Every small contractor in Kent has a folder of RAMS. Most of them were bought as a template pack, had a logo dropped in the header, and have not been touched since. They come back rejected, the job start slips, and everyone treats it as paperwork bureaucracy.
It usually is not bureaucracy. A principal contractor reviewing your submission is asking one question: does this document show you understand this specific job, on this specific site, with these specific people? Generic documents answer no.
What a reviewer is actually looking for
The review is shorter and more mechanical than most people expect. A competent reviewer skims for a small number of markers, and their absence is what triggers the rejection.
- The site address, the client and the actual scope of your package — not "general building works"
- Named individuals against duties, with their competence evidenced
- A sequence of work that reads like the job will genuinely run, in order
- Hazards that belong to this site: access, neighbours, live services, occupied buildings, traffic
- Controls that are proportionate and physically possible with the plant and people listed
- Emergency arrangements that reference the real location, not a placeholder
- A revision date and a named author
The five failures we see most
First, the copy-paste tell. A method statement that mentions scaffolding on a job with no scaffold, or references a company that is not yours, ends the review immediately.
Second, hazards without controls. Listing "work at height" and then writing "operatives to take care" is not a control. The control is the specific equipment, the specific inspection regime and the specific person responsible.
Third, controls nobody can follow. If the method statement says two-person handling and the job is priced for one, the document and the site have already diverged.
Fourth, no sequencing. A list of tasks is not a method statement. The order, the hold points and who signs off each stage are the substance.
Fifth, no evidence of briefing. If the operatives on site have not read it and there is no signed briefing record, the document does nothing for you when it matters.
Making them survive contact with the job
A RAMS pack is a live document. The two moments it must be revisited are when the job changes — different access, different sequence, different subcontractor — and after any incident or near miss, however minor.
The firms that never get pulled up on documentation are rarely the ones with the thickest folders. They are the ones whose folder matches what is actually happening outside.
- Brief the pack at induction and record signatures
- Keep one controlled copy on site, dated, with superseded versions removed
- Re-issue on any material change to scope, method or personnel
- Log near misses and reflect them in the next revision
Where we come in
We write and review RAMS for contractors and trades across Kent — Maidstone, Ashford, Canterbury, Medway and the rest of the county. Not templates: documents built around your job, in language your operatives will actually read, with the evidence trail a principal contractor expects.
This article draws on reputable published sources and public enforcement reporting. It has not been fully verified case by case, so no individuals, companies or addresses are identified.
This article is general guidance, not advice about your particular site or premises. If you want it applied to your own job, the first call is free.