Risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) are where a principal contractor or client decides whether you understand the job. A rejected set costs days on the programme, an awkward call with the site manager and a little trust. Most rejections are avoidable, because reviewers look for the same things every time.
This guide is written from the reviewer's side of the desk: where RAMS sit in the law, a checklist you can run before you submit, how to write site-specific RAMS without starting from scratch, the sections that most often fail, and a template outline.
It is primarily about UK practice. The ideas carry over to most jurisdictions, but the regulations named here are British, and many principal contractors and clients have their own formats. Where they do, theirs win.
What RAMS are, and where they sit in the law
The two halves have different legal standing.
The risk assessment is a legal requirement. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require every employer and self-employed person to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to their workers and to anyone else affected by their work. If you have five or more employees, you must record the significant findings. Other regulations add specific assessments, for example COSHH for hazardous substances, and the regulations on noise, vibration, manual handling and work at height.
The method statement is not itself a statutory document, but it is how the industry shows the planning that the law does require. Under CDM 2015, contractors must plan, manage and monitor their work and give the principal contractor the information needed for the construction phase plan. In practice, almost every principal contractor and most commercial clients require a method statement for each significant activity before work starts, and many won't let you on site without one approved. (Our post on CDM 2015 for small contractors explains who holds which duties.)
Both exist to show you've thought the job through and to give the people doing it a plan they can follow.
Who reviews RAMS, and what they're worried about
The reviewer is usually a site manager or health and safety adviser at the principal contractor, sometimes a client's safety team, often with a pile of packs to get through. They are asking three questions:
- Does this contractor understand this job on this site?
- If their people follow this document, will the work be safe?
- If something goes wrong, will the document stand up?
A pack that answers those quickly gets approved. One that makes the reviewer dig, or clearly came from another job, gets sent back.
The reviewer's checklist
Run this before you submit. It reflects what most principal contractors look for; check whether your client has its own checklist or template, and use it if so.
| Area | What the reviewer checks | Typical reason it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | Site address, client, principal contractor, work package, document reference, version, date, author and approver | Wrong site name left in from another job; no version number |
| Scope | What is and isn't included, and the interfaces with other trades | Scope copied from the quotation, with no mention of who does the making good or the temporary works |
| Site-specific hazards | Live services, occupied areas, public interface, access and egress, restricted areas, asbestos information, ground conditions | Generic hazard list with nothing about this site |
| Sequence | Steps in the order the work happens, from arrival to handover, each with who and what equipment | A list of hazards with no sequence at all, or steps that skip set-up and clean-up |
| Controls | Each significant hazard has a specific, realistic control, applying the hierarchy of control | "Operatives will take care"; PPE as the only control; controls that contradict the site rules |
| Plant and equipment | What will be used, inspection and examination status, who is trained to operate it, exclusion zones | Plant named without operator competence or lifting arrangements |
| Permits | Which activities need a permit (hot works, confined space, excavation, electrical isolation, roof access) and who issues them | Permit-controlled work with no mention of the permit system |
| Hazardous substances | COSHH assessments for products and processes, including dust and fumes generated by the work | Safety data sheets attached instead of COSHH assessments; no mention of silica dust from cutting |
| Emergency and rescue | First aid, fire, nearest A&E, spill response, and a rescue plan for work at height or confined spaces | "Call 999" as the rescue plan |
| Competence | Named supervisor with contact details; required cards and training for each role | "All operatives will be competent", with no detail |
| Briefing and sign-off | How the RAMS will be briefed, a signature sheet, and how changes are handled | No briefing record; no way to show the team read it |
Make it site-specific, not generic
The single biggest reason for rejection is RAMS that could apply to any site. Reviewers spot them in seconds: the wrong address in a header, a hazard list that mentions roads on a job in a basement, or nothing at all about the thing that makes this site difficult.
Before you write, collect what you know about the site:
- The pre-construction information and construction phase plan from the principal contractor, including site rules, working hours and permit systems.
- Asbestos information for the building, especially for anything that disturbs the fabric.
- Service drawings and any survey results for excavation or drilling.
- Access: delivery routes, loading restrictions, lift sizes, parking, pedestrian routes.
- Who else is around: other trades working above or below you, building occupants, members of the public.
- A site visit, or photos from someone who has been, wherever possible.
Then make sure each real feature of the site appears with its control. A good test: cover the header and ask whether someone who knows the site would recognise it from the body alone.
