Rank: New forum user 
|
We are installing several portacabins on our site and the contractor appointed has provided generic RAMs for the job. They will have to use our neighbours site to lift the protacabins into place. They have said they will charge £380 for site specific RAMs. In my view they should provide site specific RAMs as part of the opertation regardless. Am I right to push back on this, or suck it up and pay the additional cost?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Jemma, With regards to RAMS, anything described as ‘generic’ naturally raises concerns about suitability—though that doesn't necessarily mean it’s not acceptable. It ultimately depends on whether they can demonstrate that the documentation is valid and appropriate for the specific task. That said, I’m a little unclear about the context. The subject of the thread refers to a Generic Lift Plan, but the content seems to relate more to the RAMS. It’s important to remember that the Lift Plan and the RAMS are not the same thing. While they may be able to justify using a generic set of RAMS—assuming they’ve properly reviewed them against the site-specific conditions—I would not accept a generic lift plan under any circumstances. A generic lift plan cannot realistically account for key factors such as: - Load details (although, if this is for a standard product, this may be covered in this instance)
- Site and/or environmental conditions
- The lift travel route from the lifting point to the final laydown location
- Emergency arrangements
- Site-specific risks that your premises may pose to their team
Finally, for them to suggest that you should pay extra to make the lift plan task-specific is concerning. Ensuring the lift plan is fit for purpose is a basic requirement and should be included in the agreed scope and cost of the work—not treated as an optional extra. Hope it helps.
|
 1 user thanked antbruce001 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thank you for your response, that aligns with my thoughts as well. The document provided is a mix of a risk assessment, method statement and an incomplete table for the load information and equipment details. I will be pushing back on this, thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Gemma, I have worked for Principal Contractors fo so many years I can't remember when I started, and I have never experienced a sub contracctor trying to charge for their risk assessments and method statements. Tell them it is their responsibility to provide their RA/MS and they will not be allowed on site until they have been recieved and checked to see if they are suitable for their job. Same goes for their Lift Plan. Edited by user 07 April 2025 10:33:27(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Jemma Remember one of the most important tenets of law! Nobody can Contract out of their Criminal legal responsibilities. Which means however any Contract with the company doing the lift might be, it is implicit in their Contract that they will comply with their statutory responsibilities inclusive of THEM doing a "suitable and sufficient" assessment of the risks (and all that goes with that). So, far from considering that the cost of doing risk assessment documentation is something with some £££ up for negotiation, perhaps put the ball back in their court and ask them to demonstrate HOW a generic set of paperwork could be "suitable and sufficient" for the local circumstances. Sounds rather as if they are somebody is angling for excuses for a "CLAIM" but if the Contract Administrator knows their stuff, that claim should be negated fairly rapidly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.