Aug 2015 updated Feb 2017NZACS is concerned about clients who resort to NZRAB to put things right, when the issues are matters of contract: the standard NZIA terms of engagement (and many others) already have dispute resolution provisions, but they are seemingly bypassed.A complaint to NZRAB and/or NZIA - or to the Building Practitioners’ Board - will give rise to a claim notification, and your policy will respond. The complaint may not be about a significant failure by the architect or practitioner, but as a threat to obtain negotiation leverage, or to impose hurt in response to the hurt the complainant has felt.Lodging a complaint ahead of addressing the factual/contract issues is an abuse of process, as NZRAB/NZIA/BPB cannot offer restitution or address a damages claim. But they have limited options to turn away a complaint, and if they then express an opinion that something is amiss, that is excellent ammunition for the aggrieved client to use in a subsequent attack in contract.We offer no magic bullet. But communication (again) would seem to be vital. Maybe a peer (or senior practitioner) might provide you with friendly advice if you see a conflict looming, and certainly the NZACS Claims Committee is available for a chat. Your client needs to understand why difficult decisions need to be made, why things sometimes go wrong, that the building process is not risk-free, that unexpected costs (or time) do not mean the designer has done something wrong. And if you suspect a conflict may arise, address it sooner rather than later, and then, if necessary, consider how your conditions of engagement should respond.