UKLPG comments

[rossko]

Quote from Mike Chapman 'I agree with most of your points Simon'.

Further quotes from Mike Chapman

"I have to say I disagree regarding the emails – MOT inspectors can’t even lift the boot floor to check if a tank is loose! Checking 100% of very little is worse than a thorough check on 33% and the checks by our installers have picked up real issues which would not have been picked up by the MOT basis."

"The only thing I would add regarding the MOT, and as mentioned, is that all MOT stations are restricted to assessing components on what they can see and are thus unable to move or lift or remove any items on a vehicle. This would render checks by an MOT station as quite insufficient for checking such things as filler boots, spreader plates etc.

In my discussions with VOSA this restriction on MOT inspectors is sacrosanct to prevent claims on VOSA so without a fundamental change to their way of operating and costs what you are suggesting, whilst on the face of it quite validly, is not something they ate prepared to adopt."

Praps you didn't mean to share those.

[LPGC]

Quote from Mike Chapman 'I agree with most of your points Simon'.

Further quotes from Mike Chapman

"I have to say I disagree regarding the emails – MOT inspectors can’t even lift the boot floor to check if a tank is loose! Checking 100% of very little is worse than a thorough check on 33% and the checks by our installers have picked up real issues which would not have been picked up by the MOT basis."

"The only thing I would add regarding the MOT, and as mentioned, is that all MOT stations are restricted to assessing components on what they can see and are thus unable to move or lift or remove any items on a vehicle. This would render checks by an MOT station as quite insufficient for checking such things as filler boots, spreader plates etc.

In my discussions with VOSA this restriction on MOT inspectors is sacrosanct to prevent claims on VOSA so without a fundamental change to their way of operating and costs what you are suggesting, whilst on the face of it quite validly, is not something they ate prepared to adopt."

Praps you didn't mean to share those.

I entirely meant to share all of Mike's quotes. Which is why I wrote an honest representation of what was said during our face to face discussion, and I asked Mike to confirm that he agreed my representation of the discussion was fair and unbiased - which he did confirm for you in the email discussion which I further email posted on this forum in entirety. In addition, I have also pointed out Mikes disagreements with myself, including the points you have quoted above, several times since I quoted Mike's comments and Emails - I want and make for a fair discussion but it doesn't always seem I am getting one! You don't seriously believe I am trying to skew things that were discussed between Mike and myself? If so, when Mike returns from his holiday I will ask him to comment for you... If Mike is your God then you have firmer beliefs in his powers than he does - He agrees with me that UKLPG should not be running a safety scheme and cannot do much about cheated registrations, safety impact on the industry or safety scheme penetration in the industry...

Mike suggested to DOT that the MOt scheme take over from UKLPG, much like my suggestion (you have disagreed with the MOT concept from the outset) except Mike's suggestion to DOT, from what I can gather, was for a test scheme much more in keeping with a COP11 test, DOT refused because of the additional training costs of MOT man. When Mike told me bout DOTs refusal on that basis, I suggested he re-approach DOT with a reworked proposal on this basis: UKLPG see only 33% of converted vehicles but do a thorough test on those vehicles. It might be better if a mandatory MOT (which granted cannot extend to cover all COP11 points) is done instead of the voluntary test which sees only 33% of vehicles. There should be a compromise position where the COP11 checkpoints are not included in an MOT check which Mike, DOT, you, certainly Gilbert, and certainly I would see as better than the 33% covering voluntary UKLPG scheme.

