A short, signed amendment to an existing builder contract that records exactly what's changing mid-job — scope, price, or timeline — and gets both sides to agree, in writing, before the work continues. The natural sibling to the Builder Mock-Up Contract: same regulatory framing, same e-sign infrastructure, same casual-contracts cluster, but where the parent contract sells acquisition the variation tool sells retention. The promise. "The work changed. Both of you wrote it down. Both of you signed it. The original contract stays clean."

AAt a glance

BCustomer input — what we ask the user

B.1The conversation shape

Ultra-short interview — target 2–3 minutes to complete. The tone is direct: "What's changed? Who agreed it? What's the new price? What's the new timeline?" Save-and-resume is supported but rarely needed at this length. The flow branches on the first question — is there an existing LegalHelp contract this is varying? If yes, parties, job, and parent reference are pre-filled from the user's account. If no, we collect those details first (shorter version of Product 1's intake) before the variation-specific questions.

B.2The fields we collect

Section A — The original contract

• Is this a variation to a LegalHelp contract? required — Yes / No
• If yes: select the parent contract required — from the user's account
• If no: parties + original job description + original price + original completion date + original signature date required

Section B — What's changing

• Change type required, multi-select — Scope / Price / Materials / Timeline / Quality standard / Termination terms / Other
• Description of the change in plain English required — free-text with prompts
• Date the variation was agreed in principle required
• Will the original contract's other terms continue to apply? required, default Yes

Section C — Price impact

• Does the change affect the price? required — Yes (up) / Yes (down) / No
• Amount of change conditional — net change in £, plus VAT treatment
• New total contract price after this variation — auto-calculated, user confirms
• Payment treatment required — added to next milestone / paid separately on completion / other

Section D — Timeline impact

• Does the change affect the timeline? required — Yes (delay) / Yes (acceleration) / No
• Number of working days conditional — with auto-calculation of new completion date
• Reason for the timeline change required — free-text

Section E — Sign-off

• Email of the other party required, validated, pre-filled if parent contract exists
• Window for both parties to sign required, default 7 days, max 30

B.3Evidence & verification

• If the variation is to a non-LegalHelp parent contract, the user is encouraged (not required) to upload a copy. We don't review it — the upload is for the user's own records and is bundled with the signed variation PDF.
• No ID verification required (same logic as Product 1).

B.4Branching & edge cases

1. Pure scope addition — additional work, additional price, additional time. The most common shape (~60% of variations).
2. Pure scope removal — descope, price reduction, no time change.
3. Material change at same price — different finish, no price impact.
4. Timeline-only change — slip due to supply or weather, no price change.
5. Multi-aspect bundle — combination of the above. Multi-select drives per-aspect inputs.

B.5Drop-off risks

• "What was the original price?" Users may not remember exactly. Mitigation: auto-fill from parent contract; manual entry only if external.
• VAT treatment of the increment. Easy to confuse inclusive vs exclusive. Mitigation: explicit radio + live "new total" preview showing both.
• "Who proposed the change?" Mitigation: helper text explains the audit-trail value and offers "either side" as a valid option.

CProduct output — what the customer receives

C.1The deliverable

A 1–2 page Variation Order, signed by both parties via the same e-sign envelope as the parent contract. PDF (signed) + DOCX (editable working copy). Delivered to both parties by email on completion. Linked to the parent contract in the user's account if applicable.

See the Specimen Output at the bottom of this document for a fully-rendered 3-page A4 example continuing the Whitmore / Hayward kitchen-extension story from Product 1.

C.2Document mock-up — skeleton

Cover / heading
  ★ "Variation Order" wordmark — orange, smaller than parent contract
  Variation number (sequential per job — VO-001, VO-002, etc.)
  Date of this variation
  Parent contract reference + date

1. Parties
   Pre-filled from parent contract (or entered)
   Brief: same as parent unless changed

2. The original contract
   2.1 Parent reference number and date
   2.2 Original job description (one line)
   2.3 Original total price
   2.4 Original target completion date
   2.5 Original signature date

3. What's changing
   3.1 Change type (one or more from the list)
   3.2 Description of the change in the user's own words
   3.3 Date the change was agreed in principle
   3.4 Confirmation that all other terms of the parent contract continue

4. Price impact
   4.1 Net change in price (+/- £, plus VAT treatment)
   4.2 New total contract price after this variation
   4.3 How the change is paid

5. Timeline impact
   5.1 Change in working days
   5.2 New target completion date
   5.3 Reason for the change

6. Confirmation
   6.1 Both parties have read and understood
   6.2 The parent contract is otherwise unchanged
   6.3 This variation is binding once both parties sign

7. Signatures
   Homeowner — name, signed, dated
   Contractor — name, signed, dated
   Variation invalid if not signed by both within the window

Footer
   "Generated by LegalHelp · Self-help tool · Not legal advice"
   Variation reference · Parent reference · Page x of y

C.3What's included alongside the document

• Main Variation Order — PDF (signed) + DOCX (editable).
• Plain-English summary — 3–5 lines: what changed, how much it cost, how long it added.
• Link to parent contract — both parties can open parent + all variations as one bundle from their account.
• "What this means" reminder — one-paragraph reminder that the parent contract's other terms continue unchanged.
• Reminder to log future variations — soft prompt: "If anything else changes, do this again."

