UKLPG comments

[rossko]

So - Are you saying there has been an Act of Parliament that UKLPGs scheme is endorsed by government?

Can't see anywhere I said that, are you making stuff up again?

If so, why isn't it mandatory?

I pointed to DfTs ostensible reasons that they didn't follow through with their legislation. If you don't like that, your argument is with DfT

I asked you what is dismantled and you haven't yet answered...

I asked you what was in your proposal many times and you've never answered, ner-ner?
Okay, baby steps for the professional. Like I said, you are not giving one thought to actually implementing your "test". This is not actually of interest is it.
Go away and think about PRVs. These devices prevent even a shoddy or rusty tank from being a hazard to anyone around it, so in my view they are the most important. But I'll happily accept that's just my view. Perhaps you would like to tell us how your test will approach PRVs, if at all.

You probably misunderstand what 'dismantling' means in an MoT context. Find out if they check all the wheel nuts are fitted, for example.

EDIT - actually, just go with your tank thing - think about checking that for markings.

UKLPG gives you a marketing advantage eh?

Hope so, that is one of the primary purposes of a trade association. Just eats you up.

Of those documents you're posted links to, some turn out to be written by UKLPG themselves, some seem to be government papers / bills that were never passed, some seem to be 'Acts of Parliament' that still don't endorse UKLPGs scheme.

On every case I have told you why - information sources, disbelieve as you like. Windows into the thinking of the legislators that you want to influence. Acts of Parliament are the law of the land, by all means belittle with quote marks, but they are the current reality that any proposal will either have to fit in with or get amended.
Just ignore 'em, no skin off my nose.

There wouldn't be a great deal of 'working out a practical idea' if my MOT suggestion was adopted.

Agreed here, hopelessly impractical.

Rosko has apparently done some research and found some Acts of Parliament which he reckons back up his arguments.

Which arguments, when did I say that?

This scheme so far seem better than UKLPGs scheme, if only because it would be policed by Vosa, not by 2 guys who set up a profit making organisation which pretends to have a viable safety scheme.

You do realise that VCSA can contract a specialist organisation to administer such a scheme ... and that they would be allowed/expected to turn a profit on administering it, just as the examiners will be doing it as a for-profit business.
Just keeping the careful what you wish for concept alive

Please explain how you reckon I am expressing my ideas on safety standards

No problem:

"A Calor cylinder strapped securely in the boot is as safe as an older BRC tank without an electrovalve" You don't need me to spell out the problems with that? I will, gladly.

"A minor point ... If there is a leak between the filler and the tank then (a) only the gas in the pipe between the filler and tank can leak and (b) the leak will be very minor, or the customer will get it repaired pronto." To put in context, this was about whether this super MpT check would even bother about leak-checking the filler. I am deeply embarrased about a 'professionals' attitude.

You seem to be implying that what I suggest would be worse for safety.

Yes. I do have to say that I don't have very much idea about your particular scheme. since you have never stated any of its content or even objectives. I'm guessing, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone else.

UKLPG have only Mike Chapman and one other guy to do checks, they don't do unannounced checks, but even if they did, all the UKLPG members know them from a mile away anyway.

You just haven't been paying attention, have you.

[Gilbertd]

The single most important part of an LPG install for everyone's safety is the tank - there is nothing to dismantle on a tank

Errm, so how do you check the valve on a toroidal tank without removing the cover? That's dismantling and an MoT tester isn't allowed to dismantle. In just the same way as every MoT tester in the country knows that the front subframe mountings on a Nissan Micra rot away but as you need to remove the plastic undertray to see them, they can't fail it because that would involve dismantling. The rear end of a Ford Ka rots away within the 'Prescribed Area' but can't be seen unless you take the back bumper off, but that's dismantling. A lot of cars have plastic trims over the outer sills, but they can't see the rot on the outer sills because they aren't allowed to take the trims off to look. The steel fuel pipes on a Classic Range Rover run along the top of a chassis rail so unless there is petrol actually dribbling off the rail, they can't be seen so can't be a fail. Under your idea you would do away with the UKLPG scheme so that means that an install wouldn't have to meet CoP11, it would just have to be able to pass an MoT which does not allow a tester to dismantle. So the tank valve can't be checked for a shut off solenoid or even a PRV, pipes can be run behind plastic undertrays where they can't be checked, pipes won't need to be clipped at prescribed intervals, just stick them in the plastic clips with the petrol lines or tie wrap them to a brake pipe, who cares, it'll still pass an MoT.

I write common sense points, common sense points are very easy to make and very easy to justify....... some seem to be government papers / bills that were never passed

But you are talking about a change in legislation, common sense doesn't enter into it, in fact, it's probably a disadvantage. Bills do get introduced but dropped, because the easiest way of getting something dropped is to talk about it for too long so it runs out of time and is shelved. If the general feeling within Government is that if something is not really necessary, or if the majority of MPs don't really understand it, it'll be talked out of time.

Without enforcement of fuel type change on logbooks many installs would simply not be declared to insurance companies, these installs would be more likely to be the DIY installs, these installs would be more likely to be unsafe - without enforcement of logbook fuel type change any safety system will still fail. If logbook fuel type changes were enforced there might then follow a lot of questions on why there suddenly seemed to be five times as many vehicles converted to LPG compared to previous claims by UKLPG.

Which would immediately beg the question of if there are so many more converted vehicles on our roads than it was at first thought and there have been so few incidents involving converted vehicles, then they must be inherently safe so why is anyone getting so worried about it? Suddenly, the percentage of dangerous installs that are involved in incidents drops five fold. If we take the figure of converted (and factory fitted) vehicles on the DVLA database of being reasonably accurate, there's 150,000 of them. If we say that in every year 15 of them are involved in an incident, which is probably a much higher figure than in reality as I suspect we would hear about it, but bear with me. That means that 1 in 10,000 (or 0.01%) of installs is potentially dangerous. Suddenly, if it is discovered that there are actually 5 times that number of converted vehicles, that means there's 750,000 of them out there so only 1 in 50,000 (or 0.002%) are inherently dangerous. So insignificant that any Bill would be talked out and dropped. Anyway, as I've already pointed out from my own experience, while it is a legal requirement to inform DVLA of a change of fuel type, they aren't really bothered and won't always change the V5.

