Gilbertd wrote:If you were to bother to read the UKLPG website, you'll see that it is the company that is registered, not every individual installer. So a company with 9 employees, one of whom has had his work checked and, it is assumed, will oversee and check the work done by the other employees, is still only 1 member.
Oh come on mate, wording like 'If you have bothered' is a bit inflammatory! I'm not out to fall out with anyone or anything but you could have just said 'UKLPGs website says'. I anticipated that somebody (expecting it to be Rosko) would raise the point you made here and I will thank you for making it. I am aware that when UKLPG 'vet' potential members they check out both the premises and a finished installation done by the potential member. So it is perfectly OK for a none UKLPG member, who works in the same premises as the UKLPG member, to install LPG systems on vehicles as long as the UKLPG member checks the install? Perfectly reasonable, I won't pick fault with that, my earlier point that it doesn't matter who fits the system or where it was fitted provided the end result meets the BS Standard fully agrees with this. So where would UKLPG draw the line... One UKLPG member overseeing 9 installers? 29 installers? 100 installers? Do you think that after a while the UKLPG member will start to have his own thoughts on who, out of those people he is overseeing, he believes are able to work without being overseen? Do you think he might start to rubber stamp these people's installs without actually checking some of them himself? Do you think some UKLPG members are likely to extend this kind of situation to rubber stamp installers not under the same roof, maybe rubber stamping installs on the basis of a phone call? I do, and I know for a fact that it happens, the figures also seem to suggest it happens. Just in case I am asked about which figures I refer to again, let's use Rosko's figures: 20% of installers are UKLPG members, 70% of installs are on UKLPG's database (which I'm not sure I believe). The UKLPG man, according to Rosko, takes his time over installs so does an installation in 3 days like most of the better installers... If the 70% claim is true, this UKLPG member will 'UKLPG check' all the vehicles that he has personally converted, plus 2.5 vehicles that are converted by none UKLPG members per vehicle that he personally converts. According to Rosko, a UKLPG check is a time consuming thing to do! Rosko has (on other thread(s)) justified the 'nominal' £100 charge for a UKLPG check on the basis that UKLPG checks take longer than only one hour.. How long did you say a UKLPG check took again Rosko? Multiply the amount of time it takes to perform one UKLPG check by 3.5 UKLPG checks per week (which the average UKLPG installer must do if the 20%/70^ figures are correct and we can see how much time the average UKLPG member supposedly spends performing UKLPG checks. Obviously this time must come out of the time that the UKLPG member has to do other things - like personally converting vehicles to LPG. So do the UKLPG checks only take one hour, implying that UKLPG members dedicate only about half of one working day to UKLPG checks, 2 hours, almost a full working day dedicated to UKLPG checks, or 3 hours and more than most people's full working day dedicated to doing UKLPG checks at £33 an hour? At £33 per hour I would be prepared to spend 50 hours per week doing UKLPG checks, a nice earner at £1650 per week! But then I wouldn't get many installs fitted myself, would lose up to date experience and lose track of technology used for actually converting vehicles and wouldn't actually expect to be able to get 50 hours worth of UKLPG check work per week anyway... I don't think I would find there to be enough call for UKLPG checks even if I vastly undercut most UKLPG installers, even though there are only 150 of them in the country...
Gilbertd wrote:UKLPG, you and nobody else can work out the exact figures of how many converted cars exist. What sources of information do we have? UKLPG Register and DVLA database. There will be older installs that were done by registered members prior to the Register coming into being, so there's a few there not being counted. Many, and if my own experience is anything to go by, a vast majority, have not had the fuel type changed on the V5. Some of these may be on the Register but probably most are not. In my own case, out of the 4 converted cars I have or do own, 1 is on the Register and none have had the fuel type changed on the V5. So if we take that as a base point, for every car on the Register there are a further 3 that aren't. For every car that has the fuel type shown as LPG on the V5 there are at least 4 more that don't. There will be overlaps where something will show up on both lists, but we don't know what proportion that will be. So, nobody, not UKLPG, DVLA and certainly not you or I, can say how many converted cars are out there.
Agreed entirely! Please see if you can get Rosko to see realise the same. See if you can stop UKLPG and their members from implying points and making claims based on numbers they cannot know. Let it be said that if UKLPG didn't make any claims then the only argument we would have here would be whether or not we actually need a safety system - we would not be arguing about numbers on UKLPGs safety scheme because UKLPG would not be making any claims involving numbers or trying to persuade insurers or government with numbers.
If we went to the system that I suggested, any LPG converted vehicle that does not currently have LPG listed as a fuel type on the logbook will have that change done during it's next MOT, so within just under 2 years every LPG converted vehicle tat has been on the road within that time will have it's fuel type changed on the logbook. You were not against having your vehicle fuel type changed on the logbook, you attempted to have it changed but the DVLA said you needed a completed receipt from the installer. With the system that I suggested, the DVLA would take the MOT mans word for it OR you would be able to produce the MOT to DVLA, DVLA would see that the vehicle with's it's LPG system passed the MOT, the DVLA will therefore have no problem changing your vehiclle's fuel types on the logbook.
