C11rjy

Some good points above. One thing I’d add from going through this transition myself is that whoever’s reviewing the paperwork is usually just checking for consistency rather than detail. They want to see that the method statement, risk assessment and any site info all tell the same 'story' I used to treat them as separate documents and it always felt repetitive. What worked better for us was building them as a single system where the method feeds the risk assessment and the site-specific bits sit on top. Once that structure’s in place, it’s quick to adapt job to job. we ended up rebuilding ours in Word after a rejection so we could reuse and tweak them properly rather than starting from scratch each time. Then we can just have it loaded on the tablet on site. Since then we’ve not had any questions coming back from clients. For mostly domestic work it can feel overkill, but once you start touching commercial or managed sites it’s worth getting a solid base in place early.

We looked at apps and ended up going the other way. Most of the software was either overkill, expensive, or a pain for lads on site. We now run a standardised RAMS, COSHH and plant & equipment pre-use check system that we reuse job-to-job and tailor per site. It works well for principal contractor work and commercial sites and its easy to submit. We still use external LOLER where required, but having consistent pre-use checks and RAMS in place keeps everything aligned. Apps sound good in theory, but paperwork is still reviewed by people who we've found mainly want clarity and consistency rather than another login. Happy to explain how we’ve structured it if it helps.

The advice above is sound — manufacturer SDS sheets are the starting point and the HSE COSHH e-tool is useful for understanding exposure and control measures. Where people often get caught out later on is keeping everything joined up. It’s not just about having individual COSHH assessments, but also a clear substance register and making sure what’s on paper actually reflects what’s being used on site. On commercial or principal contractor jobs, they’ll usually want to see COSHH and PUWER managed alongside RAMS, with evidence it’s reviewed and applied rather than just filed away.

When you move from domestic work into site work it’s usually less about proving you can do the job and more about reassuring the client that you’ve thought it through. In my experience a method statement doesn’t need to be over-complicated. Most clients just want to see: • What the job is • How you’re going to do it (sequence of works) • The main site-specific risks • What control measures are in place • Roles and responsibilities I’ve found it works best when the MS ties in closely with the RAMS rather than being treated as a separate, generic document. Clear and readable tends to go down better than something padded out with jargon. For straightforward tree work it can often be kept to a couple of pages if it’s structured properly. Once you’ve done a few, they’re fairly quick to adapt job to job. Hope that helps.