If an MOT tester is discovered by Vosa to be doing an MOT test incorrectly then he will lose his licence to do MOT checks, MOT checks likely being the main part of his work.. Vosa will put him out of a job.... Vosa do unannounced checks on MOT testers, taking vehicles with specific faults etc to see if the MOT tester will discover them.

Quite correct they do, but that only checks that the test is being done properly. They will also turn up unannounced and ask to see the last vehicle that was tested. If, in the case of many of the while you wait testing stations, if the customer has already taken the car away and gone home, then they can't check it. If a tester is going to do his own car, he'll do it at the end of the day when he knows it is far less likely for VOSA to turn up to check it. It's self certification, no different to an LPG installer self certifying his own install. I asked you to reconcile that but you haven't.

[SimonHobson]

If we take the figure of converted (and factory fitted) vehicles on the DVLA database of being reasonably accurate

Just an FYI - my 90 is still listed as a diseasel. I've informed DVLA but they want proof I can't be hassled to jump through the hoops for. I've done what I'm legally obliged to do (informed them), the law does allow them to ask for evidence but doesn't require me to provide it

[Gilbertd]

Same problem I had with my Saab. It came with an LPG safety certificate issued by an installer that stated that the original installer was Unknown. Told DVLA about the change and gave them the certificate but they wanted something from the unknown original installer. I would have though a safety certificate on an LPG system would have been sufficient proof that it had an LPG system personally......

Since then, I've never bothered to tell them. I got no paperwork regarding the LPG system with either the LSE or the ex-plod P38 but the 4.0SE I've recently bought came with an LPGA certificate and is on the Register. Still shows petrol in the V5 though.......

[SimonHobson]

I think one of the options I was offered was to send them a letter, on headed paper, from a garage which stated that the vehicle had been altered. My MoT place has done that for me in the past, but until I get the LPG finished (it only needs wiring, but I seem to need 10 day weeks these days ) I can't be bothered.
What was really odd was that they would not accept the fact that it was MoTed on petrol as evidence that it was now a petrol vehicle I suspect they were looking for something with evidence of the engine number as well - I wonder how many people actually bother reporting an engine change when it's just a straight swap ?

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
So - Are you saying there has been an Act of Parliament that UKLPGs scheme is endorsed by government?

Can't see anywhere I said that, are you making stuff up again?

LPGC wrote:
If so, why isn't it mandatory?

I pointed to DfTs ostensible reasons that they didn't follow through with their legislation. If you don't like that, your argument is with DfT

What did I make up before? I'm asking why you bothered to link to Acts of Parliament that don't say UKLPGs scheme is to become mandatory? If you think UKLPGs scheme is makes sense and you think we need a mandatory scheme, and UKLPG and their members feel the same, then maybe you and/or UKLPG should very much want a change in legislation to make UKLPGs scheme mandatory.... I believe UKLPG would want such a change but individual members would not want this change despite anything they say about safety. UKLPGs earlier claims would be seen to be misleading when the numbers of conversions fitted per year suddenly jumped five fold over the figures they advised government but they would make more profit nevertheless, individual members would lose any marketing advantage.

LPGC wrote:
I asked you what is dismantled and you haven't yet answered...

I asked you what was in your proposal many times and you've never answered, ner-ner?
Okay, baby steps for the professional. Like I said, you are not giving one thought to actually implementing your "test". This is not actually of interest is it.
Go away and think about PRVs. These devices prevent even a shoddy or rusty tank from being a hazard to anyone around it, so in my view they are the most important. But I'll happily accept that's just my view. Perhaps you would like to tell us how your test will approach PRVs, if at all.

You probably misunderstand what 'dismantling' means in an MoT context. Find out if they check all the wheel nuts are fitted, for example.

EDIT - actually, just go with your tank thing - think about checking that for markings.

Look again at page 19 Rosko. I think that was the last time you asked me what was in my proposal. Watch out because Gilbert first pulled me up for calling it a proposal, then for calling it a suggestion.. You've got to call it a thesis now according to your mate.
Since the MOT scheme seems to run quite nicely, and since I am only suggesting a very slightly changed MOT test for newly converted vehicles, I don't think there would be very much need to put a lot of thought into how it would be implemented, especially not at this stage.
I'm thinking about PRVs now.... Wondering how you dismantle them for inspection when the customer brings in a vehicle full of gas? Thinking about tank venting - easily covered in an MOT update 'internal tanks must be externally vented'. Wondering now why you reckon a PRV offers protection from a rusty shoddy tank - It depends just how rusty doesn't it, because a very rusty tank won't be protected by a PRV? And you can't really tell how thick a tank is unless you have ultrasonic test gear like me. Do UKLPG members need to have ultrasonic test gear?
I'm not concerned for the moment if an MOT check makes sure all the wheel nuts are fitted. If not, then it would seem to be a good idea to include this in the next update that MOT testers receive - But I imagine many MOT testers would have a good laugh at that one.

All good points Gilbert - but does removal of an inspection cover really imply dismantling? If so, this could be included in the next MOT update. You will point out this is veering away from the MOT scheme and I will agree, but this is one of the few exceptions. You cannot buy a multivalve that doesn't have a PRV, because they're not made. You would be surprised how many UKLPG registered vehicles I have seen with pipes running above plastic under-trays that are not secured in accordance with COP11. I am similarly surprised by how few clips some vehicle manufacturers use to secure flimsy plastic petrol pipes when they run above plastic trays. I suppose vehicle manufacturers and some LPG installers consider this safe, as the pipes are protected and secured more completely by the plastic tray than they would be by clips anyway...