A before-and-after example
The two versions below are illustrative, for drilling and fixing brackets in a ceiling void of an occupied office.
Generic: "Dust: operatives to wear dust masks. Work at height: use suitable access equipment. Services: take care when drilling."
Site-specific: "Dust: drilling into concrete soffit generates silica dust. Drills fitted with on-tool extraction (M-class vacuum); operatives wear FFP3 disposable masks, face-fit tested. Work carried out after 6pm when floor 3 is unoccupied; area screened and cleaned before handover each night. Work at height: podium steps for ceilings up to 3 m, mobile tower (PASMA-trained erectors) in the atrium; no leaning ladders. Services: ceiling void contains live data and lighting cables (see client drawing E-301); cables traced visually and with a detector before every hole, and the electrical contractor isolates lighting circuits under the site permit system before work in zone B."
The second version is longer, but every sentence tells the reviewer something they need. That's what gets approved.
Controls that follow the hierarchy
Reviewers expect to see the hierarchy of control applied, not just a list of PPE. In order of preference:
- Eliminate the hazard: prefabricate off site, use a design that avoids working at height, schedule the work when an area is empty.
- Substitute something less hazardous: a water-based product instead of a solvent, a smaller or quieter machine.
- Engineering controls: edge protection, extraction, guarding, exclusion barriers, isolation of services.
- Administrative controls: permits, safe systems of work, supervision, exclusion zones, rotation to limit exposure, signage.
- Personal protective equipment as the last line, specified properly (what type, what standard, face-fit testing for tight-fitting masks).
Work at height has its own version of the same idea under the Work at Height Regulations 2005: avoid working at height where you reasonably can; where you can't, prevent falls, preferring collective measures such as guardrails over personal ones such as harnesses; where you can't fully prevent a fall, minimise the distance and consequences.
A control should be specific, realistic and checkable. "Operatives will take care" fails all three. "Exclusion zone of barriers around the MEWP base, controlled by a banksman during lifts" passes, because a supervisor can see whether it's in place.
Sequence: the method statement proper
The method statement should read like a sequence someone on site could follow. A useful structure for each step is what, who, with what, and what could go wrong:
| Step | Activity | Who | Plant and equipment | Key hazards | Controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arrive, sign in, attend site induction | All | None | Unfamiliar site | PC induction; supervisor confirms permits in place |
| 2 | Unload materials at loading bay | Supervisor and 2 operatives | Pallet truck | Manual handling, vehicle movements | Booked delivery slot; banksman; loads under 25 kg or mechanical aid |
| 3 | Erect mobile tower in atrium | 2 PASMA-trained operatives | Aluminium tower | Fall from height, falling objects | Erected to manufacturer's instructions; area barriered; inspection recorded before use |
The table is illustrative, and the manual handling figure is a site rule example, not a legal limit. Keep going until handover and clean-up, which reviewers notice are often missing: waste removal, making good, leaving the area safe for the next trade.
The sections that most often fail
Plant and equipment
List what you'll bring, and for each item show that it's fit for use and that the person using it is competent. Reviewers look for:
- Inspection and examination: lifting equipment and accessories need thorough examination under LOLER at the required intervals, and many principal contractors want to see the certificate. Power tools should have a current inspection or test record.
- Operator competence: CPCS or NPORS cards for plant operators, IPAF for MEWPs, PASMA for mobile towers, or equivalent.
- Lifting operations: anything beyond a simple lift needs a lift plan by a competent person; for cranes, an appointed person in line with BS 7121.
- Temporary works: if your work needs propping, shoring, formwork or trench support, say who designs and checks it, and fit with the principal contractor's temporary works procedure.
Permits
If the site runs permits for hot works, confined space entry, excavation (permit to dig), electrical isolation or roof access, the RAMS should say which activities need one, who issues it, and that work won't start until it's in place. Writing your own permit arrangements when the principal contractor runs a site-wide system is a common way to get a pack returned.
Emergency and rescue plans
General emergency arrangements (first aid, fire, nearest A&E with directions, spill kit) are expected in every pack. High-risk work needs a specific rescue plan:
- Work at height: how you'd recover someone from a MEWP basket if the machine fails, using ground controls and a trained person on the ground, and how you'd rescue someone left suspended in a harness quickly, with the equipment on site.
