The following gaps appear consistently in RAMS documents reviewed across UK construction. They range from critical failures that make a document unsuitable for use to process issues that indicate a document was not produced with sufficient care for the specific project.
1. Vague control measures
Control measures that read "take care", "be careful", "use common sense" or "follow site procedures" are not control measures. They provide no actionable guidance to the operative and demonstrate no assessment of how the hazard is actually being controlled. Every control measure should be specific, actionable and tied to the hazard it is controlling.
2. PPE as the primary or only control
Listing PPE as the control measure for a significant hazard without addressing engineering or administrative controls indicates that the hierarchy of control has not been applied. PPE is appropriate as a supplementary control or as the primary control only where no higher-level control is reasonably practicable — and that determination should be explained in the document.
3. Blank residual risk scores
An initial risk score that is not followed by a residual risk score after controls demonstrates that the assessment was not completed. The entire purpose of the risk scoring exercise is to demonstrate that controls have reduced the risk to an acceptable level. Blank residual scores are among the most common reasons for an HSE inspector to view a risk assessment as inadequate.
4. Scope updated without corresponding hazard register update
When the scope of works changes — additional activities added, access method changed, programme revised — the hazard register must be reviewed and updated. A hazard register that describes hazards from a superseded scope while the current scope describes different activities represents an unassessed risk on site.
5. Muster point not verified against the site plan
The muster point listed in Section 10 should be verified against the actual site layout. Documents that carry a muster point from a previous project without update are extremely common and are immediately identified by a site inspection. On a site where the layout has changed significantly a muster point in the wrong location could direct people into danger rather than away from it.
6. Missing COSHH references
Any hazardous substance that appears in the scope or materials section must have a corresponding COSHH assessment reference in Section 5. The absence of a COSHH reference for cement, silica dust, solvents or any other hazardous material means the health risk from that substance has not been formally assessed and controlled.
7. Plant appearing in scope but not in hazard register
Every item of plant carries its own hazard profile — overturning, struck by, working near overhead services, proximity to other operatives. If plant appears in Section 4 but the hazard register contains no plant-related hazards, that plant's associated risks have not been assessed.
8. No named first aider
"Site first aider" is not sufficient. The document should name the designated first aider for this project and confirm their qualification is current. Where the project runs across multiple shifts the first aider for each shift should be identified.
9. Sign-off dates that postdate the works start
An authorisation date that falls after the scheduled start of works means work began on a document that had not been properly authorised. This is one of the simplest checks to perform and one of the most consequential failures to identify.
10. Legislation references that don't apply
RAMS documents that reference the same list of regulations regardless of the scope often include legislation that has been superseded or that has no relevance to the work described. Including irrelevant legislation while omitting directly applicable regulations — LOLER for lifting operations, PSSR for pressure systems, COSHH for hazardous substances — suggests the document was produced from a template rather than assessed for this project.
11. Operative sign-off not required
A RAMS document that does not include an operative acknowledgement section — where operatives confirm they have been briefed and understood the document — lacks an audit trail of briefing. If an incident occurs and the question of whether operatives were informed of the hazards arises, an unsigned acknowledgement section provides no evidence.
12. Generic personnel descriptions
Section 3 that lists only job titles with no reference to competency requirements, qualifications or training indicates that the specific workforce for this project has not been assessed. Where specialist qualifications are required — confined space entry, asbestos awareness, scaffold inspection — they should be referenced explicitly.
None of these require expertise in the trade to find, which is why reviewers find them every time — what a principal contractor looks for describes the review from the other side of the desk, and before and after examples shows the same sections written well and badly. In a Valify report these come back at the top: what critical means explains the ranking.
This article is general guidance on UK construction documentation practice. It is not legal advice, a compliance certification or a substitute for review by your own qualified health and safety personnel, who remain responsible for deciding whether any particular document is adequate. See our disclaimer.