When things go wrong...

A considerable number of professional indemnity (PI) claims arise due to inadequate workmanship on all sorts of new or repair works to buildings.

Sometimes clients misunderstand the nature of the work. For example, it may be appropriate to emphasise to the client that some of the cosmetic issues cannot be addressed – sagging roofs can be supported, but it is extremely difficult to take the sag out, even if the roof has been repaired to a satisfactory standard.

In other instances, a process of elimination may be necessary to try to remedy a 'defect'; so repairs solutions may be attempted on a trial and error basis. The question to address is whether the client understands this process. Ensure that the various options are explained to the client, and keep clear minutes of site meetings so that you have a record of the options that have been tried.

For example, you may propose to carry out subsidence repairs by first of all repairing defective drains (assuming these were the source of the problem; which they commonly are). Once the drains are repaired, but there were no significant changes to the moisture profile of shrinkable clay soils surrounding the foundations, the next step would be to look to other causes (such as trees nearby). Unfortunately, in this increasingly litigious age, a suitable and rather minimalist repair strategy for subsidence is frequently no longer acceptable. Most surveyors and engineers who specify repairs will require the building to be underpinned to ensure that there is no 'come back', although some insurance company loss adjusters may still be keen to adopt the former approach (bear in mind of course that their client is the insurance company and not the builder owner).

Ensure that the client's expectations are appropriate at the outset.

It is vital to define the instructions with the client: if the client thinks you are supervising works (or indeed if you accidentally start supervising them even if not contracted to do so) and there are shortcomings later, you may end up with a liability for not pointing them out.

A contract administrator would have a much less onerous duty of care to the client than, say, a clerk of works, where attendance on site is considerably more rigorous and where a supervisory function is involved.

So, if you are not in the role of supervising the works – don't. Any shortcomings then become those of the contractor, unless they are so obvious that they should have been picked up in a relatively casual inspection by the contract administrator.

Tact, diplomacy and record keeping

If you do notice unacceptable standards of workmanship, deal with this as soon as possible – tactfully and politely. Address your comments to the appropriate person, but proceed with caution - one person's passing comment is another's out-and-out criticism, and the situation could easily degenerate into a full-blown argument.

Above all, ensure you have adequate records of the unacceptable practice. Photos of site progress are extremely useful in this regard. It is worth attaching them to site progress reports/minutes. Certainly keep the photographs on file (for example, on a CD) so that they cannot be accidentally deleted from the computer before they are needed, should a problem occur (probably a couple of years hence).

If you need to revisit the situation later because it has not been adequately resolved, you will need all the information you can lay your hands on to:

• prove to the client that you have been diligent;
• address any contractors' claims for delay, extensions of time, and so on.