LPGC wrote:
I write common sense points, common sense points are very easy to make and very easy to justify....... some seem to be government papers / bills that were never passed
But you are talking about a change in legislation, common sense doesn't enter into it, in fact, it's probably a disadvantage. Bills do get introduced but dropped, because the easiest way of getting something dropped is to talk about it for too long so it runs out of time and is shelved. If the general feeling within Government is that if something is not really necessary, or if the majority of MPs don't really understand it, it'll be talked out of time.

None of us on this forum are MPs, write bills or write Acts of Parliament, very likely none of us fully understand the jargon or processes. All we can do here is discuss the common sense points. None of the papers / bills / Acts so far brought to our attention affect the current situation or should affect our common sense take on the situation. Some people are very reluctant to admit the common sense behind my points and would rather confuse the issue by linking to papers that they didn't know existed when arguing against my points.

LPGC wrote:
Without enforcement of fuel type change on logbooks many installs would simply not be declared to insurance companies, these installs would be more likely to be the DIY installs, these installs would be more likely to be unsafe - without enforcement of logbook fuel type change any safety system will still fail. If logbook fuel type changes were enforced there might then follow a lot of questions on why there suddenly seemed to be five times as many vehicles converted to LPG compared to previous claims by UKLPG.
Which would immediately beg the question of if there are so many more converted vehicles on our roads than it was at first thought and there have been so few incidents involving converted vehicles, then they must be inherently safe so why is anyone getting so worried about it? Suddenly, the percentage of dangerous installs that are involved in incidents drops five fold. If we take the figure of converted (and factory fitted) vehicles on the DVLA database of being reasonably accurate, there's 150,000 of them. If we say that in every year 15 of them are involved in an incident, which is probably a much higher figure than in reality as I suspect we would hear about it, but bear with me. That means that 1 in 10,000 (or 0.01%) of installs is potentially dangerous. Suddenly, if it is discovered that there are actually 5 times that number of converted vehicles, that means there's 750,000 of them out there so only 1 in 50,000 (or 0.002%) are inherently dangerous. So insignificant that any Bill would be talked out and dropped. Anyway, as I've already pointed out from my own experience, while it is a legal requirement to inform DVLA of a change of fuel type, they aren't really bothered and won't always change the V5.

I agree. But this immediately begs the question - Why are UKLPG saying that installs done by none members may not be safe? This immediately highlights UKLPGs whole scheme as hollow and a simple way of generating profits by scare-mongering. And then we're back to the same questions - Do we need a safety scheme or not? Should a safety scheme be mandatory and endorsed by government in legislation or should a safety scheme be voluntary? On the change of fuel type point, the common sense point on this that you will agree to (fire brigade reason) is that the DVLA should act on information supplied and change fuel types on logbooks. My MOT idea could ensure this was done. UKLPG could currently ensure this was done for vehicles on their database but they don't. This is a simple but critical failing, just this one failing is enough to highlight UKLPGs scheme as being a very un-thorough scheme but this is just one failing among many.

f an MOT tester is discovered by Vosa to be doing an MOT test incorrectly then he will lose his licence to do MOT checks, MOT checks likely being the main part of his work.. Vosa will put him out of a job.... Vosa do unannounced checks on MOT testers, taking vehicles with specific faults etc to see if the MOT tester will discover them.
Quite correct they do, but that only checks that the test is being done properly. They will also turn up unannounced and ask to see the last vehicle that was tested. If, in the case of many of the while you wait testing stations, if the customer has already taken the car away and gone home, then they can't check it. If a tester is going to do his own car, he'll do it at the end of the day when he knows it is far less likely for VOSA to turn up to check it. It's self certification, no different to an LPG installer self certifying his own install. I asked you to reconcile that but you haven't.

on't
I have reconciled my points on this... If an MOT tester is found to be doing an MOT incorrectly or passing a vehicle that should fail he might be put out of a job by Vosa and in addition will be doing a criminal act. If an LPG installer does the same then he is much less likely to be found out in the first place, won't be doing anything criminally wrong, even if he gets kicked out of UKLPG he can still do the same job of converting vehicles to LPG and either disregard UKLPG completely or phone a mate who is a member of UKLPG to register vehicles on UKLPGs database on his behalf.

Same problem I had with my Saab. It came with an LPG safety certificate issued by an installer that stated that the original installer was Unknown. Told DVLA about the change and gave them the certificate but they wanted something from the unknown original installer. I would have though a safety certificate on an LPG system would have been sufficient proof that it had an LPG system personally......

Since then, I've never bothered to tell them. I got no paperwork regarding the LPG system with either the LSE or the ex-plod P38 but the 4.0SE I've recently bought came with an LPGA certificate and is on the Register. Still shows petrol in the V5 though.......

We've discussed this before - This is something that backs up my point about LPGA / UKLPG influence on the industry and recognition by government / government departments. What you're saying here, then, is that DVLA won't accept an LPGA cert / UKLPG registration for purpose of changing logbook fuel types, but will accept a receipt of conversion from any installer irrespective of the installer's membership of any trade body.

Simon

[Brian_H]

I think one of the options I was offered was to send them a letter, on headed paper, from a garage which stated that the vehicle had been altered. My MoT place has done that for me in the past, but until I get the LPG finished (it only needs wiring, but I seem to need 10 day weeks these days ) I can't be bothered.
What was really odd was that they would not accept the fact that it was MoTed on petrol as evidence that it was now a petrol vehicle I suspect they were looking for something with evidence of the engine number as well - I wonder how many people actually bother reporting an engine change when it's just a straight swap ?

I think thats the point Richard was making with common sense - DVLA (and most officaldom for that matter) don't seem to understand that concept generally if something doesn't quite fit their specifications they won't acknowledge it for whatever reason. Even if it can be more substantiated than the what they required in the first place.

And with the wheel nuts point - How do you check if there are wheel nuts behind a hubcap etc then without dismantling? The main reason for no dismantling is the risk of breaking something in the process which is a point that seems to be lost on certain people....

[Gilbertd]

but does removal of an inspection cover really imply dismantling? If so, this could be included in the next MOT update.

