New concept to make self and custom build easier and more accessible.

[Nickfromwales]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

No. Just be safe, use experienced workers and reasonable care and attention.

It is to keep people safe not make paperwork.

A risk assessment is simple. What are we doing?how? What are the risks? How do we reduce or avoid these? Do it thus and brief those involved.

Yes people make money from the paperwork from those who will pay.

But HSE basically don't want to report on squashed people.

You ask all bonafide contractors for their RAMS too, before they step foot on site, and you also do inductions (regardless of how “busy” you are). 
 

And make the site a safe and organised place to be. Allow a lot of time clearing up, sweeping (M-class vacuum needs to be on site as you’re not supposed to kick up dust these days), festoon lighting, don’t have sharp or ‘stabby’ things poking out of ground (rebar protruding needs to be bent back over itself or a mushroom cap put on it), no unmarked or open pits or trenches or barrier around them, list goes on but not rocket science. 
 

Take risks with your own life all you like, they can’t jail you for that, but when you invite any 3rd party there then the onus is on you to make them ‘not expire’ ahead of their predetermined departure from this life.

[Oz07]

20 minutes ago, Nickfromwales said:

You ask all bonafide contractors for their RAMS too, before they step foot on site, and you also do inductions (regardless of how “busy” you are). 
 

And make the site a safe and organised place to be. Allow a lot of time clearing up, sweeping (M-class vacuum needs to be on site as you’re not supposed to kick up dust these days), festoon lighting, don’t have sharp or ‘stabby’ things poking out of ground (rebar protruding needs to be bent back over itself or a mushroom cap put on it), no unmarked or open pits or trenches or barrier around them, list goes on but not rocket science. 
 

Take risks with your own life all you like, they can’t jail you for that, but when you invite any 3rd party there then the onus is on you to make them ‘not expire’ ahead of their predetermined departure from this life.

Not many small subbies will have a rams but in the days of AI I suppose its easy enough to knock one up. 

[saveasteading]

4 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

easy enough to knock one up. 

That's the trouble. Many are generic rubbish along the lines of safety being our priority.

Also you need to see their insurance... the whole document. Eg I once had a roofer who was highly competent but on checking,  his insurance excluded work above 3m.  He knew it said that, and it was cheap or all he could get. but nobody had ever checked.

 

I've met HSE inspectors several times. They asked for the paperwork but actually wanted to see competence and safe practices. Hey were genuinely interested and helpful... but tough.I'd hate their job... squashed people, missing digits... look and report. Meanwhile being disliked by the workforce.

 

What they hate is to find nobody in control.

On the occasions they told us or our contractors off, they were right.

 

The safety people who like paperwork are safety consultants and company safety officers.... 

[saveasteading]

18 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

Not many small subbies will have a rams

You might have to do it with them and get them to sign. As long as it is logical and sensible they should be OK.

[Redbeard]

Agree with @Nickfromwales re desirability of RAMS etc., but particularly with @saveasteading re whether they actually mean anything.

 

On one job of mine the EWI sub-contractor provided an impressive, unnecessarily lengthy, RAMS, but I am fairly certain the 'chaps on the tools' had never seen it. On another EWI job the contractor on the tools, their manager *and* the system provider's rep all showed an 'interesting' interpretation of a very obvious thermal by-pass situation. Again, in that case, the 'paper'work was great.

 

In reality, in these cases, a jolly good talk prior to start on site, with clear understanding on both sides, would have achieved much more than the 'paperwork' did in practice.

[Nickfromwales]

39 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

Not many small subbies will have a rams but in the days of AI I suppose its easy enough to knock one up. 

You need to cover your arse if you want to pretend to be a PC. 

[Nickfromwales]

20 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

You might have to do it with them and get them to sign. As long as it is logical and sensible they should be OK.

As above. 👆. It’s for the covering of one’s arse, vs staring blankly back and saying “what are RAMS?” if or when the shit hits the fan.

[Redbeard]

1 hour ago, Redbeard said:

In reality, in these cases, a jolly good talk prior to start on site, with clear understanding on both sides, would have achieved much more than the 'paperwork' did in practice.

...but, to be clear, I am not saying you do not need the 'paper' - you need, overall, to ensure compliance, probably via 'sensible conversation' followed by the document.

[MPx]

Interesting - this is about proportionality and talking responsibility to me and feels like the pendulum has swung too far - but clearly many here disagree. 

Yes I've read the rules.

Yes I've written and requested the required documents.

Yes I make best efforts to comply - including inductions/signatures/tidyness/etc.

No I don't want people hurt or worse on my project.

 

My points were: its extra work, extra expense, another whole layer of bureaucracy, not that clear to a self builder (or indeed a traditional builder who didn't have to bother with it pre 2015.)  In summary yet another barrier to the average person putting them off taking on a self build which is what this thread was intending to mitigate.

[saveasteading]

Let's put this in perspective.

 

How many on here have had a  formal visit or request to inspect the site or request to see the safety document?

 

Unless you have an accident or complaint it's very unlikely.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

How many on here have had a  formal visit or request to inspect the site or request to see the safety document?

I suspect there is a stronger correlation between sites with good paperwork and low accident rates. 

 

[ToughButterCup]

... erm , stronger  positive  correlation I think.  😁

[Dave Jones]

architects have been doing this (badly) for years.

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

... erm , stronger  positive  correlation I think.  😁

Depends how it is worded and chatted.

 

If x-axis is accidents, and y-axis is volume of useful paperwork, then if my hunch is right, it should be a negative correlation.

