Regulation and guidance referenced
HSG65 — Managing for health and safety (HSE)
Plan-Do-Check-Act framework — every trade hazard list should map back to risk control hierarchies.
INDG163 — Five steps to risk assessment (HSE)
Even though formally replaced by HSE's risk management guidance, it remains the structure most reviewers expect: identify, who can be harmed, evaluate, record, review.
PUWER 1998 — Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (HSE)
Most trade hazards involve work equipment — PUWER applies regardless of trade and should be cited where mechanical hazards exist.
Regulation 3 MHSWR 1999 — Suitable and sufficient risk assessment (HSE)
The legal basis for trade-specific (not generic) risk assessment. 'Suitable and sufficient' is what reviewers test against.
Common mistakes that get this document rejected
Borrowing another trade's hazards verbatim
Roofing hazards copy-pasted into a scaffolding assessment is the most common rejection cause. Reviewers spot it in seconds.
Hazard register without exposure context
Listing 'dust' as a hazard without saying which substance, which task and which RPE is selected fails COSHH and is unhelpful on site.
No supervisor / competent person named per hazard
High-risk hazards (work at height, confined space, hot works) need a named competent person — generic 'site supervisor' lines are rejected.
Worked example
Scenario: A mixed crew is doing soft-strip, asbestos removal sub-contractor work, and external scaffold erection on the same site.
What went wrong: Single shared RAMS combined all three trades' hazards into one list, so the scaffold erection RAMS read like a strip-out document and missed wind-speed controls.
The fix: Split into three trade-specific RAMS, each with its own hazard register, control hierarchy and named competent person, linked by a master sequence document.
Outcome: All three accepted on first re-submission. Audit trail clearer for CDM information transfer.