The Five Most Common Reasons RAMS Get Rejected
Principal contractors see large numbers of RAMS submissions every year, and some of the same mistakes appear repeatedly. The five issues below are common reasons for RAMS revisions. Each one has a practical fix. None of them are especially complex, but without knowing what the reviewer is looking for, they are easy to get wrong.
The first reason RAMS get rejected is a task description that's too vague to be credible. A principal contractor reading your risk assessment needs to be able to visualise exactly what work you're planning to do on their site. If your task description could apply to any job in any industry, they have no confidence you've actually planned this work. RAMS rejected because of vague task descriptions is the single most common reason for return.
The second reason is that controls don't follow the hierarchy — PPE is listed as the primary or only control. The hierarchy is eliminate, reduce, isolate, control, PPE. PPE is the last resort, not the first line of defence. This is fundamental to how risk should be managed, and principal contractors are trained to spot it immediately.
The third reason is no risk rating methodology shown. If you rate a risk as "medium" or "high" with no explanation, a principal contractor has no way to verify whether that rating is correct or consistent with your other ratings. The 5×5 matrix — Likelihood × Severity — is the industry-accepted method, and showing your working is not optional.
The fourth reason is generic content that reads like a template. If your risk assessment for an electrical job reads exactly the same as your risk assessment for a plumbing job, it isn't a risk assessment. It's a template. Principal contractors can tell the difference.
The fifth reason is no evidence of competent person sign-off. A risk assessment with no name, no qualification, and no date is a blank sheet. Under CDM 2015, the risk assessment must be prepared by a competent person — and you need to demonstrate that competence in the document itself.
Fix 1 — Write a Task Description That Is Credible and Specific
The most common reason RAMS get returned is the task description. The fix is to answer five questions in your task description: What specifically are you doing? Where — site address and position within the building? At what stage of the project is the work happening? What is the building — new build, renovation, domestic, commercial? What access route will workers use to reach the work area?
Compare these two task descriptions. The first — rejected — says "Electrical installation work." This could mean anything, anywhere, in any conditions. It tells the principal contractor nothing. The second — accepted — says "First-fix electrical installation in new-build residential property, ground floor and first floor. Cable routing via joist drilling at 38 millimetres diameter, PVC twin and earth wiring to 16-amp ring final circuits. Work to be carried out before plastering, during first-fix stage of a domestic new build. Access via front door, materials staged in garage."
The second description tells the principal contractor exactly what the work is, where, in what environment, at what stage of the project, and how workers will access the site. They can verify it against their own project programme and site conditions. That's credibility.
Fix 2 — Apply the Hierarchy of Controls Correctly
The hierarchy of risk control is eliminate, substitute, isolate, engineering controls, administrative controls, PPE. PPE is the last resort. When a principal contractor reads your RAMS and sees "wear appropriate PPE" as your only control for working at height, they know you've skipped the first four steps of the hierarchy. You're reaching for the last line of defence without showing that you've considered elimination, substitution, isolation, and engineering controls.
For each hazard in your risk assessment, work down the hierarchy. Can you eliminate the hazard entirely? For example, can you work dead — no live conductors at all? Can you substitute something safer, such as a lower-voltage tool or a different method? Can you isolate the hazard from the worker, using lock-out tag-out on an isolating switch or a physical barrier around a work area? Can you use engineering controls such as RCD protection, cable avoidance tools, or dust extraction on tools?
What administrative controls are needed — permits to work, supervision, training, maximum exposure times? Finally, PPE — what specific PPE is needed, with the correct EN standard, for residual risk only?
For each hazard, document your reasoning at each level of the hierarchy. Even if PPE is the primary control — because the hazard cannot be eliminated at the source — document why you've moved down the hierarchy to PPE and what steps above it you considered. That's what a principal contractor wants to see.
Fix 3 — Show the Risk Rating Methodology for Every Hazard
If you rate a risk as "medium" or "high" with no explanation, a principal contractor has no way to verify whether that rating is correct or consistent with your other ratings. The likelihood and severity of an electric shock should be rated in the same way as the likelihood and severity of a slip on a wet floor. If they aren't, the risk assessment looks arbitrary — and an arbitrary risk assessment suggests the person who wrote it didn't really think about the risks.
The standard 5×5 matrix — Likelihood (1 to 5) × Severity (1 to 5) — is the industry-accepted method. For each hazard, show the initial risk rating, the control measures applied, and the residual risk rating after controls.
For example, for electric shock from working near live conductors, the initial rating might be Likelihood 3 × Severity 4 = Risk Rating 12 (High). The rationale: live conductors are present in the work area and no controls are in place. The controls applied are the dead working procedure, lock-out tag-out on all relevant circuits, GS38-compliant voltage indicator used to prove dead, personal lock and danger tag applied, re-proved dead at point of work. The residual rating is Likelihood 1 × Severity 4 = Risk Rating 4 (Low) — because dead working is confirmed, lock-out is in place, and the circuit has been verified dead before commencing.
Showing both ratings demonstrates active risk reduction. You identified the hazard, applied controls, and reduced the risk. That's what a principal contractor wants to see.
Fix 4 — Make Every RAMS Job-Specific, Not a Template
If your risk assessment for an electrical job reads exactly the same as your risk assessment for a plumbing job, it isn't a risk assessment. It's a template. And principal contractors can tell the difference between site-specific work planning and a template that has been mildly customised.