Almost forgot to add this - that one installer who has been converting vehicles to LPG for many years, since before UKLPG / LPGA started the 'registration' scheme, this installer who has only very recently become a member of UKLPG, was approached years ago by LPGA who asked for his own 'database' of converted vehicles. This installer refused to hand over his own database to LPGA, the way he explained it to me was that he used a few choice words instead of simply saying 'no'. This installer claims that the main reason he decided to join UKLPG was for the 'convenience' of his customers (in case they wanted to use one of the minority of insurers that look to UKLPGs database). So, this installer could have done something to 'ensure' UKLPGs potential involvement, maybe UKLPG safety checks on those vehicles on his own database yet decided not to. I might ask this installer 'But surely if you think there are any truths in UKLPG's safety messages you would hand over the database that they ask you for?'I might ask this installer 'But surely since those vehicles are not on UKLPGs database their poor owners will not be able to insure them'? This installer is arguing the case for UKLPG on this forum. You generally agree with his points but I wonder if he agrees with the points he makes himself.
Gilbertd wrote:I've read the website and looked into what is needed, and the cost of course, to become a member. I've not got that many years until I can retire and even working for the Government doesn't mean I'm not at a risk of redundancy at some point. Could be a nice extra little string to my bow to take on a few installs and if I can do it without having to pay someone else to check my work and add a conversion to the Register, then why not?
I'm sure all the installers on this forum would think it great if you did get more involved in converting vehicles, you'd be a clever bloke to swap tips with etc and I dare say you would apply a bit of lateral thinking and try lots of different components / systems, maybe selecting components on a per vehicle basis like myself. Regarding 'pay someone else to check your work', without being a UKLPG member yes you would have to pay someone to register your installs with UKLPG, but only if you thought registering installs with UKLPG or involving UKLPG at all necessary, and then you wouldn't need to have anyone physically check you work, you could just phone a UKLPG member to do that for you - especially a UKLPG member that trusts you to do a good job or a UKLPG member that you're pally with! Since you're suggesting this happens when you've retired, you might find it more financially viable not to pay UKLPG membership costs and annual subscriptions - Even UKLPG members have to pay about £15 to register a vehicle on UKLPG's database so you'd need to be doing a fair bit of work in your retirement to be better off as a UKLPG member even if you entered every install you do on the database.
Gilbertd wrote: I mean, I could even make a few quid by adding cars to the Register in return for a bung without even having to get out of bed! UKLPG point out in a number of places that the approved installer scheme is being done on a non-profit basis
Yes you certainly could! And once you were in this trade you might see that this happens regularly. You might start of with the intention of doing everything 'by the book', then become a little disillusioned when you see vehicles in your workshop that are on UKLPGs database but with installs that certainly wouldn't meet your own standards, including your safety standard, including UKLPGs standard, including the BS safety Standard (upper case S). You might start to wonder if the investment in UKLPG was worth it, look around yourself at others in the industry and realise that they are making their investment pay off by offering others database registrations over the phone to at least earn that 'investment' back.
Gilbertd wrote:Your estimate of £320k may be a touch high but even if it isn't, it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things. A employee is entitled to claim 45p per mile for using his own vehicle for company business, that's going to add up when travelling around the country checking on installs and premises. Office space isn't cheap, £5k a month for an office isn't out of the way, then there's the same again for business rates. General running and staff costs are going to push it up and, lets face it, what's the going rate for a qualified engineer with assessment qualifications these days? You mention only two names so assume 2 members of staff, well there's £100k. They aren't the only staff either, having spoken to them on the phone, I spoke to a woman (and very helpful she was), so there's at least one more member of staff. Even if we are only looking at two engineers and three or four girls in an office, there's the best part of £200k of your £320k gone straight away. It may sound like a big number but it isn't in reality.
You know as well as I do that a company does not have to make a profit to be paying it's staff a very good salary! In very simple terms a company's profits are it's incomings less it's outgoings and salaries are included in those outgoings. Bill Gates from Microsoft could claim Microsoft didn't make a profit if he decided to pay himself $billiion per year! If a company makes a lot of money but pays staff all the profits then the company has simply paid it's staff all the profits instead of re-investing in the company. UKLPG members claim UKLPG is the trade body for the vehicle LPG conversion industry, yet I have never seen an advert on the telly promoting LPG conversions on vehicles - Now that would generate rather a lot of interest from the public eh!!! Imagine an advert on the telly - Want to save 40% on fuel bills, immediately, no gimmicks, no need to change your 'proper' car to one of those tiny, diesels, no need to pay £8000 to have that kind of economy, your car can be that economical right now if you invest £1000 in an LPG conversion, your car will then be worth more when you resell it too!!!
Gilbertd wrote:SnoozyBMW wrote:
Actively seeking to discredit uklpg whilst also favouring further regulation would also appear to be a contradiction in terms.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Show that an existing, self appointed, regulator is not fit for purpose and get it replaced with something that is and has a supporting mandate to do the job properly.
