Don't know if it's right but it sounds very similar to what our inspectors do except we call the form that they fill in if there is something extra a 'Dynamic Risk Assessment' form( I known that the risk assessment is not the form it's just what we call it).

It is the job issuers task to identify the relevant risk assessments in my view. At each premise the RA is updated for that premise and held there in the premise if there are to be retiurn calls in the future. You are simply using the Generic as the task RA except when there is a change so why not make it specific to that client? Again I say Never record dynamic RAs unless it reveals a permanent change that needs to be incorprated into the Task RA in future.

Thanks for the input so far, let me supply more details the RA I am talking about are for t duration works 2 hours max in a mixture of domestic and non domestic premises . So to send someone to carry out a risk assessment for each small task would be un sustainable. The reason the engineer needs to put the RA number on the ticket is because they may be other RA that are applicable if other work is identified ie original works is to service a boiler but find the pump requires replacing. Also by having to put the number on the ticket is shows he/ her has read the RA and agree's with it. Thanks

A good RA is pragmatic, simple and effective.

Still not convinced what value you're adding here. Seems somewhat bureaucratic and 'tick box'. I'd personally find it difficult to justify. A reasonable outcome is to have the trained and competent workforce come back to management with the new and the unexpected issues. I'd focus on a method that encourages that feedback.

This is how understand what is being proposed: * Engineers carry out a number of standard tasks * Risk assessments have been prepared for those standard tasks * Before they start work they are asked to review the appropriate risk assessment to confirm it applies * If the task and hazards are as described on the risk assessment you ask them to confirm that they are applying the specified controls and to make a record * If the task or hazards are different, you ask them to complete a job specific risk assessment All sounds very reasonable to me provided engineers are provided with suitable training and support (which you covered in the original post). Also, seems pretty pragmatic approach, using standard assessments to reduce workload where possible whilst keeping flexibility to address particular scenarios. The only potential issue would be if the number of standard jobs turns out to be small, which would mean the engineers were having to develop job specific assessments more often than not. References to 'dynamic risk assessments' are completely spurious here, in my opinion. There is nothing dynamic about the situation you describe, just that circumstances will vary from place to place.