Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS): The UK Contractor's Guide

The phrase "risk assessment and method statement" is one of the most common things a UK contractor hears before mobilising. It usually arrives as a single demand — "send your RAMS" — but in reality it's two distinct documents joined together for convenience. This guide explains both halves, the legal duty behind each one, and how to produce them so the principal contractor accepts them first time.

What "Risk Assessment and Method Statement" means

"Risk Assessment and Method Statement" — usually abbreviated to RAMS — is the standard UK construction term for the paired safety document that contractors submit before starting work on site. It bundles a hazard-and-controls assessment with a step-by-step description of how the work will actually be carried out. The two halves answer two different questions:

• Risk assessment — what could go wrong and what are we doing about it?
• Method statement — how exactly are we going to do this work safely, step by step?

Together they form a single submission. For the underlying definition of RAMS in construction language, see RAMS in construction — what it means.

The risk assessment part

A risk assessment is the systematic identification of hazards, evaluation of risk, and selection of controls. It is required by regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which says it must be "suitable and sufficient" — proportionate to the risk and specific to the work.

A construction risk assessment normally contains:

• Each hazard, written in plain language (not a vague category like "site work")
• Who is exposed — operatives, other trades, members of the public, visitors, vulnerable persons
• An initial risk score (likelihood × severity) before any controls
• The control measures — collective protection first, then administrative, then PPE
• A residual risk score after controls are applied
• Named person responsible for ensuring the controls are in place

The full legal framework — including who has to record the assessment, review triggers, and the meaning of "suitable and sufficient" — is covered in Risk Assessment Legal Requirements in the UK.

The method statement part

A method statement is the written safe system of work. It describes, in order, how the job will be done — what arrives on site, where it goes, who does what, and what equipment they use at each step. It exists because regulation 13 of CDM 2015 requires the principal contractor to ensure construction work is properly planned, and because Approved Codes of Practice for high-risk activities (work at height, confined spaces, excavation, hot works) effectively require a written method.

A good method statement covers:

• Pre-start checks (services, weather, access, permits)
• Welfare, first aid and fire arrangements specific to the job
• The work sequence — numbered steps that an operative could follow
• Plant, tools and materials at each step, named by make and model where it matters
• Named operatives, their qualifications, and refresher dates
• Emergency arrangements proportionate to the work
• Sign-off and briefing record

For a full breakdown of the structural requirements, see Method Statement Requirements.

How the two combine into a RAMS

In a properly written RAMS, the risk assessment and method statement don't just sit next to each other — they cross-reference. Each method step should map back to the hazards in the assessment, and each significant control measure in the assessment should appear in the method as a specific action.

The combined document usually flows like this: cover page → project details → risk assessment table → method statement steps → PPE schedule → emergency procedures → operative briefing and sign-off. Some principal contractors require their own front sheet, but the core structure stays the same.

The legal duties behind each half

Combining all these into one RAMS is allowed and is how most UK construction sites operate.

The right order to write them

The risk assessment is written first. You can't describe a safe method until you know what the hazards are. In practice the experienced supervisor writes both at the same time because each informs the other — identifying a hazard often suggests the method step that controls it, and writing the method often surfaces a hazard the assessment missed.

1. Walk the site (or review drawings if not yet possible)
2. List every significant hazard in the assessment
3. Sketch the work sequence
4. For each step, check it controls the listed hazards
5. For each hazard, check the method statement actually addresses it
6. Add named personnel, plant, PPE and emergency arrangements
7. Brief the operatives and get signatures

Worked example — small refurb job

A two-person team is removing and re-fitting a kitchen in an occupied flat above a hairdresser. The risk assessment identifies five significant hazards: manual handling of carcasses and worktops, dust from disconnection of plasterboard, electrical isolation, slips on a wet floor during plumbing, and disturbance to a 1970s artex ceiling that may contain asbestos.

The method statement then sets out the sequence: arrive 08:30, brief the resident, confirm electrical isolation at the consumer unit with a proving unit, deploy dust sheets and a HEPA-filtered vacuum, dismantle base units two-person lift maximum 25 kg, capture water at every plumbing disconnect, stop work and re-assess if the artex is disturbed beyond the agreed scope (no work continues until a refurb-and-demolition survey result is in hand).

The two halves cross-reference — for example the artex hazard in the assessment links directly to the "stop work and re-assess" step in the method. That cross-referencing is what principal contractors look for and what generic templates lack.

Why a RAMS gets rejected at induction

From the principal contractor's reviewing-H&S team perspective, the common rejection reasons are predictable. The full list is in Why Principal Contractors Reject RAMS, but the top three on a typical UK site are:

• Not site-specific — the document mentions a different site or has no detail about the actual job
• Risk assessment and method don't talk to each other — hazards listed in the assessment aren't addressed in the method, or method steps reference controls that aren't in the assessment
• Missing named personnel and competencies — "trained operative" instead of names, ticket numbers and expiry dates

The fastest way to avoid all three is to produce a structured RAMS using a tool that pre-links the assessment and method together, with the legal references already in place. Riskora does exactly that — try the UK RAMS generator to see how the two halves combine in practice.