Not a hope in hell. As soon as an MoT tester removes anything there is a danger that he can't fit it back, or shears a bolt in trying to remove it. His liability insurance premium then goes through the roof because of a greater risk of a claim. This would affect every MoT testing station, do you honestly expect VOSA to force that on all of their testing stations? There'd be a riot!

None of us on this forum are MPs, write bills or write Acts of Parliament, very likely none of us fully understand the jargon or processes.

Speak for yourself. There's more than one Statutory Instrument that I had a hand in writing. Consequently I know the process, how long it can take and how easy it is for it to time out and be consigned to history.

Why are UKLPG saying that installs done by none members may not be safe?

Because it is quite correct. For someone that says he used to teach English you seem to have a very poor understanding of it. They are saying that installs done by non members MAY not be safe, but they MAY be perfectly safe, equally installs done by members MAY or may not be safe either.

I have reconciled my points on this... If an MOT tester is found to be doing an MOT incorrectly or passing a vehicle that should fail he might be put out of a job by Vosa and in addition will be doing a criminal act.

Quite correct but that isn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that an MoT tester can test his own vehicle and declare it meeting the requirements. A UKLPG member can test his own work and declare it as meeting the requirements. What is the difference? If VOSA do not consider it necessary to bring in a ruling saying that a tester must have his own vehicle tested by somebody else then why should they treat an LPG installer any differently?

What you're saying here, then, is that DVLA won't accept an LPGA cert / UKLPG registration for purpose of changing logbook fuel types, but will accept a receipt of conversion from any installer irrespective of the installer's membership of any trade body.

They will accept an invoice or a certificate from the installer, whether it is a LPGA/UKLPG certificate or one that someone knocked up in Photoshop. I understand that they will also accept an invoice from a kit supplier if the owner has fitted the kit himself. What I do not know is if they will accept the fact that the vehicle is on the UKLPG Register as proof but I do know that they don't accept the fact that a vehicle has been MoT'd running on LPG so is shown as dual fuel on the VOSA database. Different departments, no interface between them.

You also claim that the fuel type entry on the V5 is so highly important to the fire service but if they go to a vehicle fire it is a vehicle fire. They don't bother checking the details, they go to put the fire out (or hose down the road after it has burnt out). There are enough videos on Youtube, and some that have been linked to on here in the past, that show that a vehicle fire involving an LPG fuelled vehicle is actually safer than one involving a petrol tank. A petrol tank does nothing then suddenly explodes, an LPG tank does nothing then the PRV opens and the gas burns off in a much more controlled fashion.

[rossko]

What did I make up before?

Short memory. Shall I make a list? It would take a while.

I'm asking why you bothered to link to Acts of Parliament that don't say UKLPGs scheme is to become mandatory?

Explained three times already.
Part of the Act is directly and explicitly concerned with certification of gas conversions on vehicles.
I felt that just maybe that could be vaguely related to the discussion.

Does anyone else understand what is eating him here?

Look again at page 19 Rosko.

Alright, just for clarity: the following is the total extent of your suggested installation check, to be carried out at every MoT?
"9b. Claims that MOT testers are not qualified to check LPG systems are far fetched and wishful thinking by UKLPG members. The MOT system has recently been changed to cover LPG systems on vehicles and has always covered aspects such as tank security. MOT testers have already jumped through all the hurdles to become MOT testers, they know their way around vehicles, unsafely mounted components, know that any kind of fuel pipe should not be near the exhaust. The only things that MOT testers might not already be familiar with is that LPG components need to be stamped with E67 and that tanks need to be externally vented. MOT testers already receive updates on test standards. It would not be difficult to include this type of information in such an update."
My bolding, to highlight the technical content from the padding.

I believe UKLPG would want such a change but individual members would not want this change despite anything they say about safety.

Ah okeydoke, a new tack. The demon is exonerated, now all the lesser demons are to blame. Poor UKLPG, being hamstrung by those awful installers like that. (remember that 'members' are the likes of Calor)

I'm thinking about PRVs now.... Wondering how you dismantle them for inspection when the customer brings in a vehicle full of gas?

I don't. If I did, I would throw it away since I don't have the gear to set it.
Think of a reasonable PRV check to make, and how to implement that within the confines of the MoT. There is an existing model for checking, its not difficult, until you put in the MoT setting.

Wondering now why you reckon a PRV offers protection from a rusty shoddy tank - It depends just how rusty doesn't it, because a very rusty tank won't be protected by a PRV?

Yes, that was a poor turn of phrase. It would only limit the burst pressure and limit the size of the bang.

And you can't really tell how thick a tank is unless you have ultrasonic test gear like me. Do UKLPG members need to have ultrasonic test gear?

No. Do you think we should? Do you think the MoT man should, in the brave new world?

I'm not concerned for the moment if an MOT check makes sure all the wheel nuts are fitted.

It is an example, an easy to comprehend illustration, of the limits of the MoT system. If you understood why checjing wheel nuts presents a problem, you would be better placed to pontificate on 'simple' changes to the system. But your fingers are in your ears.

If not, then it would seem to be a good idea to include this in the next update that MOT testers receive

You should immediately supply your common sense solution to VOSA, they will be grateful. Forty years they've been struggling with that.

You cannot buy a multivalve that doesn't have a PRV, because they're not made.

Is this at all relevant to your scheme? Does that mean your version of check will be just that some multivalve or some PRV is present?

DVLA update ... UKLPG could currently ensure this was done for vehicles on their database but they don't.

clueless. It's up to the vehicle owner/keeper to inform DVLA of relevant changes. DVLA would reject any third party interfering with registration details. Paintshops updating your registration record?

It would be possible to create new legislation for any converters or paintshops to be compelled to inform DVLA. (You'll already know that if you looked at the Act I referenced). They could use that information to prompt/investigate the owner, or ignore it, or whatever.
Is this to be part of your simple scheme too, now?

[NigelD]

... and get them to advise instead that an installation done by a non-member MAY not be safe.