Above, Mike implies that 'checking 33% of very little is worse than checking very little of 100% of installs'... But i question is that really the case - When we could expect that the 33% is made up of mostly pro installs by UKLPG members and long time installers (Mikes figures and comments confirm this) and the remaining 67% is therefore made up of many new start installers and DIYers - Gilbert at least sees this point too. Mike's figures tell us that the greater majority of UKLPG registrations are done on UKLPG member converted vehicles.. we should be able to expect all of those to be safe, right? If not, then this also calls into question the case for UKLPG doesn't it? I think Mike's figures were somewhere like 70% or more of all registrations were UKLPG members passing their own work. 70% of 33% is 23%, so now we have 10% of UKLPG registrations to think about, where did they come from?... If half of those registrations are long terms pro installers actually taking their installs to UKLPG members for UKLPG checks (and if you don't think this is the case please say so - I might suggest most of these were done over the phone, further implying UKLPGs scheme isn't up to scratch but at least these are pro installers and probably good installs, right?) then now we have 5% of DIY installs being checked by UKLPG.. 1 in 20 is not a good figure - It means that 19 out of 20 DIY installs are subjected to no checks whatsoever... But it gets worse! Some of these DIY installs have also been registered over the phone via the supplies they bought the equipment from! So the apparent 1 in 20 DIY installs that don't have any check whatsoever now becomes less than 1 in 20 DIY installs that have no check whatsoever.... I think a mandatory MOT on these DIY installs AND the installs done by done in a day etc installers is going to fail the most stupid and dangerous install mistakes even if that MOT scheme is totally unchanged from what we have today.. If MOT man is aware he is checking vehicles specifically for purpose of commissioning them as safe then he is going to be naturally more aware or, in time, forced to be aware by DOTs system of ensuring MOT standards. Just to put a bit more meaning to my use of the word ' naturally' above - If every vehicle, at 6 years old, had to go for an MOT specifically to check the spare wheel was secured properly, you could be a lot more certain that MOT man would do this check properly than if it was part of a normal MOT - People focus on the focus; The same would apply to a one time test carried out because the vehicle had a new LPG system fitted.

Now how many times / different ways is it now that I have explained this in different ways? Anyone still not understand the concept? Anyone going to sidestep these points now and talk about me repeating myself or my use of written English to whitewash the issue?

Simon

[Gilbertd]

Granted an MOT following a new LPG install would need to become compulsory, but I have asked what changes would need to be incorporated into the actual MOT test itself - I have had no answer to this question, instead Gilbert has repeated himself by saying 'it isn't going to happen, Mike (from UKLPG) has told you', 'the MOT scheme would need to be changed too much and DOT are not prepared to put the money in', You are repeating yourself Simon'. The reason I have repeated myself is because I have not had an answer to the specific question. The reason I rephrased the question, said the same thing in different words, was because this is a more tactful and none confrontational approach than saying 'Oy! You blatantly avoided answering my specific question'.

Yes you have, see my post of 09:34am on 17th October. The change to the MoT would need to be to remove the restriction that says they aren't allowed to dismantle anything. Otherwise how are they going to check the majority of tanks? The filler is in the rear wing just below the petrol filler on my 4.0SE P38, but it can't be seen from inside the luggage area because it is behind the trim so how can anyone see if it has a sealing boot on it or has been properly secured? You can't unless you remove the trim and that is the bit that you have been told isn't going to happen. So the change to the MoT isn't just a minor change, it's the removal of a restriction that is sacrosanct. At the risk of doing a Simon and repeating myself, then there would also need to be additional changes relating to checking the marking of components. I'm not talking about E marking (lets face it, what components could you use in an LPG installation that won't be E marked?), but pipes. For the current MoT, 8mm copper domestic central heating microbore pipe would be perfectly acceptable to use for the feed from the tank, just the same as it would be perfectly acceptable to use it for petrol. As long as it doesn't leak, it's fine. Just as a bit of rubber hosepipe is OK to use a vapour line. The MoT isn't a commissioning check, it's fine for it's intended function but not for anything else.

I argue that without further training of MOT men, they already check components are securely mounted, already check for leaks, already checks emissions, they are used to the concept that certain components must be marked with E numbers (so telling em LPG components must be marked with E67 would be an easy update). I argue that the MOT as it stands would check by far the most serious LPG safety concerns. Other COP11 concerns such as fuel lines must be plastic coated and fixed to the vehicle at specific intervals are insignificant by comparison, Gilbert must agree to this fuel line point too, because he agrees that it is much better that a gas pipe corrodes through or falls off than a brake pipe (I think we would all agree with that?), yet he has no concerns about none plastic coated copper break pipes corroding through or brake pipes not being fixed to the vehicle at specific intervals, and on his own vehicles has tie wrapped petrol pipes etc on. No criticism there for the brake / fuel pipe attitude Gilbert, just putting some COP11 points into context - Not all COP11 points are entirely necessary, the greatest points effecting safety are already covered by the MOT. Granted at the moment MOT man pays little attention to some of these points regards LPG installs - I suggest he would pay more attention if he was tasked by DOT to 'commission' LPG installs and that over time he would be forced to pay more attention to these points regards LPG install when VOSA's scheme of checking MOT man vehicle failure statistics were applied.