C.4The visual treatment

Designed to visually pair with the parent contract so a homeowner looking at both can see they belong together:

• Same wordmark and accent treatment as the parent.
• Cover heading reads "Variation Order — [parent job title]".
• Cream background, ink body, orange section heading rules — identical to parent body pages.
• Smaller cover treatment than the parent (1 page max, no orange accent strip — this is an amendment, not a new contract).
• Footer includes BOTH the variation reference and the parent reference.

C.5Handoff & follow-up

• Both parties get the signed PDF immediately on completion.
• The user's account view shows parent contract + all variations as a stacked thread (most recent on top).
• If a variation crosses material thresholds (price > 25% of parent value, OR > 4 working weeks of delay), a soft prompt suggests "consider whether this should be a new contract instead" — we don't block, but we flag.
• 2-week check-in: "Are you happy with how the variation has gone in?"

DPricing & commercial shape

D.1Headline price

• First variation: free. Same hook as the parent contract.
• Subsequent variations: free via membership (£7.99/mo or £49/yr — same membership that covers the parent contract). Outside membership: £9 per variation.
• Compared against: the typical alternative is no written variation at all, which is what causes the dispute. We're not competing on price; we're competing against the "we just agreed it on site" default.

D.2Unit economics

D.3Upsell hooks

• Persistent storage of parent + variation bundles — surfaces the storage value-prop of membership.
• Dispute-pack escalation — if multiple variations have been disputed in writing, membership tier offers a "convert this thread into a small-claims pack" upsell.
• Personal Legal MOT — variation use suggests other contracts that might need formalising.
• B2B trade membership — heavy variation users are the natural audience for the "LegalHelp for Trades" sub-brand conversation.

ECompliance guardrails

E.1Why this is 🟢

A variation order between private contracting parties is itself a private contract. It's not a reserved instrument under LSA 2007 Sch.2. We don't advise on whether the variation is enforceable, don't represent either party, don't file or submit anything. The user supplies the change; we render it as a signed amendment; the parties sign in their own names. Same 🟢 LSA-clear, FCA-CMC-clear position as Product 1 — per regulatory-stance v3 the casual-contracts cluster (including amendments to those contracts) is the cleanest opening front.

E.2User-as-actor framing

• We draft the variation from the user's description of what's changed.
• The user reviews — every clause shown in plain English with a one-line explanation.
• The user signs in their own name; the counterparty signs in theirs.
• The user shares — we facilitate the e-sign envelope; the parties are the signatories.
• The user enforces — we provide a reference card but never act on their behalf.

E.3What the AI explicitly does NOT do

• The AI does not give legal advice on whether the variation is enforceable in your specific situation.
• The AI does not decide whether the proposed change is a fair price increase or a fair delay.
• The AI does not assess whether the change is technically necessary — that's between the parties and any third parties they consult (architect, surveyor, structural engineer).
• The AI does not sign in its own name.
• The AI does not pursue payment or claim defects on your behalf.

E.4Required disclosures

E.5What we don't say — danger words

• "Force your builder to accept this variation" — variations require both parties to agree; we can never imply otherwise
• "Stop scope creep" — implies legal protection we don't provide; say "record changes as they happen"
• "Lock in your builder" — variations don't lock anyone in; they record agreement
• "Our solicitors have approved this template" — they haven't; we're a self-help tool
• "Guaranteed enforceability" — never; enforceability is a court question, not ours

FMarketing & SEO essentials

F.1Search intent

Three search-intent shapes drive traffic to this product:

• The mid-job problem search. "Builder wants more money" / "builder adding charges to job" / "builder changed price after starting" — high intent, mid-funnel, the trouble-incoming moment.
• The proactive builder search. "Variation order template free" / "construction change order template UK" — high intent, builder is the user, ready to act.
• The research / authority search. "What is a variation in a building contract" / "scope creep building work" — top-of-funnel, builds authority.

