FAQ

Nexus answer:
A valid Payment Notice is one that meets the contract and statutory requirements on timing, content, and service. In practice, it’s not “pretty formatting”, it’s whether the notice clearly states the amount due and the basis for it, served on time, in the right way, to the right recipient. 

Next 48 hours:

• Confirm who is the “notifying party” under the contract: employer, contract administrator, QS, etc.
• Verify timing against the payment timetable.
• Verify content against a checklist: amount, basis, period and required statements.
• Verify service method and proof.

Evidence checklist:

• Contract payment clause and amendments
• Payment timetable and communications establishing dates
• Notice document, metadata date/time, sender and recipient
• Proof of service

Traps:

• Assuming “issued by QS” = valid authority matters.
• Confusing a valuation spreadsheet with a notice
• Forgetting to preserve system logs (service disputes are evidence disputes)

Tool + trigger:
Run Payment Pack Builder. If you’re within 7 days of final date for payment, trigger Payment Protection Pack.

 Nexus answer:
A Pay Less Notice that’s served outside the contract/statutory deadline is often a procedural failure, meaning the payer may have to pay the notified sum (or the applied-for sum if no valid payer notice exists), subject to the specific contract mechanism and facts. Your job is to make the issue binary: deadline missed, service not proved and content not compliant.

Next 48 hours (do this):

1. Lock the payment timetable: due date, notice date, pay less date, final date for payment.
2. Capture service proof: timestamped email headers, server logs, delivery receipts, portal audit logs.
3. Test content: does it state the sum due and the basis of calculation (as required)?
4. Create the “Notices Bundle”: application, notice(s), valuation backup, and the service evidence.

Evidence checklist (minimum):

• Payment application and backup
• Contract payment provisions and amendments
• Notice(s) received + full metadata
• Proof of service (not just the PDF attachment)
• Payment certificate/assessment trail
• Correspondence showing the payer’s shifting position

Common traps:

• Arguing “unfairness” instead of deadlines and proof
• Missing the service mechanics (wrong recipient/address)
• Letting the valuation debate distract from the notice validity question
• Not running an evidence index (you lose time when it matters)

Tool + trigger:
Run Notice Calendar Builder + Notice Compliance Risk Matrix. If risk is Amber/Red, trigger Payment Protection Pack.

Nexus answer: 

If the payer fails to issue required notices, the payment mechanism can default in a way that forces payment of the notified or applied-for sum, then valuation arguments move to a separate forum (often via “true value” routes depending on timing and case law). Your advantage is procedural clarity; use it fast and cleanly. 

Next 48 hours:

• Lock down the timetable and confirm notice absence with evidence (not just “we didn’t see it”).
• Issue a concise “position letter” confirming no notice served and the sum due.
• Prepare enforcement pathway: bundle, witness note, service evidence.

Evidence checklist:

• Application + delivery proof
• Contract provisions
• Search evidence (portal logs, inbox searches, system audit)
• Payment ledger extracts

Traps:

• Starting a valuation war too early
• Letting informal comms create ambiguity (“we’ll accept a reduced amount” without controls)

Tool + trigger:
Run Adjudication Readiness Checker if payment is not made by the final date.

Nexus answer:
Yes, in many situations, the payer can seek a decision on the “true value” after a technical loss, but the sequencing and conditions matter, including whether the payer first pays the amount due under the notice regime (the exact position depends on the case law and the facts). A clean strategy is: secure the procedural win and prepare for the valuation counter‑move. 

What to do now:

• Assume a true value adjudication will be launched.
• Start building valuation evidence immediately (measurement, progress, defects, contra-charges).
• Separate the procedural dispute from valuation evidence: don’t blur the issues. 

Trigger:
If you don’t already have a measurement-ready valuation pack, trigger the Payment Protection Pack.

Nexus answer:
You prove it like a forensic timeline: (1) baseline scope, (2) change event, (3) causation to extra work/time/cost, (4) contemporaneous records showing it happened, (5) contract route for valuation. No written instruction means you must over-invest in evidence discipline. Don't make it a habit, though; always kindly ask for a written instruction.

Next 48 hours:

• Freeze the baseline: drawings/specs/assumptions at award.
• Build the instruction trail from indirect evidence: RFIs, minutes, emails, marked-up drawings, site photos.
• Create a variation ID and start an evidence index immediately.

