RAMS Rejected by Building Control: How to Fix It

The 6 Most Common Rejection Reasons

Over the last few years of helping builders through the building-control process, we have seen the same six rejection reasons come up again and again. Together they account for roughly nine out of every ten rejected RAMS we see. If you fix these six, your re-submission almost always passes.

1. Generic template language with no site-specific content

The single most common reason. A RAMS that talks about “working at height hazards on the project” rather than “the 3.4m scaffold run along the rear elevation with a fragile polycarbonate roof light at grid C3” reads like boilerplate. Inspectors have seen thousands of these. The fix is to re-write every hazard so it names a specific site feature.

2. No site-specific risk assessment

Related but distinct. The RAMS might name some site features but the risk assessment itself is generic — every hazard has the same likelihood, severity, and control. A real risk assessment produces different numbers for different hazards on different sites. A domestic extension with a gas meter box 300mm from the excavation line has different foundation-phase risks from a project where the meter box is 4m away.

3. Missing competent-person sign-off

The RAMS must be signed and dated by a competent person. Best practice is to include their qualification reference (SMSTS, NEBOSH Construction Certificate, CIOB membership, or CDM- competent site manager). A RAMS with no signature block or a signature from someone whose competence cannot be established gets rejected immediately.

4. No F10 notification cross-reference (on notifiable projects)

Any project lasting more than 30 working days with more than 20 workers on site at any one point, or more than 500 person-days of construction work, must be notified to the HSE via the F10 online form. The RAMS should reference the F10 notification number on its front sheet. Missing the F10 reference is an automatic rejection on qualifying projects.

5. No method statement step breakdown

A risk assessment on its own is half a RAMS. The method statement is the other half — a numbered sequence of work steps that any competent operative could follow. For a domestic extension expect five to twelve steps covering arrive on site, set up welfare and exclusion zones, carry out the specific works phase (excavation / masonry / roofing / first fix), clean down, hand back. Without the sequence, inspectors cannot verify the hazards have been addressed in the right order.

6. Hierarchy of controls not applied

The hierarchy of controls is: eliminate, substitute, engineer, admin, PPE. PPE is always the last line of defence, never the first. A RAMS that lists PPE as the only or primary control for a hazard gets rejected. For every significant hazard, you must show what was eliminated or substituted first, what engineering controls are in place, what administrative controls apply, and only then PPE as the final barrier.

Can You Appeal a Building Control Rejection?

Yes. Section 16 of the Building Act 1984 gives you a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State within one month of a rejection. In practice, though, formal appeals are slow (three to six months is typical), and most of the time a re-submission with the fixes clears things up inside a week. We have only seen a handful of Section 16 appeals actually go to a determination — they are for genuine disputes about how a Building Regulation should be interpreted, not for disagreements about how specific a hazard paragraph needs to be.

Before escalating, try an internal review. Most councils have senior building control surveyors who can re-examine a rejected submission on request. If you genuinely believe the inspector has misapplied a regulation — for example they have cited a standard that does not apply to domestic work — ask for the senior surveyor to take a second look. That review is usually free and usually quick.

A more practical alternative on live projects is to switch to a private Approved Inspector. Approved Inspectors compete on service and can pick up a project from whatever stage it is at. They will want to re-inspect work already done, which takes a few days, but for a stuck local-authority project it is often faster than either an appeal or a long back-and-forth with the original inspector. Our sibling guide on building control for extensions covers the Approved Inspector route in more detail.

What Good RAMS Looks Like to Building Control

A RAMS that passes on first submission has a recognisable shape. The front sheet names the project, the site address, the dates, the principal contractor, the competent person who signed off, and the F10 reference if applicable. The body walks through every significant hazard in a consistent structure: hazard description tied to a specific site feature, who is at risk, likelihood and severity with a short justification, controls in hierarchy order, residual risk after controls, and the monitoring arrangement.

The method statement follows as a numbered sequence. Each step names the activity, the operatives involved, the equipment used, the hazard-and-control cross-reference back to the risk assessment, and the sign-off point (who inspects what before the next step begins). For a domestic extension this typically runs five to twelve steps. For a larger refurb it might run twenty. The length matters less than the clarity of the sequence.

Annexes carry the supporting paperwork: the R&D asbestos survey summary, the structural engineer’s calcs, the scaffold design, the party wall award, the drainage plan. The building control inspector does not need to read all of these, but having them annexed means the inspector can spot-check any point they are uncertain about without having to ask for extra documents. That shortens the review cycle.

What If the Rejection Comes Mid-Project?

Building control rejections mid-project are more stressful than pre-start rejections because work has already begun and the programme is running. The first instinct — to carry on and respond to the rejection from the site office — is usually the wrong one. If the rejection is about a safety-critical element (structural propping, scaffold design, services isolation), stop the affected activity until the fix is in place. Continuing to work on a rejected safety basis is how Prohibition Notices get served.

Communicate early with the client. A rejection is not a disaster, but it is a material change to the programme. A short, factual email to the client explaining that building control has asked for additional documentation, what the fix is, and what the programme impact is, prevents the rumour-and- panic dynamic that mid-project rejections can trigger. Domestic clients in particular appreciate being told first-hand rather than finding out from a neighbour.

Document the rejection and the fix in your site records. If a dispute arises later, your ability to show that you paused work, fixed the RAMS, got it re-approved, and only then resumed, is strong evidence of competent management. A mid-project rejection that is handled well is not a black mark — it is evidence that the system is working.