Why Principal Contractors Reject RAMS (and How to Stop It Happening)

If your RAMS keep coming back marked up in red, this is for you. After speaking to H&S leads at a handful of UK principal contractors — tier-one civils firms, mid-sized fit-out specialists, and a couple of housebuilders — the same handful of issues come up again and again. None of them are about formatting. All of them are about whether the document actually shows you've thought about the job.

Below are the real reasons RAMS get sent back, in roughly the order I hear about them, and what to do differently next time.

1. The method statement describes a different job

This is the single most common rejection reason, and it's almost always because the contractor copied a previous RAMS without rewriting the method section. The hazards might be reasonable. The risk ratings might even be defensible. But the step-by-step method describes a roof installation when you're tendering for a roof strip, or it references a 14-tonne excavator when the access only takes a 3-tonner.

Fix: rewrite the method statement from scratch for every new site. The hazards and controls can sometimes be carried across; the method almost never can. If you're using a tool that lets you clone the previous job, treat the clone as a draft, not a final document — open every section and edit it for the new site.

2. Generic hazards with no site-specific detail

"Working at height" is a hazard category, not a hazard. The H&S team reviewing your RAMS wants to see "working at height — gable end of two-storey domestic property, no scaffold provision, working off MEWP positioned on driveway with 1:30 cross-fall." That's a hazard. The first version is a tick-box.

Fix: for every hazard, add the site-specific context that makes it real. Where on this site? What's underneath? What's the access? What's the ground like? If you can't answer those questions, you haven't done the assessment.

3. Controls that don't match the hazards

This one trips up otherwise solid RAMS. The hazard is listed clearly. The control measure says "operatives to wear appropriate PPE" — which controls almost nothing on its own. The reviewer is looking for the chain: hazard → who's exposed → what could go wrong → what specific control reduces that → what you'll do if the control fails.

Fix: for every hazard, name a control that would actually stop someone getting hurt. PPE is the last line of defence, not the first. If your control measure starts with "operatives to wear" and stops there, you're missing the point of the assessment.

4. No emergency arrangements specific to the work

Boilerplate emergency procedures are the second-fastest red flag for a reviewer. "In the event of an emergency, evacuate the area and call 999" is not an emergency arrangement — it's a description of what every person in the country would do anyway. For confined space work, the reviewer wants to see the rescue plan. For hot works, they want to see the fire watch. For working at height, they want to see how a casualty in a harness gets recovered before suspension trauma sets in.

Fix: write the emergency section specifically for the work being done. If the answer to "what would we actually do if X happened" is "panic", you need to plan that out before you submit the RAMS.

5. PPE list that includes everything

Listing every PPE item ever sold (hard hat, hi-vis, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection, respiratory protection, harness…) when half of them aren't relevant tells the reviewer you didn't think about it. If your RAMS for an interior plastering job lists hearing protection without explaining why, the reviewer assumes the list was copy-pasted.

Fix: only list PPE that's genuinely required for this work, and link each item to the hazard it's controlling. If you list respiratory protection, name the type (FFP3, half-mask with P3 filters, etc.). Vague PPE lists invite questions.

6. Risk ratings that don't change after controls

If your residual risk score is the same as your initial risk score, either your controls aren't doing anything, or you've forgotten to score the residual risk. Both look bad. Reviewers understand that some residual risk always remains, but they expect to see the assessment process visibly working — initial score high, controls applied, residual score lower, justified by the controls.

Fix: always score residual risk, and make sure the score change is justified by the controls listed. If a hazard scores 16 before controls and 12 after, the controls in between had better be doing serious work.

7. No competent person review or sign-off

A RAMS without a named author, named reviewer, and dates is incomplete. Some H&S teams will reject on this alone. The reviewer wants to see who put this together and who took responsibility for it being right.

Fix: include a named author with their role, a named reviewer who checked it (ideally a different person), and the issue date plus next review date. Don't put "site manager" — put a person's name.

8. Outdated regulations cited

If your RAMS still cites the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2007, you're nine years out of date. Same for any reference to "the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992" without the 2002 amendment, or working at height references that pre-date the 2005 regulations. Reviewers spot this and assume the rest of the document is just as stale.

Fix: check the regulations cited are current. Common references include CDM 2015, the Work at Height Regulations 2005, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), and LOLER 1998 for lifting operations.

9. Method statement that skips straight to the work

A complete method statement starts before the work does — with set-up, deliveries, exclusion zones, signage, and induction of the team for this specific task. It ends after the work is finished, with cleanup, removal of edge protection, and handover. RAMS that describe only the middle bit (the actual installation, fitting or excavation) leave the reviewer wondering whether you've thought about everything else.

Fix: structure the method statement as set-up → execution → cleanup, and write each phase honestly.

10. Submitted in the wrong format or without supporting documents

Some principal contractors specify what they want — PDF only, signed copy, accompanied by insurance certificates and operative training records. Submitting the wrong format, or without the supporting paperwork, results in a polite rejection email rather than a substantive review. It feels minor, but it adds days to your start date.

Fix: read the principal contractor's RAMS submission instructions before you start. If they want a specific format, give them that format. If they want supporting documents bundled in, bundle them in.

What good looks like

The H&S leads I spoke to all said roughly the same thing about the RAMS they approve quickly: they're specific, honest and proportionate. Specific enough that you couldn't lift it onto a different job. Honest about what could go wrong. Proportionate in length to the risk — not padded out to look impressive, not stripped down to look fast.

If your RAMS hits those three marks, it gets approved. If it misses any of them, it comes back.

Related guides

• How to write a RAMS document in the UK — full structure walkthrough
• Common RAMS mistakes — companion piece on errors to avoid
• Site-specific RAMS example — what genuine site-specificity looks like
• Who signs off a RAMS document? — competency and responsibilities
• RAMS generator UK — produce site-specific RAMS in under 5 minutes