Working at Height: The Risk Assessment Most Sites Get Wrong

Ask most site managers whether they've got a working at height risk assessment and they'll say yes. Ask them whether it actually covers the job being done that day, and the answer gets shakier. Working at height is one of the most heavily regulated areas of construction safety, and it's also one of the most commonly done on autopilot, using a generic assessment that technically ticks a box without addressing what's actually happening 3 metres up a scaffold tower.

Here's where working at height risk assessments most often fall short, and what a proper one actually needs to cover.

The hierarchy gets skipped

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 set out a clear hierarchy: avoid working at height where you can, use equipment to prevent falls where you can't avoid it, and only fall back on equipment that minimises the distance and consequences of a fall as a last resort. A lot of risk assessments jump straight to "operatives will wear a harness" without ever recording whether the work could have been done from ground level, or whether a scaffold with edge protection would have removed the fall risk entirely rather than just softened it. Reviewers and inspectors want to see that hierarchy actually worked through, not skipped.

The assessment doesn't match the access equipment being used

A risk assessment written for a fixed scaffold doesn't automatically cover a mobile tower, a MEWP, or a ladder, even if they're all being used on the same job. Each type of access equipment has its own specific risks: tower stability and outriggers, MEWP ground conditions and exclusion zones, ladder angle and three points of contact. If your site is using more than one method of access, the risk assessment needs to address each one specifically, not lump them together under "working at height precautions."

Weather and ground conditions are an afterthought

Wind speed limits for MEWPs and towers, ground conditions for outriggers and stabilisers, and what happens if conditions change mid shift, these need to be specific figures and actions, not a general line about "checking the weather." A risk assessment that says "work will stop in high winds" without defining what counts as high winds for the specific equipment in use isn't giving the site team anything they can actually act on.

Rescue planning gets left out

If someone's working at height in a harness, there has to be a plan for what happens if they fall and end up suspended. Suspension trauma can become dangerous in a matter of minutes, so "call the emergency services and wait" isn't a rescue plan. A proper assessment names the rescue method, the equipment available on site to carry it out, and who's trained to use it. This is one of the most commonly missing sections, and one of the most serious.

Competence isn't checked, just assumed

"Operatives are trained in working at height" is a common line in risk assessments that nobody has actually verified. Which operatives, trained to what standard, and how recently? For scaffold, tower assembly, and MEWP operation in particular, there are specific competency cards and certificates that should be checked and recorded, not assumed because someone's done the job before.

What a working at height risk assessment should actually include

  • A record that the hierarchy of avoid, prevent, minimise has genuinely been considered, not just referenced
  • The specific access equipment being used, with its own risks and controls, not a generic "working at height" section
  • Defined weather and ground condition limits for that equipment
  • A named rescue plan with the equipment and trained people to carry it out
  • Evidence of competence for anyone assembling, inspecting, or operating access equipment
  • Inspection frequency for the equipment itself (scaffold handover certificates, tower inspection records, MEWP pre-use checks)

None of this is complicated once it's set out properly, but it does take a document written around the actual job rather than pulled from a generic template and left unchanged. If your site's working at height paperwork needs bringing up to a standard that will actually hold up to scrutiny, alongside the rest of your RAMS, that's exactly the kind of document I write for UK construction sites, built around the real job rather than a copy and paste template. You can see the RAMS writing service here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Got a question about your own situation? Ask below and I will get back to you. Comments are checked before they go live so there may be a short delay.

Popular posts from this blog

HMO Fire Safety Requirements, Room by Room

 Short answer: what counts as compliant changes depending on which room you're standing in. HMOs get treated differently to a normal let because more unrelated people are sharing escape routes, so the requirements are more detailed room by room rather than one blanket rule for the whole property. BEDROOMS Doors opening onto an escape route generally need to be fire doors, rated FD30, with a self closer, intumescent strips and smoke seals fitted. Distance matters too: a bedroom should be within 18 metres of a way out, or 7.5 metres if there's only one direction of escape available. Smoke detection in bedrooms is normally covered by the property's interlinked alarm system rather than a standalone unit. KITCHENS Kitchens are usually the highest fire risk room in an HMO, and the requirements reflect that. Fire doors here need to be to the same FD30 standard as bedrooms. Detection is different though, shared kitchens should have heat detectors rather than smoke alarms, since coo...
Read more

What the National Fire Risk Assessors Register Actually Checks

Following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, one of the recurring findings was that there was no reliable way for a building owner, employer, or member of the public to check whether the person carrying out a fire risk assessment was actually competent to do it. That gap is what national fire risk assessor registers exist to close. If you've come across the idea of a national register and you're not sure what it actually verifies, here's what these registers generally check and why it matters. The problem a register is trying to solve Because there's no single mandatory qualification required by law to carry out a fire risk assessment (the legal test is simply that the assessor is "competent," as set out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005), it's historically been very difficult for a client to judge, before hiring someone, whether they're actually up to the job. Anyone could describe themselves as a fire risk assessor. A register exists ...
Read more

What Inspectors Actually Look For in an HMO Inspection

 Short answer: they're checking three things, that people can escape a fire safely, that the amenities are adequate for how many people are actually living there, and that you've got the paperwork to prove you've been keeping on top of it. Miss any of the three and it shows immediately. FIRE SAFETY This is usually the first thing checked. Escape routes need to be clear and unobstructed, properly signed, with fire doors in the higher risk areas like kitchens and communal hallways. Fire extinguishers, where required, need to be accessible and show evidence of regular servicing. Smoke alarms on every floor, carbon monoxide detectors in any room with a fuel burning appliance, none of this is optional or something you can catch up on the morning of the visit. ROOM SIZES AND AMENITIES HMOs have legal minimum room sizes, 6.51 square metres for an adult, 4.64 for a child under 10, and inspectors will measure if they're unsure. Shared bathrooms and kitchens have to be genuinely ...
Read more