Swap the axis around, and it becomes positive (but still shows the same result).

if, on the other hand, the paperwork is too voluminous, badly written and unorganised, them the correlation could be 0, or flat, but with a lot of variance between data points.

 

[saveasteading]

For general interest.

When written risk assessments became a requirement, we put one together that was about 8 pages long, and attached to it a standard A4 form for each specific task. So there might only be one at the start of the job.

HSE snap visits (maybe 10% of projects or one per year) asked to see it. They were able to read it in 5 minutes, and follow up with questions and a site tour.

One inspector said he wished all manuals were like this, but that sadly it was changing.

 

What they most want to know.

Who is in charge? Everyone on site should know.

Then asks that person what is happening today, and show me the relevant paperwork.

Then a look at the work in progress and site in general. Often they'd give good advice 

 

 

 

When I retired, our file had expanded somewhat, as required,  but was kept relevant and job specific, and was generally one lever arch, half full.

On a major national contractor's site I saw they had 3 very full, big files. I happened to be in their cabin, being a subcontractor, when HSE turned up.  The manager couldn't find the relevant bit. HSE not impressed. That file was designed to keep the hierarchy safe, not the site personnel.

Mine he read and praised, looked at what we were doing and that was that. 

 

The bulk of the paperwork that is just waffle was (and is) of no interest.

 

So do it. They don't expect a professional file for a self- build but would from any biggish contactor you are using.

They have always been decent people in my experience.

 

The best bit of advice I can give for safety is to think "what could go wrong" and note the measures in place or sort it.

Practically it is often  by not having too much going on at the same time.

 

If I could find one of my blank forms I'd depersonalise it and publish it here...but I can't.

Maybe someone else can.

 

What you really, really don't want is HSE turning up to you after dealing with a nasty accident somewhere else and finding a shambles.

 

[LnP]

On 04/09/2026 at 23:36, MPx said:

This in spades for me.  One I didn't mention before - all the CDM2015 stuff.  Adds cost, adds work, deliberately frightening.  My oft repeated line on it was that I seemed to need to sign up for being chief blame taker for everything - but once they had someone in the frame to blame ... many of the difficulties evaporated.  I guess when/if something does go wrong now I'll go to prison which is a significant downside risk to just wanting to build a home.  But at least it'll be the type of crime with early release built in.

Reinforcing some of the comments made already ... in my opinion, CDM 2015 is good legislation and not about blame. The whole point of CDM is being organised and clear about who's doing what. That's a good thing for any project and will help it run not only safely but also well.

 

I also agree with comments made already that the usefulness of a RAMS in inversely proportional to its length. There's good advice and templates on the HSE web site about all this.

[Ed_]

On 04/09/2026 at 23:36, MPx said:

I'll go to prison which is a significant downside risk to just wanting to build a home.

Read some examples of HSE prosecutions. Its a good idea anyway to get a feel for how things can go badly wrong, but you may also be shocked at the leniency. Trainee working alone killed - £30k fine for example. You have to have done something really bad to go to jail, act sensibly and you will not. I'd argue that things like CDM are a help because they give you a framework to work within and put obligations on the professionals, before CDM you probably didn't have too many options as a homeowner or self builder looking to ensure contractors worked safely (including not endangering you).

 

One measure of whether you have the right attitude to safety is if you are willing to pay more for it. Safety costs and the client sets the tone for the site. If you employ the cheapest person who hasn't spent any time considering safety then you have some responsibility if it goes wrong. I had a basement contractor who didn't want to be PC, despite being the only contractor who would be onsite at that time and taking over from a bare site. I felt I could have done the PC role, and probably better than this contractor given their apparent attitude, but could I defend myself if anything went wrong and I, an amateur, was controlling the site part time rather than the experienced professional doing the work? Clearly it wouldn't have been right and their refusal to take a responsibility that was clearly theirs ruled them out.

 

[LnP]

Some thoughts on the cost of safety …

- If you think safety’s expensive, try having an accident (quote from process safety guru Trevor Kletz). 
- There’s often a benefit to set beside the cost. Think about how we used to do work at height off ladders and now all the handy equipment like portable scaffolds which not only make it safer, but also easier to do a better job. 
- We don’t have any choice about regulatory compliance, like implementing the CDM roles, but when it comes to choosing how we work, we’re only required to apply solutions which are reasonably practicable.

 

Regarding working with trades, I’m early enough in my self build not to have first hand experience, but I’m hoping that a bit of hand holding with writing RAMS will overcome any reluctance. I have had experience of this in an industrial setting and have found most contractors are happy to cooperate.

[Indy]

My personal experience on the matter of RAMS..

 

The build is being managed by a main contractor, who runs a very professional site and has taken on all the responsibilities. Keeps all documentation up to date and everything that HSE might need to so - no complaints. Any subbies that come onsite through him are known to him and he makes sure they are properly inducted, checks their insurance, gets a copy of the RAMS etc. All good - but the one thing I've noticed is that his subbies for different things are a little on the dearer side. Not surprising but we get a very smoothly managed end to end process with no headaches.

 

The one or two occasions where I've tried to get alternative quotes or bring my own team to come and do things cheaply - all went well until the point where they were supposed to start on site. Asked for their insurance and to fill out the relevant RAMS forms and they quickly decided that there wasn't enough meat on the bone to warrant the headache, so walked away from the job. To be fair, I had negotiated hard (about 10-15% lower than the quote from the main contractor's subbies) - but in the end, went with the known quantity to avoid the hassle. 

Edited 29 minutes ago by Indy