Happy with that comment! Much better than saying 'no changes are gonna be made so what's the point in discussing it'!
I missed answering one of your points Rosko...
rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:there may be many people in the government that believe UKLPG are currently on top of safety in the vehicle LPG conversion sector and there is no need to make any changes.
This may be effecting legislative changes.
That is quite correct. There is considered to be no absolutely need for them. Gov do employ expert advisors, but I expect they've been bribed or bullied etc. in your world.
Does this count as addressing and agreeing to your one of your points, do I get a prize?
I'm not sure it does really answer my point Rosko, because again you have selectively quoted from a longer point that I made and my point now appears out of context. I could quote myself here to show my full point which will show it in context where it will be apparent that it is a much stronger point against your argument instead of seeming to confirm your argument but instead I will ask people to read my original point if they are unsure of the context.
Expert advisors - Like UKLPG you mean? Advice like in the letter (that you posted a link to) that UKLPG sent to government, the letter with those numbers that we all agree do not contain numbers relevant to the vehicle LPG conversion industry? Bribed or bullied or simply misled - like the majority of LPG conversion customers, maybe like Mondeoman?
rossko wrote:mondeoman wrote:You are probably not interested but I am currently actively lobbying government ...
Good for you, whatever the outcome. I am
so fed up with action-free hot air.
Seems to me Mondeoman and myself are saying the same kind of things and hoping to make the same kind of changes! Seems Mondeoman's points receive a completely different reception from Rosko than when I make them! Seems by any talk of 'hot air' Rosko is referring to the fact that Mondeoman has decided to dive straight in and 'lobby the government' whereas I have been talking about the pros and cons of the current situation versus the pros and cons of a system that I (and now Mondeoman) suggested. Seems there is little difference between myself and Mondeoman's thoughts except that I chose to discuss, suggest and raise awareness of my thoughts whereas Mondeoman hasn't done that, not recently anyway. I don't think Mondeoman is wrong to dive straight in and go for it and I don't think I was wrong to take my approach. But maybe Rosko has good reason to prefer people to dive straight in and lobby the government with a proposal against the trade body that he seems to hold so dear, rather than them discuss it with him and others in the trade first?
rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
you certainly gave me the impression that you think UKLPGs existing scheme is fit for purpose
It's a very good approximation, and more importantly there is no alternative at all. Nor likely to be one.
I'me keener on making things work than burning them down.
I have been arguing that UKLPGs scheme isn't fit for purpose. I have been suggesting an alternative. I have agreed that the alternative I have suggested is unlikely to be realised. I have said that it is unlikely to be realised partly because people who really ought to be interested do not seem to be interested. I have said that I might support UKLPGs scheme if I thought it could be made to work. I have listed reasons why I think it extremely unlikely to be capable of being changed enough for it to be made to work. Some of those reasons are because UKLPG would be taking a risk suggesting the need to a compulsory scheme to government... Imagine the proposal: (UKLPG) We now believe that we need a mandatory scheme where every vehicle has to be inspected by law. (Gov) We do not make legislative changes unless we feel changes are necessary. You seem to have everything in hand. We have read your letter and it seems you have a viable safety scheme, most of the supply chain for LPG equipment are your members, most people that fit the equipment are your members, most vehicles that are converted have been checked by your members and found to be safe, you have a database of converted vehicles which insurers use to check vehicles have been checked by your members. Or are you now saying that your previous claims are not true? Do you actually only have very limited penetration in this industry? If you have such small penetration in this industry then we will indeed regulate it with legislation and your trade body will not be required to participate, we already have the MOT scheme and this scheme now covers the safety of LPG installs, we will not require any involvement from your trade body. Why did you not tell us the truth earlier - Could the reason be that you receive money from people from membership fees and every time you update your database with a newly converted vehicle? Could the reason be that you anticipated we would move to the legislated MOT system and you would therefore lose all this funding?
Sometimes it is easier and more sensible to pull down and rebuild than it is to repair the existing house.
rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:and have argued all points that I have made
Very many of them, and just as often asked you to substantiate things apparently plucked from the air
If this is about numbers again I agree with others on this thread that nobody has the numbers. This implies that LPGA were incorrect to quote any numbers in the first place. then UKLPG, then installers like yourself. Very difficult for anyone to know numbers. Dai is the most likely person here to know numbers having previously worked for a well known supplier. We have all (including you) agreed %'s based on Dai's info and they support my arguments more than they do yours.
mondeoman wrote:We all have the same opinion on Mondeoman
Sorry for the above comment Mondeoman / Paul. I didn't get chance to read any of your posts, I could only see 'this post has been automatically deleted by an autoscrub routine' which made whole thread(s) unreadable. I didn't know you had good reason to delete your posts. My memory must have served me incorrectly because I thought the overwhelming consensus was that you were in the wrong at the time - had you down as some kind of internet troll - I probably had you and the people you were arguing against mixed up! Apologies again.
Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk
Was busy myself this morning, work tomorrow too. Always tell myself I'd rather have a day off when it isn't a bank holiday, but then end up not getting the day off anyway! 
)