Unless UKLPG are randomly calling on owners of recently registered vehicles to check them (without alerting the installer first),
Now, if UKLPG are doing such random checks then that's a different matter - but nothing I've read so far suggests to me that they are.

UKLPG are inspecting my car tomorrow - a random check ,, whether the installer has been informed or not , I don't know , but doubt it tbh

[rossko]

Ask the man if you get a chance.
At one time, we were told the 'selected target' first. Because neither the old paper cert nor the database contain any owners details, UKLPG had no other way to get the customer contact. But now folk are invited to nominate themselves online, we have no need to know.
I'm sure someone will now suggest you were bribed to take part

[andy evans autogas]

I also as a UKLPG approved installer have had a number of vehicles randomly checked by UKLPG since the introduction of the database. But ultimately it's up to the customer to enter their own details online so hopefully as with most thing once the sh#t floats to the top it can be flushed out. And in light of the latest newsletter from UKLPG it seems it is becoming a little more difficult for non UKLPG installers to get cars placed on the database.

If anyone decides to quote anything I've just posted and expects a reply don't bother I rarely come on here as I'm too busy doing quality installations for customers who know what they want.
Andy

[Tubbs]

And you are off to Glastonbury very shortly !

[andy evans autogas]

No Tubbs I didn't get tickets this year so I'm not best pleased ... Especially when lots of my customers keep phoning me to let me know that they got them

[NigelD]

To confirm car checked,i asked if the installer would know that it was happening,not at all was the answer,the installer is only contacted if there are issues discovered.

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
but does removal of an inspection cover really imply dismantling? If so, this could be included in the next MOT update.
Not a hope in hell. As soon as an MoT tester removes anything there is a danger that he can't fit it back, or shears a bolt in trying to remove it. His liability insurance premium then goes through the roof because of a greater risk of a claim. This would affect every MoT testing station, do you honestly expect VOSA to force that on all of their testing stations? There'd be a riot!
LPGC wrote:
None of us on this forum are MPs, write bills or write Acts of Parliament, very likely none of us fully understand the jargon or processes.
Speak for yourself. There's more than one Statutory Instrument that I had a hand in writing. Consequently I know the process, how long it can take and how easy it is for it to time out and be consigned to history.

Here you're talking about a minor/none point anyway... Removing an inspection cover on a tank involves half a twist on a plastic multivalve inspection cover - and you can see everything under the cover anyway without even removing the cover! Or on a 4 hole tank it involves undoing a hand tightened bolt. And what is there to check underneath the cover? Rosko reckons the PRV. I have said the PRVs are fitted to all multivalves. I will add that without a PRV in a 4 hole tank there is a gaping hole that would let the gas out. None of you really believe that a tank might not be fitted with a PRV, none of you really remove PRVs during any check. You make a none point.
Didn't realise you were involved in writing Statutory Instruments Gilbert - But seems to me the only thing we have Statutory in this industry are the BS Standards. There is nothing official regarding UKLPG in the eyes of the government when it comes to vehicle LPG conversions. Or have you seen something in all those papers Rosko linked to that says otherwise? And if so, why is it still the case that by law UKLPG need not be concerned with any vehicle LPG conversion? In contrast, those Statutory Instruments you had a hand in writing relevant to your trade are enforced in law and punishable even with jail time are they not? I can understand that these things can time-out and never make legislation - But I believe in this argument you fully see my points and are simply going along with your buddy... If mine and Rosko's roles were reversed you could make quite the opposite case eh?

LPGC wrote:
I have reconciled my points on this... If an MOT tester is found to be doing an MOT incorrectly or passing a vehicle that should fail he might be put out of a job by Vosa and in addition will be doing a criminal act.
Quite correct but that isn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that an MoT tester can test his own vehicle and declare it meeting the requirements. A UKLPG member can test his own work and declare it as meeting the requirements. What is the difference? If VOSA do not consider it necessary to bring in a ruling saying that a tester must have his own vehicle tested by somebody else then why should they treat an LPG installer any differently?

The difference is that if the MOT man passes his own vehicle when it should fail and is caught, he may have broken the law and be punished, he may lose his business. A UKLPG member found to have broken UKLPG rules has not broken the law, cannot be punishes except for losing his membership of UKLPG. And if he loses his membership of UKLPG he can simply ignore UKLPG and continue to convert vehicles - then if he wished can phone his mate and still have his installs registered with UKLPG. Vosa have far more than TWO people to keep tabs on all the testers, those people have the backing of Vosa and the law behind them. The two people from UKLPG have only a trade body that doesn't have any teeth behind them. Very big difference!

LPGC wrote:
Why are UKLPG saying that installs done by none members may not be safe?
Because it is quite correct. For someone that says he used to teach English you seem to have a very poor understanding of it. They are saying that installs done by non members MAY not be safe, but they MAY be perfectly safe, equally installs done by members MAY or may not be safe either.

No need to mock me again Gilbert, you've fallen foul before when trying that. Still smarting from the Churchill quote? .This is hardly a substantial point from UKLPG is it? An install may not be safe full stop, therefore an install not registered with or fitted by a UKLPG member 'may not be safe'? What you are explaining here is that UKLPG might as well not have said anything... If a UKLPG member flips a coin it may land heads up, if anyone else flips a coin it may land heads up.... Anyone reading this will realise that this kind of talk from UKLPG is designed to give the impression that a UKLPG install is likely to be safer - that was the point people will have expected you to have answered.

LPGC wrote:
What you're saying here, then, is that DVLA won't accept an LPGA cert / UKLPG registration for purpose of changing logbook fuel types, but will accept a receipt of conversion from any installer irrespective of the installer's membership of any trade body.
They will accept an invoice or a certificate from the installer, whether it is a LPGA/UKLPG certificate or one that someone knocked up in Photoshop. I understand that they will also accept an invoice from a kit supplier if the owner has fitted the kit himself. What I do not know is if they will accept the fact that the vehicle is on the UKLPG Register as proof but I do know that they don't accept the fact that a vehicle has been MoT'd running on LPG so is shown as dual fuel on the VOSA database. Different departments, no interface between them.