F.2Keyword cluster

Primary keyword: variation order template uk (also bid change order template uk)

Secondary cluster:

• building contract variation
• construction change order template
• builder extra charges
• scope change builder
• amendment to building contract
• extra work builder agreement
• building variation form

Long-tail / intent variants:

• how to write a variation order for builder
• builder wants more money than original quote
• builder added work without telling me
• scope creep building work
• how to formalise a verbal change to a building contract
• do I have to pay for extra work builder did without asking

F.3On-page must-haves

• H1 contains primary keyword in natural English: "Variation Order Template UK — Record A Change To Your Builder Contract"
• Meta title (≤60 chars): "Variation Order Template UK · Free · LegalHelp"
• Meta description (≤155 chars): "Record a change to your builder contract — scope, price, or timeline. Plain English. Signed by both parties. Free for your first variation."
• Schema markup: Product + Service + FAQPage
• FAQ section answering top 8 PAA questions ("Can a builder change the price after work starts?", "Is a verbal variation legally binding?")
• Internal links to: Builder Mock-Up Contract · Snagging article · Dispute resolution explainer · Personal Legal MOT
• Trust signals above the fold: review count + score · "Not legal advice" disclosure · sample document preview · estimated 2–3 minute completion
• Mobile-first layout
• Sample PDF preview embedded on page

F.4Page title & meta — compliance-safe drafts

Title candidates:

• A: "Variation Order Template UK · Free · LegalHelp"
• B: "Builder Variation Order — Record The Change · LegalHelp"
• C: "Free Building Contract Variation Form · UK · LegalHelp"

Meta candidates:

• A: "Record a change to your builder contract in plain English. Signed by both parties. Free for your first variation. Self-help legal tool."
• B: "When the work changes mid-job, write it down. Free Variation Order template — signed online by both parties. Not legal advice."

F.5Compliance-safe content programme

Six supporting articles (smaller programme than Product 1 — this is a follow-on product):

1. "What is a variation in a building contract?" Top-of-funnel educational.
2. "My builder is asking for more money — what should I do?" Problem-aware, high-conversion.
3. "How to write a variation order for builder work." The how-to that converts straight into product.
4. "Scope creep on a building job — how to stop it costing you." Problem-aware.
5. "Verbal vs written variations — which one actually counts?" Research / authority-building.
6. "Snagging is not a variation: when is each one appropriate?" Disambiguation; deep-funnel for engaged users.

F.6Off-page / amplification

Rob fit. Strong. The variation-order product is the most direct expression of Rob's "intent to create legal relations" thesis — most of the disputes he saw on Judge Rinder started as verbal mid-job changes that never got written down.

Charity partner fit. Citizens Advice (homeowner side); Federation of Small Businesses; Trading Standards (rogue-builder add-ons angle); Age UK.

MSE / Which? fit. Excellent. MSE's cowboy-builder content has a natural slot for "what to do when the builder asks for more money mid-job." Which? content overlap on Trusted Traders + complaints process.

PR angle. "Hidden cost of UK home renovations: the verbal mid-job change that ends up in court." Data point to source: estimated % of homeowner-builder disputes involving a verbal variation.

Affiliate / partner channels.

• Trade associations — same as Product 1; strong fit because variation tool protects member-builders from disputes too.
• Builders' merchants — same as Product 1.
• Surveyor / architect channels — particularly relevant because they often advise on the variation question.
• Building works insurance providers (LV=, Hiscox) — natural cross-sell angle.

F.7The marketing "do not say" list — product-specific additions

• "Make your builder pay" — variations require agreement; we don't make anyone pay anything
• "Lock down the price" — the variation locks down the new price by agreement, not by force
• "Stop your builder ripping you off" — same as Product 1; framing must be neutral
• "Get compensation for extras" — never; self-help tool not a claims mechanism

GBuild dependencies & open questions

G.1What we need before launch

• AI drafting pipeline for variation orders — much simpler than parent contract; reuses same clause-library framework. Owner: Pablo. Status: depends on parent contract pipeline being built first.
• Parent-contract linking infrastructure — in-app flow that picks up a parent contract and pre-fills the variation. Owner: Pablo. Status: not yet started; depends on parent-contract storage flow.
• E-sign envelope flow — same as Product 1; shared infrastructure. Owner: Pablo.
• Reviewer panel sign-off on the variation-order template clauses. Owner: Ed + senior-practitioner panel.
• Compliance copy sign-off. Owner: Ed.
• Content programme — 6 articles drafted and compliance-reviewed. Owner: Rachel + Jemima.
• Soft-prompt logic for the material-threshold flag. Owner: Ed (policy) + Pablo (build).

G.2Open questions

1. Standalone product or feature of Product 1? Still TBD. Recommendation: ship as standalone first (so external-contract users have a route), with strong cross-link from Product 1. Reassess at 3-month review.
2. What's the right material-threshold for the "consider a new contract" soft-prompt? 25% of original price + 4 working weeks delay are starting defaults — needs validation against real variation patterns.
3. Should non-LegalHelp parent contracts be accepted? Yes for v1 (broader market) — but we don't review or verify them; we just attach them to the variation. Open question on whether to add an upsell to "convert this external contract to a LegalHelp contract going forward."
4. Bundle pricing. Should parent contract + first variation be offered as a single £4.99 one-off for users who refuse membership? Possible Phase-2 experiment.
5. Builder-side vs homeowner-side framing. Builders propose most variations but the tool gives equal weight to either side. Open question on whether to have two front doors at the SEO landing-page level.