Looks at the arrangements adopted by the ICE to preserve the professional functions of the engineer in the event of a dispute, in response to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Before the Act, the approach of the ICE's standard form agreements was that disputes should be referred in the first instance to the engineer named in the contract. With the advent of the Act, the ICE contrived an arrangement whereby disputes would not become disputes for the purposes of the Act until they had been referred to the engineer for a decision, or the appropriate time for a decision had elapsed. Before that point, differences were to be called "matters of dissatisfaction". Discusses the view held by many observers that the ICE's "matter of dissatisfaction" approach jarrs with the requirements of the Act, and suggests the ICE may have to look again at the arrangements it has adopted.