You also claim that the fuel type entry on the V5 is so highly important to the fire service but if they go to a vehicle fire it is a vehicle fire. They don't bother checking the details, they go to put the fire out (or hose down the road after it has burnt out). There are enough videos on Youtube, and some that have been linked to on here in the past, that show that a vehicle fire involving an LPG fuelled vehicle is actually safer than one involving a petrol tank. A petrol tank does nothing then suddenly explodes, an LPG tank does nothing then the PRV opens and the gas burns off in a much more controlled fashion.

Don't you find it a bit surprising that government departments will accept an invoice from an installer, and maybe as you say even a receipt for parts bought that were then fitted on a DIY basis, but in your case would not accept an LPGA / UKLPG certificate - What does this say about the standing of LPGA / UKLPG in the eyes of government departments? Do you think DVLA staff would know to check or bother to check a private trade body website for proof of an LPG conversion when they wouldn't accept a written LPGA / UKLPG safety document? Do you think it rather more likely, and more logical, that they would accept proof from an MOT tester -

I think one of the options I was offered was to send them a letter, on headed paper, from a garage which stated that the vehicle had been altered. My MoT place has done that for me in the past

like Simon Hobson does?
I claim that having the actual fuel type on the V5 is a common sense way to add to safety. At the moment V5 info is of no use to the fire brigade because it seems people often don't bother to change V5 fuel types and the law regarding having the correct info regarding fuel types on V5 isn't enforced strictly enough. What does a diesel tank do - Now imagine the difference if the diesel is fitted with an LPG tank too... If V5 fuel types were strictly enforced then the fire brigade could make use of the accurate information on V5's. If MOT stations were involved in the process then very quickly all V5s would accurately reflect actual vehicle fuel types - You know this makes sense, and UKLPG's scheme cannot hope to achieve it, but you're playing along with your mate again? We have discussed government departments recently - Remember how DVSA has taken over from both Vosa and DVLA. Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency sounds just the government body to be concerned with both MOTs and logbooks.

And with the wheel nuts point - How do you check if there are wheel nuts behind a hubcap etc then without dismantling? The main reason for no dismantling is the risk of breaking something in the process which is a point that seems to be lost on certain people...

How about not dismantling hubcaps and only failing a vehicle if the MOT man can see there is a missing wheel-nut? The dismantling point wasn't lost on me Brian, but I'm talking about things that are obviously missing - How about on a normal car that has 4 wheel nuts and the MOT man can see one wheel nut is obviously missing? Now Rosko claimed that tank valves need to be dismantled to check for the presence of a PRV. You cannot buy a multivalve without a PRV. A UKLPG member has no way of checking an existing PRV. So Rosko's point was a bit of a null point really eh? And this was the only bit of 'dismantling' he could come up with in his 'dismantling' argument against my MOT check idea. Are you sitting in the 'clutching at straws in attempt to find fault with common sense' corner too then? Are you a UKLPG member Brian?

LPGC wrote:
What did I make up before?
Short memory. Shall I make a list? It would take a while.

Humour me! To start you off - the forklift thing was one from the beginning of this thread but I'm sure you remember it, it was one of your few points won. Since then you have digged up all sorts of 'papers' and acts yet none of them says UKLPG have any rights to implement any sorts of rules on the vehicle LPG conversion industry or even to be involved in the industry. In contrast, the MOT system is very much involved and is mandatory.

LPGC wrote:
I'm asking why you bothered to link to Acts of Parliament that don't say UKLPGs scheme is to become mandatory?

Explained three times already.
Part of the Act is directly and explicitly concerned with certification of gas conversions on vehicles.
I felt that just maybe that could be vaguely related to the discussion.

Does anyone else understand what is eating him here?

It isn't though - because it isn't mandatory - it is just as legal to completely ignore UKLPG as it is to involve UKLPG in any way. Yes or no answer.. Are you saying there is some law that says UKLPG must be involved? The answer is NO isn't it... So why bother bringing up 'Acts' etc when you know that they are not relevant? On the other side of the coin - Interesting that government are obviously fully aware of UKLPG, have done a lot of talk about UKLPG, and STILL have not made UKLPGs schemes mandatory for vehicle LPG conversions. Your points regarding 'Acts' etc are seemingly designed to confuse the issue, again to make UKLPG look more official in the eyes of anyone reading this, again to steer talk away from common sense.

LPGC wrote:
Look again at page 19 Rosko.

Alright, just for clarity: the following is the total extent of your suggested installation check, to be carried out at every MoT?
"9b. Claims that MOT testers are not qualified to check LPG systems are far fetched and wishful thinking by UKLPG members. The MOT system has recently been changed to cover LPG systems on vehicles and has always covered aspects such as tank security. MOT testers have already jumped through all the hurdles to become MOT testers, they know their way around vehicles, unsafely mounted components, know that any kind of fuel pipe should not be near the exhaust. The only things that MOT testers might not already be familiar with is that LPG components need to be stamped with E67 and that tanks need to be externally vented. MOT testers already receive updates on test standards. It would not be difficult to include this type of information in such an update."
My bolding, to highlight the technical content from the padding.

