Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Boycott clients demanding unlimited liability, urges ACE

News

MANY OF the UK's largest clients are threatening to put consulting rms out of business by demanding unlimited liability cover, the Association for Consultancy & Engineering (ACE) warned this week.

The ACE is urging its members to boycott companies and organisations demand excessive insurance.

'Some clients are demanding unrealistic levels of liability cover from consultants in the belief that this insures them against potential loss, ' said ACE chief executive Nelson Ogunshakin.

'Several clients are serial offenders, asking for unlimited liability on even small projects.' Those demanding unlimited liability are national regeneration agency English Partnerships, developers Bovis and Grosvenor Estates. The North West RDA is singled out for a special mention - and numerous local authorities.

ACE has also named clients which set such high limits on the claims against their consultants that they would do terminal damage to all but the biggest firms. These include Welsh Assembly, developer Redrow, and Network Rail which require cover up to £10M.

Ogunshakin warned that claims exceeding the value of a consultant's professional indemnity insurance would put it out of business:

'If a consultant goes out of business as a result of one client's claim they won't be around when the next one comes along, ' he said.

None of the companies or agencies named were able to respond as NCE went to press.

Ogunshakin urged clients to agree a cap on liabilities 'If a client refuses to negotiate a cap then the consultant should ask themselves whether they want to work for them.

They may be better off walking away, ' he said.

'At a time when it's increasingly difficult to find people to do work, it's not sensible for clients to constrain themselves by asking for unlimited or unrealistic levels of liability.

'Clients need to sit down and agree a cap on liability so that they have a choice of the best firms, not just those willing to risk everything for the sake of winning work.'

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.