Have I? When have you known a copper brake pipe or gas pipe corrode through? Manufacturers have fitted steel brake pipes that rot away for years, more recently they have started fitting plastic coated steel brake pipes that rot away at the ends where there is no plastic coating. The replacement pipe for making new ones is copper (or Cupro Nickel) so they don't rot away. As for securing them, the Classic Range Rover, in common with many live axle cars, has a brake pipe that runs the width of the car along the top of the rear axle. Originally it was held in place with clips but they dissolved within the first 10 years of the cars life so that original steel pipe is only secured at each end and nowhere else. Being steel, it is rigid so will stay where it is but a replacement copper pipe is less rigid so could snag on something and be pulled out. So a tie wrap securing it to the axle in a couple of places is a good idea. The same for a fuel line. As long as it can't drop or be pulled off, does it matter how it is secured? For an MoT it needs to be secure, so if a pipe was dangling under the car only attached at the petrol tank at one end and the fuel system under the bonnet at the other, it would fail. If however, it is secured with something so doesn't dangle, it's fine. Whether that something is a tie wrap, a bit of insulating tape, glue, a Jubilee clip, etc is of no interest to an MoT tester as long as it is secure. Much the same applies to exhaust systems. A leak is a fail but a leak repaired with a dollop of GunGum, a bean tin and a bit of binding wire or any other bodge we've probably all seen at some time, is a pass as long as it isn't leaking at the time of the actual test it doesn't matter. The fact that the tester knows that the 'repair' will only last as far as the next bump in the road is irrelevant.

A while ago someone posted a picture of a toroidal tank that had been dropped in a spare wheel well and a load of builders expanding foam squirted around the outside to hold it in place. That would pass an MoT as it stands, it's secure, it isn't going anywhere. You are talking about either a complete rewrite of the MoT test or throwing CoP11, and the BSEN Standard, out of the window. Both state that a tank must be secured with bolts and both list the number of bolts and how big they need to be depending on the size of the tank. But for an MoT this wouldn't apply if you used stuff intended for sealing your window frames into the brickwork of your house.

So to reiterate my point, for the MoT to be a viable alternative, you would need to remove the restriction on dismantling, specify what is acceptable for something to be considered secure, add security and strain resistance of fillers and equip every testing station with a means of pressurising the filler to tank connection, to pick up on just a few points that are currently inadequate.

Now let's examine Brian's post, I'm not sure if he was clearing info up or making a point here...

He was clearing the info up. When that incident was first mentioned you immediately stated that it was an install done by a dodgy DIY'er. Making up facts to suit your argument when in actual fact, we have no idea who did it. It could have been one of your installs for all you know. It would appear from what happened that there was a leak between the filler and the tank allowing gas to leak, presumably, into the boot, whenever it was filled. What we don't know is what happened between it being converted and the incident happening. We don't know if the pipe had been damaged, if someone had been doing some other work in the area and had disconnected it and not put it back on properly, if someone had decided they didn't like the filler in the place it was originally fitted and had moved it, if the filler had been changed for whatever reason, we know nothing of the facts or the car. But you tried to use it to make a point that suited your argument. As Brian quite correctly pointed out, if it only leaked when being filled a UKLPG inspection wouldn't find it and neither would an MoT.

There, happy now?

[rossko]

Background: UKLPG inspection does test the filler for leaks. (Simon insisted at some length that this was not necessary, and I got got irate about that. At the last count, he refuses to believe anyone would do such a thing, and I continue to do it at every install and inspection).
Like any MoT, that won't detect what might happen in the future.

Simon, you are not a mind reader. You do not know anything of my attitude to Mike Chapman, it is not even me that keeps invoking his name! Even when trying to adopt a "reasonable man" stance, you tell other people what they really think, regardless of what they actually say. Or in this case, haven't said. How is this relevant?

That cart is still firmly in front of the horse, with solution pre-chosen and trying to change the requirement to fit it. Compromises have been discussed at tedious length. You want/need lots to fit the MoT format; compromises that alarm other people. You took a half-page telling us how you have not changed your stance; this may a clue to the difficulty.