Did you quote the wrong bit on purpose? Page 19 again...
You know very well what I proposed but I will list it again for you here. What I proposed was: (seems this wasn't the first time I told you the gist of my idea)...
1. Instead of most people ignoring UKLPG, everyone ignores UKLPG.
2. Instead of having a scheme that is voluntary and is not backed up by law, we should have a scheme that is mandatory and is supported by law.
3. Instead of installers 'checking' their own installs, the scheme should involve an independent check.
4. The vehicle could be taken by it's owner to a place of the vehicle owner's choosing for this independant check.
4b. Instead of DIYers taking newly converted vehicles to an installer for a check, DIYers simply take their vehicle for the independant check at the same place they would go to if a professional installer fitted their system.
5. Instead of the checks being done by people that are only endorsed by a trade body with no further qualification necessary, the independant checks should be done by people with government recognised qualifiications and government permission to do the checks
6. The people doing the checks should be checked regularly themselves. The people that check the checkers should be employed by a government department and have the full weight of the government department behind them.
7. It is already law that the vehicle V5 accurately reflects the actual fuel(s) that a vehicle uses. This is currently ignored by UKLPG yet if vehicle V5's did accurately reflect the vehicle fuel type the information could prove useful to the fire brigade. This law should be enforced. Any vehicle that has an LPG system should have a V5 that shows LPG as a fuel type. A vehicle described to an insurer as running only on petrol may not be insured if it has an LPG system fitted.
7b. 7 Could easily be enforced. Police already do vehicle checks etc as they drive around. When they see a vehicle with an LPG filling point it wouldn't be too difficult to check to see if LPG is listed as a fuel type on the V5.
8. It should only be possible to change the fuel type on a V5 to LPG after the vehicle has passed the check.
8b. Since any vehicle with LPG listed on the fuel type has now passed a safety check, insurers can rest assured that the vehicle's LPG system has been checked and has been found to be safe.
9. It is possible to achieve all of the above by simply making it compulsory that all newly converted vehicles need to have a new MOT. MOT stations that decide to take part could even be linked to the DVLA to update the V5 to show the new fuel type, or they could issue a written statement to say that the vehicle has been checked and the LPG install has been found to be safe. The owner could then present the written statement to the DVLA.
9b. Claims that MOT testers are not qualified to check LPG systems are far fetched and wishful thinking by UKLPG members. The MOT system has recently been changed to cover LPG systems on vehicles and has always covered aspects such as tank security. MOT testers have already jumped through all the hurdles to become MOT testers, they know their way around vehicles, unsafely mounted components, know that any kind of fuel pipe should not be near the exhaust. The only things that MOT testers might not already be familiar with is that LPG components need to be stamped with E67 and that tanks need to be externally vented. MOT testers already receive updates on test standards. It would not be difficult to include this type of information in such an update.
9c. If anyone has any qualms about 9b, they should compare the situation I propose to the current situation and weigh up the pros and cons of what I suggest to the pros and cons of what we have (or don't have)!

LPGC wrote:
I believe UKLPG would want such a change but individual members would not want this change despite anything they say about safety.

Ah okeydoke, a new tack. The demon is exonerated, now all the lesser demons are to blame. Poor UKLPG, being hamstrung by those awful installers like that. (remember that 'members' are the likes of Calor)

Hardly a new tack, I've said similar before. Do try to remember that nobody here is concerned with the LPG supply industry - that is quite a different business to the LPG vehicle conversion industry. We are only concerned with the latter... If UKLPG are a positive in the supply industry then that is all well and good. They are not a positive in the vehicle conversion industry. Calor has less to do with converting vehicles to run on LPG as a steel stockholder (who supplies vehicle manufacturers) has to do with the production of vehicles.

LPGC wrote:
I'm thinking about PRVs now.... Wondering how you dismantle them for inspection when the customer brings in a vehicle full of gas?

I don't. If I did, I would throw it away since I don't have the gear to set it.
Think of a reasonable PRV check to make, and how to implement that within the confines of the MoT. There is an existing model for checking, its not difficult, until you put in the MoT setting.

No, you brought up PRV's against my arguments... You explain how you check them. You have just said you don't remove or dismantle PRVs (I already knew that), so what do you do - Check that one exists? You cannot buy a multivalve without a PRV, 4 hole tanks have a specific hole for a PRV. I have never seen a tank without a PRV, have you? You make an empty point,. But let's suppose I agreed with your PRV point - Most installs are not fitted by UKLPG members and are never seen by UKLPG members - so most installs go without PRVs being checked, most installs go without any part of the LPG install being checked at all. Your PRV point would be just one point.... What about all the other safety points? A mandatory system would still be better even if I agreed with your PRV point.

LPGC wrote:
Wondering now why you reckon a PRV offers protection from a rusty shoddy tank - It depends just how rusty doesn't it, because a very rusty tank won't be protected by a PRV?

Yes, that was a poor turn of phrase. It would only limit the burst pressure and limit the size of the bang.

Hung up on PRVs on the forum - I wonder how big a point you make of checking PRVs during any install or check - Clutching at straws. Can you come up with a better point to backup your 'dismantling' claim. What needs to be dismantled to get at what? So far you've only said an MOT man wouldn't be allowed to remove a tank valve cover to check for a PRV - I've covered all the PRV points in this post.

LPGC wrote:
And you can't really tell how thick a tank is unless you have ultrasonic test gear like me. Do UKLPG members need to have ultrasonic test gear?

No. Do you think we should? Do you think the MoT man should, in the brave new world?

That's a question for you to answer - you brought up PRVs and rusty shoddy tanks. UKLPG members can't tell the extent of tank rusting anymore than an MOT man or even Joe Publc eh?

LPGC wrote:
DVLA update ... UKLPG could currently ensure this was done for vehicles on their database but they don't.

clueless. It's up to the vehicle owner/keeper to inform DVLA of relevant changes. DVLA would reject any third party interfering with registration details. Paintshops updating your registration record?

It would be possible to create new legislation for any converters or paintshops to be compelled to inform DVLA. (You'll already know that if you looked at the Act I referenced). They could use that information to prompt/investigate the owner, or ignore it, or whatever.
Is this to be part of your simple scheme too, now?

Hardly clueless - The colour of a vehicle should be accurate on the logbook, by law, but colour isn't a safety issue. You fully recognise that we are talking about safety issues here - You have suggested that if we pushed for any change at all the government might opt for compulsory IVA testing... You wouldn't suggest that for a colour change eh? UKLPG are a private trade body and can impose whatever restrictions they see fit on memberships and on vehicles that get registered on their database. Requiring the V5 to reflect the correct fuel type(s) would be simple for them to implement and would ensure at least all vehicles on their database complied with existing law. I would not expect DVLA / DVSA to link up to spray shops computers, LPG installers computers or UKLPGs computers. But all MOT stations have an existing linkup between their computers and Vosa - read DVSA - The system already exists, would just need a bit of tweeking to make this part of my idea possible. If my idea was implemented, very soon all LPG converted vehicles that get on the road would have the correct fuel type(s) on the logbook.

