NEBOSH NGC common mistakes
NEBOSH NGC · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a risk assessment that lists hazards only ('trailing cables', 'noise') without stating who could be harmed, how, and the severity/likelihood judgement that justifies the control.
Candidates treat 'hazard' and 'risk' as synonyms and rush to controls, so the assessor cannot see the reasoning linking hazard to risk to control, which is what the marking criteria reward.
What to do instead
For each hazard write a short structured line: hazard → persons at risk → how harm occurs → likelihood × severity rating → existing controls → residual rating → further action. Practise converting ten bare hazard words into this full line until it becomes automatic.
Producing a practical assessment report with no prioritised action plan, or an action plan whose actions are vague ('improve housekeeping', 'provide training') with no owner, timescale, or priority ranking.
Under time pressure candidates spend everything on describing findings and run out of time for the section that carries a large share of the practical marks; they also confuse a recommendation with an action.
What to do instead
Reserve the last 15 minutes of the practical for the action plan. Write each action as a specific, measurable instruction with a named responsible person, a realistic completion date, and a priority (high/medium/low) tied to the risk rating. Do a timed dry run of the whole report before exam day.
Answering 'outline' or 'describe' questions with one-word or single-clause points, and answering 'explain' questions with description rather than a causal chain.
Candidates ignore the command word and write everything in the same style, so they lose marks for depth even when their technical knowledge is sound.
What to do instead
Learn the command words as mark schemes: outline = brief point per mark; describe = a sentence giving the features; explain = point plus reason/consequence ('because…', 'which means…'). Underline the command word before writing and count points against the marks available.
Giving generic controls such as 'provide PPE', 'train staff', or 'carry out a risk assessment' as the answer to a hazard-specific control question.
These are the first things that come to mind and feel safe, but they are hierarchy-of-control bottom rungs and are not specific to the agent or activity in the question.
What to do instead
Answer using the hierarchy of control in order: eliminate, substitute, engineering controls, safe system of work/administrative, then PPE as last resort. For each hazard, name the specific engineering measure (e.g. local exhaust ventilation, guarding, interlocks, reduced voltage) before mentioning PPE.
Confusing accident causation and reporting terminology: mixing up accident, incident, near miss, dangerous occurrence, and RIDDOR reportable categories, or stating that all accidents must be reported to the enforcing authority.
These terms overlap in everyday language and candidates rely on lay usage rather than the legal definitions, so answers misclassify events.
What to do instead
Build a one-page comparison table of accident, incident, near miss, dangerous occurrence, and reportable occupational disease, with the reporting trigger and timescale for each. Test yourself by classifying short scenario sentences until classification is reliable.
Treating risk assessment as a one-off paper exercise and omitting review triggers when asked about managing risk over time.
Candidates describe the five steps as a linear checklist and forget that risk assessment is a continuous cycle; review is the step most often dropped.
What to do instead
Whenever a question asks how risks should be managed, explicitly include review: after accidents/incidents, on change of process, substances, equipment or personnel, and at a defined scheduled interval. State who reviews and what triggers an immediate review.
Describing a safe system of work or permit-to-work as a single document to be signed, rather than a process with defined stages and authorisation.
Candidates know the phrase but not the mechanics, so they cannot score the marks for isolation, authorisation, supervision, and hand-back.
What to do instead
Learn permit-to-work as a sequence: identify the task and hazards, specify precautions and isolations, authorise and issue, supervise and monitor the work, then cancel and hand back with confirmation the area is safe. Be ready to list at least five formal elements.
Giving a single control for a physical hazard instead of covering the full exposure pathway (source, pathway, worker), e.g. answering noise only with 'hearing protection'.
Candidates recall the most visible control and stop, missing marks available for source and pathway measures.
What to do instead
For noise, vibration, dust, fumes, and similar agents, structure answers as source controls (substitution, damping, enclosure, LEV at source), pathway controls (segregation, distance, screens), and worker controls (rotation, health surveillance, PPE). Aim for at least three controls per agent.
Ignoring the human and organisational factors in management questions, answering only with technical or engineering measures.
Candidates revise the hazard domains heavily and underprepare the management domain, where culture, competence, communication, consultation, and monitoring are the expected content.
What to do instead
For any management question, deliberately add at least one people factor (competence and training, consultation with workers, supervision, safety culture, behavioural monitoring) alongside the technical and procedural points.
Spending too long on early questions in the written paper, leaving later high-mark questions answered in note form or not at all.
Candidates write everything they know on the first question to feel safe, without allocating time by marks, so the paper is unbalanced.
What to do instead
Before starting, convert marks into minutes (roughly one mark per minute) and write the target time beside each question. If a question overruns, stop, move on, and return only with leftover time. Practise at least two full papers under timed conditions.