memory alone, rather than padding the total with them. That keeps the credible ones credible.
Variation Claim does that check, prepares confirmations for anything still in time and presses the evidenced items with the documents attached. Unpaid Variation Prevention then puts a same-day confirmation routine in place. The next instruction is on paper before the work starts.
Example
Illustrative example. The scenario and figures are invented.
The facts
A ductwork subcontractor applies for £210,000, including £48,000 of variations across eleven items. The main contractor's Payment Notice values all eleven at nil, saying none of them was instructed.
What happens
- The £48,000 is not argued as a block. Each item is checked against the subcontract's instruction clause, the emails, the marked-up drawings, the site diary and the photographs.
- Four items, £19,000, rest on written instructions from the main contractor's project manager, who the subcontract names as able to instruct.
- Three items, £12,000, followed directions from the site manager. They were confirmed in writing the same week, but to the wrong address. The authority point is put to the project manager directly.
- Two items, £9,000, turn out to be within the specification the subcontractor priced, and are withdrawn.
- Two items, £8,000, rest on the foreman's memory alone and are recorded as unsupported.
- The response goes item by item with the document for each. The dates for the next Payment Notice, and for any Pay Less Notice cutting the sum due, go in the diary alongside.
The eleven items
| Finding | Items | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Written instructions from the project manager | 4 | £19,000 |
| Site directions confirmed to the wrong address | 3 | £12,000 |
| Within the priced scope | 2 | £9,000 |
| Memory only | 2 | £8,000 |
| Total claimed | 11 | £48,000 |
The outcome
The £19,000 is paid in the next cycle. The project manager confirms two of the three site directions, £8,500, the month after. The memory-only items stay on the record as unagreed, and the withdrawn items cost nothing to concede.