Evidence checklist:

• Before/after drawings/specs
• RFIs/technical queries and responses
• Meeting minutes with decisions
• Daily diaries, photos, delivery tickets
• Labour/plant logs

Traps:

• Waiting until final account to reconstruct
• Calling it a “variation” without proving causation and delta
• Missing time impact evidence

Tool + trigger:
Run Variation Evidence Indexer. If >£50k exposure or time impact is material, trigger Change Control Pack.

Nexus answer:
Treat it as a valuation method problem: determine whether contract mechanisms allow “star rates” or fair valuation, then anchor the calculation in actual records (labour/plant/materials/subcontract). The enemy is unsupported “commercial” numbers.

Next 48 hours:

• Identify which rates are arguably applicable and why they fail.
• Build a cost build-up with backup evidence.
• Document assumptions explicitly (avoid silent assumptions).

Tool + trigger:
Use Variation Evidence Score Matrix → trigger Change Control Pack if risk is Amber/Red.

Nexus answer:
Make scope creep visible: register it, price it, and time-stamp approvals. Final account “surprises” only work when governance is missing.

Do-now:

• Establish a change register and weekly review cadence.
• Set an approval gate: no instruction, no work (or documented risk acceptance).
• Tie changes to programme impacts early.

Tool:
Variation Evidence Indexer + Checklist Pack.

Nexus answer:
Concurrency is where weak claims die. You survive by (1) credible baseline + updates, (2) event-based timeline, (3) critical path logic, (4) clear causation chain, (5) evidence density. Don’t argue concurrency in the abstract; prove sequences.

Next 48 hours

• Secure baseline and update files (native formats).
• Build an event register: date, cause, affected activities, evidence references.
• Identify the controlling sequence and how it moved over time.
   

Traps:

• Backfilled programmes
• “Global delay” narratives without causation links
• Missing site records in the critical period

Tool + trigger:
Run Delay Entitlement Matrix. If Amber/Red, trigger Delay & Disruption Forensic Pack.

Nexus answer:
You need two comparable “miles”: a period of good productivity and a period of impacted productivity, with consistent measurement. The strength comes from clean contemporaneous records, not expert poetry.

Minimum evidence:

• Labour hours (trade-specific)
• Output quantities (installed units/metres/etc.)
• Constraints/events log
• Method statements and sequencing
• Photos/diaries corroborating conditions

Tool:
Delay & Disruption Checklist + Evidence Index Template.

Nexus answer:
Concurrent delay is when employer-caused delay and contractor-caused delay overlap in time and impact. The consequences depend heavily on contract drafting and the factual critical path position. Some contracts explicitly allocate concurrency risk; courts have upheld parties' ability to allocate it by contract. 

Action:
Don’t argue definitions. Build a timeline and logic model, then test concurrency scenario-by-scenario. 

Nexus answer:
Defend by proving entitlement to EOT (extension of time) and/or that LDs (liquidated damages) do not apply in the way alleged due to contract interpretation, termination effects, or causation. The Supreme Court in Triple Point clarified principles around LD clauses and termination interpretation.

Tool:
Delay Entitlement Matrix + Delay Checklist.

Nexus answer:
Contain exposure and preserve options: lock evidence, secure site status, map unpaid exposure/materials, review termination/suspension rights, and build continuity plans. Insolvency punishes delay.

48-hour action list:

• Solvency scan and exposure map
• Photograph and document site status
• Secure materials ownership evidence
• Review contract notices (termination/suspension)
• Plan re-procurement/step-in
• Notify insurers/counsel as required

Tool + trigger:
Run Solvency Forensic Audit (Rapid). If high unpaid exposure or key trade failure risk, trigger Insolvency Response Pack.

Nexus answer:
Insolvency complicates enforcement, but it does not automatically remove adjudication jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Bresco confirmed that adjudication can still be available even where insolvency set-off exists. Supreme Court UK

Practical implication:
Assume enforcement and stay arguments will be fought. Build a stronger bundle and plan for security/stay risk.

Nexus answer:
Enforcement may be resisted, often via stay/security arguments. Insolvency context raises practical barriers. The strategic response is to (1) strengthen evidence and (2) anticipate enforcement hurdles early using bundle discipline. Bresco is the key starting point. Supreme Court UK+1 

Nexus answer:
Potentially, yes. Section 135 extended the limitation for certain defective premises claims, including a 30-year retrospective window in relevant cases, which can bring older projects back into exposure.

Action:
Run the Retrospective Exposure Calculator, issue a Document Hold, and build the recovery chain map.