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
Granted an MOT following a new LPG install would need to become compulsory, but I have asked what changes would need to be incorporated into the actual MOT test itself - I have had no answer to this question
Yes you have, see my post of 09:34am on 17th October. The change to the MoT would need to be to remove the restriction that says they aren't allowed to dismantle anything. Otherwise how are they going to check the majority of tanks

I see where you're coming from now, hopefully reading this you'll see where I was coming from. Other 'versions' of my question were more like 'what changes do you think would need to be done to the MOT system before (given that the MOT would be compulsory and COP11 checks see only 33% of vehicles) do you think would be necessary before the MOT check became at least equally as ft for purpose as the current situation'. Sorry for the confusion, probably mostly my fault.

I'll list a few points, hopefully not to be taken the wrong way

Otherwise how are they going to check the majority of tanks?

Check what aspect of tanks? Arguably most tanks these days are 30deg internal toroidal, on most of these you can see the securing bolts and spreader plates under the vehicle. On most 30deg cylinder internal tanks you can at least see most or all of the securing bolts and spreader plates... Many zero degree external tanks or cylinder external tanks are not bolted through the floor, they are bolted to the chassis where mounting points can be seen. On all tanks it can be assumed a valve is fitted and like you said it can be assumed it is E marked, if it is E marked it will have been made with a PRV.

The filler is in the rear wing just below the petrol filler on my 4.0SE P38, but it can't be seen from inside the luggage area because it is behind the trim so how can anyone see if it has a sealing boot on it or has been properly secured? You can't unless you remove the trim and that is the bit that you have been told isn't going to happen

Agreed, but it will pass an MOT or a COP11 UKLPG check if the boot or vent pipe is secured with chewing gun and might come off the next day... **More on this below.

Where I have asked 'what changes do you think would need to be made to the MOT to make the scheme at least as good as the current situation', what I expected was an answer that consolidated the following points...

I actually agree with your arguments that some sort of test on all installs has got to be better than a more comprehensive check on only some, but at the moment it looks like that test is still some way off.

There's nothing in the manual to say that brake pipes much be secured but it is a failure if "a rigid pipe is inadequately clipped or otherwise supported". Many cars have brake pipes that run the width and length of the car and if that pipe has ever been changed it almost certainly won't be clipped as the clips will have broken off or rusted away. I tend to put a tie wrap or two if it is a long run and I've never had a fail because of it So if it is good enough for brake pipes, it must be good enough for fuel lines surely?

I would agree..

LPGC wrote: If we have 33% of all installs being checked by UKLPG then the figure for DIYers is likely to be lower than 33% - and DIY installs are most likely to be unsafe... To put this another way in an exaggerated example - UKLPG get to check 33% of what might be expected to be safe installs but get to check none of the installs which might be expected to be unsafe.
Gilbert wrote: What sort of a reply did you expect? Yes, you are probably correct but I wouldn't expect a DIY installation to be any worse than a done-in-a-day installation in all honesty, in fact, I'd suggest that anyone that has the confidence in their own abilities and the skills to do an install would do a pretty good job

Now if we break down that figure of 33% of installs that actually are checked (see if you agree with these figures):

Mike's figures tell us that the greater majority of UKLPG registrations are done on UKLPG member converted vehicles.. we should be able to expect all of those to be safe, right? If not, then this also calls into question the case for UKLPG doesn't it? I think Mike's figures were somewhere like 70% or more of all registrations were UKLPG members passing their own work. 70% of 33% is 23%, so now we have 10% of UKLPG registrations to think about, where did they come from?... If half of those registrations are long terms pro installers actually taking their installs to UKLPG members for UKLPG checks (and if you don't think this is the case please say so - I might suggest most of these were done over the phone, further implying UKLPGs scheme isn't up to scratch but at least these are pro installers and probably good installs, right?) then now we have 5% of DIY installs being checked by UKLPG.. 1 in 20 is not a good figure - It means that 19 out of 20 DIY installs are subjected to no checks whatsoever... But it gets worse! Some of these DIY installs have also been registered over the phone via the supplies they bought the equipment from! So the apparent 1 in 20 DIY installs that don't have any check whatsoever now becomes less than 1 in 20 DIY installs that have no check whatsoever....