- Confined spaces: under the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997, emergency arrangements, including rescue, must be in place before anyone enters. Name the rescue team and equipment, and how they'll be on hand throughout the entry.
- Excavations and services: what to do on a service strike, and who to call.
"Call 999" is not a rescue plan. The emergency services may take too long, and they may not have the equipment for your situation. Reviewers reject it on sight for high-risk work.
COSHH
A safety data sheet is not a COSHH assessment. The data sheet tells you about the product; the assessment tells the reviewer how your team will use it on this job, the exposure and the controls. Include assessments for the substances you bring, and for the hazardous substances the work creates, such as silica dust from cutting concrete or masonry, wood dust, welding fume and fuel exhaust in enclosed spaces.
Competence evidence
Name the supervisor, with a phone number. For each role, list the training and cards it requires, such as SSSTS or SMSTS for supervisors and managers, CSCS cards, trade qualifications, and task-specific tickets. Many principal contractors want copies or card checks before day one; keep them current, because an expired card on the first morning can stop a crew at the gate. Our post on certificate expiry tracking covers how to stay ahead of that.
Briefing and sign-off
The RAMS only protect anyone if the team has read and understood them. Reviewers check for:
- A briefing section: who briefs the team, when, and how changes are communicated.
- A signature sheet for operatives to confirm they were briefed and understood, with the RAMS version number on it.
- How you'll brief workers whose first language isn't English, if relevant.
- What happens when the job changes: work stops, the supervisor reassesses, the RAMS are updated and rebriefed, and the principal contractor is told.
Common rejection reasons
The ones reviewers send back again and again:
- The wrong site, client or contractor name left over from a previous job.
- Generic hazards and controls with nothing specific to the site.
- No sequence: a risk assessment with no method, or a method that starts mid-task.
- PPE as the main control where higher controls were clearly available.
- Missing rescue plans for work at height or confined spaces.
- Data sheets instead of COSHH assessments, or no mention of dust.
- No named supervisor, or competence described as "suitably trained".
- Ignoring the site's own rules and permits.
- Out-of-date documents: an old version, a lapsed lifting certificate, or a template referencing withdrawn guidance.
- Packs too long to use: 80 pages of boilerplate with the important detail buried on page 54.
A template outline
Use this as a structure for each activity, and keep it as short as the work allows.
- Document control: title, reference, version, date, author, approver, revision history.
- Project details: site address, client, principal contractor, your contacts, the named supervisor and their phone number.
- Scope of work: what's included and excluded, interfaces with other trades, working hours.
- Site-specific information: access, deliveries, services, asbestos information, occupied areas, public interface, site rules and permits that apply.
- Sequence of work: numbered steps from arrival to handover, each with who, plant and equipment.
- Risk assessment: hazards, who might be harmed, controls following the hierarchy, and residual risk.
- Plant, equipment and materials: list, inspection status, operator competence, lifting and temporary works arrangements.
- Hazardous substances: COSHH assessments, including substances the work generates.
- Personnel and competence: roles, required training and cards, supervision arrangements.
- PPE: task-specific, with types and standards.
- Emergency arrangements and rescue plans: first aid, fire, nearest A&E, spill response, specific rescue plans.
- Environmental controls: waste, noise, dust, spill prevention, protection of drains.
- Monitoring and review: who checks the work, when the RAMS are reviewed, what triggers a stop.
- Briefing record: signature sheet with the version number.
Write once, adapt every time
The fastest teams keep a library of activity-level method statements, one each for the tasks they do repeatedly, maintained and approved by their competent person. For each new job they assemble the relevant activities, then spend their time on the site-specific sections: site information, the hazards particular to this job, permits, rescue arrangements and the named team. That's where reviewers look hardest anyway.
Review the library at least annually, and after any incident, near miss or reviewer comment that shows a gap. When one principal contractor rejects a pack for a reason that would apply anywhere, fix it in the master so the next pack doesn't repeat the mistake. Software can help with that kind of library: finding the right activity, drafting site-specific sections from your approved wording, and catching leftover site names and expired certificates. The risk judgement should still come from someone who knows the work.
Generic RAMS tell the reviewer you copied them. Specific RAMS tell them you have done the job before.
Start here
Take the RAMS pack you send most often and run it against the checklist table above. Fix what fails, save it as a master, and split it into activity-level sections if it isn't already. On your next submission, spend your time on the site-specific sections, and ask the principal contractor for their checklist before you submit rather than after.