RAMS or risk assessment? They are not the same thing
Most people on site say "RAMS" as if it's one thing. It isn't. RAMS stands for Risk Assessment and Method Statement — two separate documents doing two separate jobs, stapled together because they're usually asked for at the same time. Understanding the difference is the difference between paperwork that gets accepted on day one and paperwork that bounces back with "please resubmit" written across it.
What a risk assessment actually does
A risk assessment identifies the hazards in a task, who might be harmed by them, and what controls are in place or need to be put in place to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. That's it. It doesn't describe how you're going to sequence the job or what order the scaffold goes up in. It answers one question: what could go wrong here, and what are we doing about it.
This isn't optional paperwork. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Regulation 3, every employer — and every self-employed person — has a legal duty to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to employees and to anyone else who might be affected by their work. That duty exists whether you're on a five-year hospital build or doing a bathroom on your own for a homeowner.
What a method statement actually does
A method statement is the "how." It sets out the actual sequence the work will follow: what happens first, second, third; who does what; what plant and equipment is used; how the work interfaces with other trades on site; and what happens if something changes mid-task. A method statement without a proper sequence isn't a method statement — it's a description of the trade, not the job.
There isn't a single regulation that says "thou shalt produce a method statement" by that name. What creates the practical requirement is a combination of things: the general duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to conduct your undertaking safely; the contractor's duty under Regulation 15 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, which requires a contractor not to carry out construction work unless satisfied that suitable arrangements are in place for managing health and safety; and the simple fact that a Principal Contractor cannot coordinate a site under Regulation 13 without knowing how each trade intends to work. RAMS are how that gets demonstrated in writing.
Why RAMS get rejected
The single biggest reason a Principal Contractor sends RAMS back is that the method statement is generic. It reads like it was written once and reused for every job the company has ever done — because it was.
Tell-tale signs: no reference to the actual site, no named plant, a sequence so vague it could apply to a job in a different postcode, and hazards copied from a template that don't match what's actually there.
A Principal Contractor's job is to check that your paperwork covers this job, on this site, with these constraints. A method statement that could describe any roof anywhere doesn't tell them anything useful, and a competent reviewer will spot it in under a minute.
What "site-specific" genuinely means
Typing the site address and the client's name into a template is not site-specific. Genuinely site-specific means the document reflects things that are actually true of that particular job.
The real sequence of activities, in the order they'll happen — not a generic list of trade tasks. The real trade interfaces: who else is working nearby, above, below, or at the same time, and what that means for your work. A roofer working over a live footpath is a different risk to a roofer working over a fenced compound.
The real physical constraints of the site: access routes, headroom, overhead services, the asbestos register position if the building has one, ground conditions, working hours restrictions, neighbouring properties. The actual plant and kit being used, by type where it matters, not "suitable equipment". And the actual emergency arrangements for that site — where the muster point is, who the first aider is, how the fire brigade would get access.
None of that can be lifted wholesale from a previous job. Some of it can legitimately stay the same — your general asbestos awareness controls might genuinely not change — but the parts that make a document site-specific are, almost by definition, the parts that change every time.
Who is responsible for producing them
The contractor carrying out the work is responsible for producing their own RAMS for that work. Under CDM 2015 Regulation 15, a contractor has to plan, manage and monitor their own work so it's carried out without risk to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable.
The Principal Contractor's role under Regulation 13 is to review and coordinate — checking your RAMS fit with everyone else's and with the construction phase plan — not to write it for you. If a Principal Contractor is drafting your method statement, something has gone wrong with where the duty sits.
What a good one contains
A method statement worth the paper it's printed on has: a clear scope of works; the sequence of tasks written as steps in the order they happen; the people and roles named; the plant and equipment listed; the PPE required at each stage; the specific hazards with matched controls, not a generic hazard list; the permits needed before work starts, such as hot work, confined space or isolations; the emergency arrangements for that site; and a sign-off sheet so every operative can confirm they've read and understood it before picking up a tool.
If it does all of that, it will usually get accepted first time. If it doesn't, it isn't really a RAMS — it's a document that looks like one.
This article is guidance, not legal advice. If you're unsure how a specific regulation applies to your job, check the current wording on legislation.gov.uk or speak to a competent health and safety adviser.