If the current situation is that 19/20 new DIY installs are not checked then how much of an impact on safety is the current system having?

So to reiterate my point, for the MoT to be a viable alternative, you would need to remove the restriction on dismantling, specify what is acceptable for something to be considered secure, add security and strain resistance of fillers and equip every testing station with a means of pressurising the filler to tank connection, to pick up on just a few points that are currently inadequate.

Really, even given the above? I suggest that in these 19/20 DIY installs that currently have no check, MOT man would find silly mistakes like tanks not bolted in at all, like fuel lines running through suspension trap points, like components loose under the bonnet... Things that are already included in the MOT as it stands. I have also said the MOT scheme would only become more effective when DOTs method of ensuring that MOT checks are standardised / testing stations that fail below average numbers of vehicles on specific points are singled out for checks by DOT. Your argument also, in one context, plays down E number checking (I agree it is more difficult to buy parts that are not E marked), then in another plays up E number checking (you say MOT man wouldn't know to check E numbers on pipes). I say MOT man already knows, or at least knew, that bulbs should be marked with the E marking even if he couldn't dismantle to check markings... With things like pipes he wouldn't need to dismantle to check E numbers so would be able to check E numbers on pipes. Others may claim that updating MOT man even to check for E67 on pipes would be an expensive step, yet I saw no radical changes to the MOT scheme and know of no unusual expense incurred by DOT when MOT man was in recent times updated to check LPG systems for leaks etc.. I suggest updating MOT man, just a normal MOT update, would easily have MOT man knowing that LPG pipes must be E marked.
I hit 'post' without noting Rosko's post, so I've edited to slot in Rosko's point and comment myself...

Background: UKLPG inspection does test the filler for leaks. (Simon insisted at some length that this was not necessary, and I got got irate about that. At the last count, he refuses to believe anyone would do such a thing, and I continue to do it at every install and inspection). Like any MoT, that won't detect what might happen in the future.

Thanks for reminding me Rosko, had a look and haven't found the pages this part of the discussion was spread over - not wishing to make you irate again Can you remember how we left that point? Is it a UKLPG requirement that all member installers need to have means of testing the filler for leaks?

When that incident was first mentioned you immediately stated that it was an install done by a dodgy DIY'er. Making up facts to suit your argument when in actual fact, we have no idea who did it

There have been a few near misses over the years, I believe one involved a dodgy DIYer, I didn't state anything, I only asked Brian 'wasn't that one done by a dodgy DIYer?'.

As Brian quite correctly pointed out, if it only leaked when being filled a UKLPG inspection wouldn't find it and neither would an MoT.

**Actually mate, it was me who pointed that out, not Brian, but I'm glad you agree Not only would both a COP11 check and MOT possibly not see a leak, or impending /likely issues with a vent pipe, but maybe the standard associated with vent pipes isn't really suitable either. Vent pipe fixed with J clips, metal ties, various glues, even a bit of string are all equally suitable according to any standard.. a 'token gesture' of securing vent pipes is what we see on most installs done by UKLPG members and none members alike.

A while ago someone posted a picture of a toroidal tank that had been dropped in a spare wheel well and a load of builders expanding foam squirted around the outside to hold it in place. That would pass an MoT as it stands, it's secure, it isn't going anywhere. You are talking about either a complete rewrite of the MoT test or throwing CoP11, and the BSEN Standard, out of the window. Both state that a tank must be secured with bolts and both list the number of bolts and how big they need to be depending on the size of the tank. But for an MoT this wouldn't apply if you used stuff intended for sealing your window frames into the brickwork of your house.

I fully get your point and we're probably all aware of the different bolting /strapping requirements with different tanks etc. In the past I have used fireproof expanding foam under internal toroidal tanks to prevent rattles etc but of course I did properly bolt the tank in too.. Having said, I do know of one long time pro installer who has advocated using Tiger Seal to hold tanks in place.. not something I would recommend, he argues that Tiger Seal and the like are used to hold modern car panels together and similar agents to hold fighter plane wings on...

There, happy now?

Ecstatic now mate Seriously though thanks for the reply and baring with me..
Now there's just the points I make above to think about replying to!