The hazard list, the control measures, the emergency procedures, and the PPE requirements should all be specific to the job. A cable strike during first fix has different controls than a test equipment fault during commissioning. A risk assessment for work in a domestic occupied property has different controls than the same work in a vacant new-build. The presence of occupants changes the emergency procedures, the controls for dust and debris, and the restrictions on working hours.
Every time you write a new RAMS, you're essentially starting from scratch on the task description, the hazard identification, and the specific controls. The structure can be the same — you don't need to redesign the wheel — but the content within that structure must be specific to this job.
Fix 5 — Include Evidence of Competence in the Document
A risk assessment with no name, no qualification, and no date is a blank sheet. Under CDM 2015, the risk assessment must be prepared by a competent person. You need to demonstrate competence in the document itself, not just hope the principal contractor takes your word for it.
At minimum, your RAMS must include your full name, your relevant qualification — NVQ, CSCS card, ECS card, or other industry-recognised qualification, your registration number where relevant, the date the risk assessment was prepared, and your signature confirming you've reviewed and approved this risk assessment.
This is your evidence that a qualified person — you — has assessed the risks of this specific job and approved the controls. Without it, a principal contractor has no way to verify the competence of the person who wrote the RAMS. Including competence evidence is the clearest signal that you take your professional obligations seriously.
The RAMS Submission Checklist — Eight Questions Before You Submit
Before you submit your next RAMS to a principal contractor, run through this checklist. If you can answer yes to all eight questions, your RAMS is ready to submit. If you can't, address the gaps before sending.
Does the task description describe exactly what we're doing, where, in what building, at what project stage, and how workers will access the site? Does each hazard have a specific, enforceable control — not a vague suggestion like "be careful" or "wear PPE"? Have I shown the risk rating calculation — Likelihood × Severity — for each hazard, with both initial and residual ratings? Have I applied the hierarchy correctly — eliminating and isolating before reaching for PPE?
Does the content of this RAMS look like it was written for this specific job — not for any job in any industry? Have I included my name, qualification, registration number, and date — demonstrating my competence to prepare this? Is my emergency procedure specific to this task and this site — not a generic statement about following site emergency procedures? Have I included specific equipment references — for example, GS38-compliant voltage indicator, EN-standard PPE — not just generic descriptions?
Why Principal Contractors Are Strict About RAMS
Principal contractors don't reject RAMS to be difficult. They reject them because they are legally responsible for the health and safety of everyone on their site under CDM 2015, and they cannot discharge that responsibility if the contractors they hire are submitting generic, non-specific, non-credible risk assessments.
When a principal contractor reviews your RAMS and sees site-specific content, properly rated risks, and evidence of competence, they know three things: you have planned this work, you are competent to do it, and you understand your health and safety obligations. That's the credibility that gets you on site.
When RAMS rejected feedback arrives, use it as an opportunity. Each rejection tells you what the principal contractor is looking for. Address the specific issues raised, resubmit promptly, and show that you've taken the feedback seriously. Contractors who respond professionally to rejection and resubmit quickly build relationships with principal contractors who then expect quality from them on future projects.
How to Resubmit After RAMS Rejection — The Professional Approach
When your RAMS are rejected, the instinct is often to make minimal changes and resubmit as quickly as possible. This is the wrong approach. A professional response to RAMS rejection is to treat it as a learning opportunity, address all the issues comprehensively, and resubmit with a brief note explaining what you've changed and why.
The first step is to read the feedback carefully. Principal contractor feedback on RAMS rejection is usually specific — they'll tell you what's wrong. Identify every point raised in the rejection and work through each one systematically. If the rejection mentions that the task description is too vague, rewrite it completely with full site-specific detail. If it mentions that the hierarchy hasn't been applied, rewrite the controls section with full hierarchy reasoning.
When resubmitting, include a brief covering note. "Thank you for reviewing our RAMS. We have revised the following sections in response to your feedback: task description now includes full site address and work stage; risk ratings now show full Likelihood x Severity calculation; controls now demonstrate hierarchy from elimination through to PPE. Please find our revised submission attached." This demonstrates professionalism, shows that you've taken the feedback seriously, and gives the principal contractor a clear list of what has changed.
Contractors who respond professionally to RAMS rejection and resubmit quickly often make future reviews easier. Taking feedback on board and improving the documentation usually gives the next submission a better chance of moving through review without the same issues recurring.
Training and Competence Development for RAMS Writing
The skills required to write good RAMS aren't innate — they're learned. Contractors who consistently produce RAMS that pass review have usually developed those skills through training, practice, and feedback. There are resources available to help.
IOSH offers a Working Safely qualification and a Managing Safely qualification that provide a foundation in risk assessment principles. CITB offers courses specifically on risk assessment and method statements for construction. CSCS card schemes require evidence of health and safety knowledge as part of the card application process. And the HSE's guidance on risk assessment — INDG163 — is a free, accessible introduction to the principles of risk assessment that every contractor should read.
Beyond formal qualifications, the best way to develop RAMS writing skills is to review other people's RAMS — both good and bad. Look at example RAMS from trade associations, from your employer, and from RAMS generation tools. Compare them against the principal contractor checklist in this guide. Note what makes the good ones credible and specific, and what makes the bad ones look like templates.
RAMS Builder is designed to help you draft RAMS around the points principal contractors commonly review. Describe your job, your site, and the work, then use the generated draft as a starting point for a more site-specific resubmission.