Updated 30 July 2026

Why principal contractors reject RAMS

Search the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 for the word RAMS. It is not there. Neither is the phrase method statement. What regulation 15(2) asks of a contractor is to “plan, manage and monitor” the work, and a document lifted off the last job evidences none of that.

HSE is blunt about the copying itself: “Do not just copy an example and put your company name to it as that would not satisfy the law and would not protect your employees.”

What does the law actually ask for?

Where it comes fromWhat it requires
MHSWR 1999, reg 3A “suitable and sufficient” assessment of the risks. Self-employed on a construction site counts. Writing the findings down becomes a duty at five employees.
CDM 2015, reg 15Plan, manage and monitor your own work. With other contractors on site, follow the parts of the plan that cover you. If you are the only one, you draw it up.
CDM 2015, reg 12That plan sets out the site’s health and safety arrangements and rules. A principal contractor is only appointed where more than one contractor works on the project.
CDM 2015, reg 20Arrangements for demolition or dismantling must be recorded in writing before that work begins.
HSE on method statementsMethod statements are not required by law anywhere else. HSE recommends them as a practical way to plan, manage and monitor the work.

Quoted from legislation.gov.uk and hse.gov.uk, read 30 July 2026. No regulation names the document. A reviewer is reading what is in it, not checking that you have one.

So what is the reviewer reading for?

Evidence that someone planned this job. The checker on our home page reads a RAMS against 6 checks on any job and up to 12 once you pick your trade and the conditions on yours: fill-in prompts still in the text, isolation wording that never names an isolation point, emergency details from another site. It runs in your browser.

Check electrical RAMS

What this page cannot tell you

Whether your controls suit your job, or which reviewer rejected what. No public dataset records that. A word in a document is not proof the control exists on site.

Already been knocked back?

Ask which section failed and rewrite that section. Pasting a fresh template over the same wording gets the same answer.