I don't really understand your question. If you are a contractor engaging a sub-contractor and they submit their RAMS for review you will ultimately own some responsibility for their SSoW if you accept the RAMS. It is not unusual for one or more organisations to be held accountable and prosecuted when things go awry.

I am aware of one instance where a major client in transport used to 'approve' contractors' RAMS, until that is a serious incident occurred and when the proverbial hit the fan they denied all responsibility...thereafter they only 'reviewed' contractors RAMS. In my view they still could be liable or partially liable.

Hi,

There are plenty of prosecution examples on HSE RSS feeds where multiple companies have been prosecuted for serious safety failings, mainly construction related due to the duty holder roles under CDM.

So, yes you can be prosecuted if there was something glaring which you missed off a risk assessment review which then leads to a significant accident.

However, if you can demonstrate you have taken all the necessary steps through the procurement process, to review at pre-construction stage etc. then ultimately it is the contractor who you are employing as a competent organisation that would more than likely be prosecuted for sub-standard risk assessments.

I come across a multitude of risk assessments on a daily basis, all templated and presented differently, much of them containing different scales of detail, typically using the semi-quantitative risk matrix thus establishing a low medium high evaluation to arrive at a particular control measure,

However, on one occasion, a supply chain representative who issued their RA prior to being allowed on site challenged the fact that I had requested a particular task involving demolition of small structure to a former council dwelling to be broken down into more specific hazards instead of grouping them all together under one task and arriving at single risk rating for all identified hazards associated with that task e.g.

• Premature collapse of structure
• Falling debris
• Overloading of floors
• Contact with Live services
• Inhalation of hazardous dust
• Noise over action values
• Protruding Nails within timber
• Exposure to hazardous agents

The guy insisted that his Risk Assessment was indeed “suitable and sufficient” with the above being adequately assessed arriving at likelihood 4 x severity 4 = 16 concluding the task being “high risk” for all of the grouped hazards.

The fact remains that in my opinion you cannot give a single risk rating to a multitude of hazards as each carryies or warrants an individual assessment.

Any comments would be greatly received.

Damian

Damian

I also agree that different tasks present different risks. Equally some risks are easier to control than others. So, to give what is in effect is a accumulative risk rating for a set of activities is pretty meaningless in my book. In a RA each task should be considered and significant risks articulated with or without a risk matrix and the mitigating controls applied. Not really rocket science I would have thought.