Knowing When To Stop

Hi Stephen

At the earliest possible opportunity.

This usually occurs at the first audit - 7 days maximum.

Some unscupulous consultants do no disclose releavant issues immediately and lead the client on into unneccessay costs - some are still in business.

Best regards

Mike Testro

In my experience it's the opposite, and the client is ususally pretty well aware of whether they are on shakey ground or not before they've brought the consultant in. Quite often that's the very reason why the consultant has been engaged.

If a client wants to employ a consultant to try to get them a result which they wouldnt be able to get themselves - whether they really merit such a result or not - is up to them.

Although many clients are reasonably open and would say that they think they have a difficult case, i'd say it's more likely that the client would keep something from the consultant than the other way around.

You should of course always keep the client advised of the reality of the situation, even if more often than not they'll tell you that they know they haven't got a great case and that's why they brought you in. As a hired gun though, you have no duty to pull out just because you don;t personally believe in the case you are putting forward. You are there to put forward the best case that you can, whether you believe in it or not. That is not being unscrupulous, it's doing the job that your client is paying you to do. 

It;s not as easy, I would add, as to say, "settle on this point", as that is always the aim anyway. More likely the alterantives are to carry on in the hope of forcing a settlement, or just give up on it and concede. Conceding is often something that a client can't afford, and therefore the least appealing option.

Remember that determination and dogedness is a very important trait in a claims consultant, and clients don't engage claims consultants to just give up at the first hurdle.

Hi Rob

I have been in a situation where the contractor had a hopeless case due to absence of records but in spite of my warning insisted on proceding.

He lost the adjudication becuase the Architect had his own as built records which cut across my analysis.

He did not pay my fee.

Best regards

Mike Testro

I have been trying to ascertain any key point indicators, when reviewing a claim

To provide the client a higher level of rationale to optimise time on one individual claim.

In the lines of trying not to win all battles, by spending too much in escalating legal cost.

 Stephen

I have been trying to ascertain any key point indicators, when reviewing a claim

To provide the client a higher level of rationale to optimise time on one individual claim.

In the lines of trying not to win all battles, by spending too much in escalating legal cost.

 Stephen

Hi Stephen

There are three things needed for a succesful EoT claim.

1. Records

2. Better records

3. Perfect records

Perfect records show "Who did What Where and When" and I have only seen it twice in 20 years.

If 1 or 2 Records cover less than 80% of the summary tasks then you must decline the commission if it is heading for a tribunal.

If the Clinet wants a report to enable a strategic negotiation tnen a simple As Planned v As Built chart using a measles pattern sometimes works and is quick and dirty.

You can pad out the narrative with legal quotes and cases to add to the bluff.

I am often asked to work on this basis but I never put my name on it.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

It's difficult.

I work under client's instruction, but I am always frank with them as to my opinion, and the weaknesses of their case.

This often gets a response to the effect of: 'who do you work for, we have to make a claim!'.

When preparing reports and correspondence in this situation, as Mike rightly stated, most of the content is superficial. I would never misrepresent the facts, but in a supporting role you do tend to omit some facts for presentation purposes.

The worrying thing for me is when I attend meetings with lawyers, my clients very often completely misrepresent their case, and the lawyers happily agree without much challenge. I always seem to be the bad guy in the corner of the room.

Client's do not like admitting their failures, and like Rob pointed out, often hire people to polish the turd.