To confirm car checked,i asked if the installer would know that it was happening,not at all was the answer,the installer is only contacted if there are issues discovered.

Very good mate but checks by UKLPG (trade body themselves) are still rare - Figures are around one car converted per member per year... But who checks all the other vehicles that each member converts, the vast majority that are never seen by UKLPG staff, besides the installer member who fitted the LPG system? Apparently UKLPG employ two people to vet new installers before allowing them to become members and to do all these 'anonymous' checks which have only relatively recently even become anonymous.. I'd say they have a bit of catching up to do - and don't have the staff to do so. Consider what would happen if your vehicle was found to be totally unsafe by UKLPG staff - Your installer might then get kicked out of UKLPG but could continue to convert vehicles to LPG regardless. He might have a mate he could phone to register installs on his behalf if he ever got kicked out - Your installer need not involve UKLPG at all, you need not involve UKLPG at all, most converted vehciles on the road have not involved UKLPG at all. My idea would see every newly converted to LPG vehicle checked, not by the installer who fitted the system checking his own work (with maybe a 1% chance of the install ever being seen by a trade body staff member), but by an impartial person who (on behalf of a government department) checks vehicle safety every day, including LPG system safety, that person able to update logbook fuel type details immediately following a vehicle passing the safety check.

Simon

[rossko]

none of you really remove PRVs during any check.

Of course we don't. No-one said we did.

You make a none point.

If you like.
My check sees that a PRV is present, sees that is E-marked, sees that the correct type for the tank is fitted e.g. set at the correct angle.
I do not know what your check involves; but within the confines of the MoT, it cannot do the same as me.

But seems to me the only thing we have Statutory in this industry are the BS Standards.

Whatever makes you think those are statutory?

Now Rosko claimed that tank valves need to be dismantled to check for the presence of a PRV.

Wherever did I say that?
(Did you really want that "making it up" list?)

And this was the only bit of 'dismantling' he could come up with in his 'dismantling' argument against my MOT check idea.

Of course it isn't. If you can deal with this one point satisfactorily, I'm ready to move on to the next. No purpose until then.

What it boils down to is - will your scheme check the presence & suitability of a PRV? Earlier you said you wanted to check "everything" for E-marking, so I assumed you meant this. Perhaps you didn't.

LPGC wrote: ... I'm asking why you bothered to link to Acts of Parliament that don't say UKLPGs scheme is to become mandatory?
Rossko wrote: ... Part of the Act is directly and explicitly concerned with certification of gas conversions on vehicles.
LPGC wrote: It isn't though - because it isn't mandatory

The fact that DfT didn't create the follow up regulations and make any check mandatory, still leaves that part of that Act is directly and explicitly concerned with certification of gas conversions on vehicles, and could enable mandatory checks.

For someone that supposedly wants mandatory checks, I thought you might be interested in the actual current legislation that would allow mandatory checks.

I have no idea why you are banging on about it, I guess you don't understand it at all. In that regard you are correct, I am obviously confusing you.

Did you quote the wrong bit on purpose? Page 19 again...

No, I was trying to be sure of he technical content of your proposed check. So far as I can make out, it is
"unsafely mounted components, know that any kind of fuel pipe should not be near the exhaust. The only things that MOT testers might not already be familiar with is that LPG components need to be stamped with E67 and that tanks need to be externally vented. "
and I was trying to see if that was it.

No, you brought up PRV's against my arguments... You explain how you check them.

Uh-uh. I know what I do in the existing scheme I'm a part of. You're proposing something else, what is it? Look this really isn't rocket science and the answers are already above.

A mandatory system would still be better even if I agreed with your PRV point.

No, see "it all depends" earlier

Hung up on PRVs on the forum - I wonder how big a point you make of checking PRVs during any install or check

Not much, it is so simple to do.
Hung up on not getting lumbered with a mandatory test that doesn't do the most basic safety critical checks.
A full page, and we still have no solution.

Can you come up with a better point to backup your 'dismantling' claim.

Yes. Let me know when you've dealt with PRVs

So far you've only said an MOT man wouldn't be allowed to remove a tank valve cover to check for a PRV

That's right. So what is the solution? There are at least three I can think of.

UKLPG members can't tell the extent of tank rusting anymore than an MOT man or even Joe Publc eh?

No. Isn't that awful. We must all immediately fall on our swords.

Requiring the V5 to reflect the correct fuel type(s) would be simple for them to implement and would ensure at least all vehicles on their database complied with existing law.

Oh, I didn't realise that was what you were driving at. I can't see any purpose in witholding registration whether or not the owner/keeper discharges their own duties or not. We're there to do the gas safety thing, not police customer's form-filling skills.

But all MOT stations have an existing linkup between their computers and Vosa - read DVSA - The system already exists, would just need a bit of tweeking to make this part of my idea possible.

Yes, it's in that Act of Parliament ...

Figures are around one car converted per member per year...

Show me those figures !!
But that seems like a reasonable guess.

[Tubbs]

What's happened to simon ? Do you think that UKLPGA have put a hit out on him for speaking his 'truths'

[Gilbertd]

He's probably got bored because all we do is point out he's doesn't know what he's talking about and shoot him down in flames.......

[rossko]

I had to reject a conversion last week, reluctantly cos it was a pretty car!

The cylinder tank had been mounted at zero degrees (to suit bodywork constraints) but a common 30 degree multivalve was fitted. Fail.

I also picked up an unusual condition - ignition on, engine stopped, gas still flowing. Fail. (guess a faulty carb-type changeover switch).

Neither of these checks are in the MoT. Which don't matter much, it was a 1949(!) car and MoT exempt. Couldn't make it up.