Simon

[LPGC]

"Simon, you are not a mind reader. You do not know anything of my attitude to Mike Chapman, it is not even me that keeps invoking his name! Even when trying to adopt a "reasonable man" stance, you tell other people what they really think, regardless of what they actually say. Or in this case, haven't said. How is this relevant?

That cart is still firmly in front of the horse, with solution pre-chosen and trying to change the requirement to fit it. Compromises have been discussed at tedious length. You want/need lots to fit the MoT format; compromises that alarm other people. You took a half-page telling us how you have not changed your stance; this may a clue to the difficulty.

I take back suggesting Mike Chapman might be your God Maybe it's more a case that you're a member of the church of UKLPG <--- Joking comment not to be taken too seriously mate...
I am against UKLPGs scheme because I find it's claims and members claims untrue, I don't think it does what it says on the box regards safety which is bad enough in itself, but in the meantime those claims are detrimental to my business. Given all the figures involved I cannot see how the scheme makes sense.. I feel I'm fighting from the corner of common sense.. On the other side of the coin you seem to take it personally when I say such things and seem to be a firm believer in UKLPGs scheme despite the numbers involved and despite Mike Chapman telling us UKLPG would prefer DOT to take over testing of newly converted vehicles etc.

You're correct, I have pre-chosen a replacement scheme and am trying to find compromises that would allow the MOT scheme to replace UKLPG's scheme... I don't think we've discussed the point of compromises to tedium yet, though..

You've said before you can think of other ways of going about it but I think they all revolve around expensive one-off testing that would be bad for the industry... neither of us want that, I think the MOT scheme would be appropriate which is why I suggest it.. I can't think of any other cheap, appropriate schemes that wouldn't put installers or customers out too much.... What are the schemes you might suggest?

Simon

[SimonHobson]

... but it will pass an MOT or a COP11 UKLPG check if the boot or vent pipe is secured with chewing gun and might come off the next day...

Actually it won't pass a CoP11 check if the check is done properly. CoP11 is clear on securing the vent pipe with metal clips.

[Gilbertd]

Now there's just the points I make above to think about replying to! :wink:

What points are they, they are the same points you've been making all along. let's just look at tanks shall we. Filled toroidal in a spare wheel well will have brackets around the top for bolting it in. MoT man looks underneath and can't see any fixings. So what does he do? He could lift the cover in the boot and have a look but he isn't allowed to so he asks the owner, if he is there as many people drop their car off and pick it up later, if he can lift it. No mate, it's stuck down. The tank is secure then, it can't go anywhere. Alternatively, owner lifts the lid and it's held in by being surrounded by expanding foam. That's OK then, it's secure, it isn't going anywhere.

So you are advocating that the UK Government implements a scheme that will allow an installation that doesn't comply with the BSEN Standard that they have adopted?

You can bang on all you like about the number of unchecked vehicles that are on the roads but they aren't going around spontaneously combusting are they? They are all being MoT'd every 12 months aren't they?

As Ross says, you have invented the cart but can't work out how to attach the horse but you haven't invented it because you need it as a means of transport, you have invented it as an alternative to something else. You talk about safety but that isn't the prime driving force, the prime driving force is that you don't like what you see as scaremongering by UKLPG members. They go around telling people that if they have an install done by a non-UKLPG member it may not be safe. Quite correct, it MAY not be safe no matter who does it, equally it may be perfectly safe. Just like a member of any other trade body, they will try to use their membership to their own advantage. That's why they join in the first place. Why do you think my employers pay around £140 a year so that I can put letters after my name when I send letters and emails? Because it shows I'm a qualified, professional engineer who knows what he's talking about. I would still be a professional engineer who knows what he's talking about if I didn't have those letters after my name but nobody would know it. You are concentrating on the inspection rather than membership of a trade body which you could join if you wanted to and then be in the same situation as the other members. But it is the trade body that you have a problem with. I said it about 22 pages ago, why not join and try to influence from the inside rather than being seen as an argumentative outsider?

[rossko]

Check what aspect of tanks? Arguably most tanks these days are 30deg internal toroidal, on most of these you can see the securing bolts and spreader plates under the vehicle. On most 30deg cylinder internal tanks you can at least see most or all of the securing bolts and spreader plates... Many zero degree external tanks or cylinder external tanks are not bolted through the floor, they are bolted to the chassis where mounting points can be seen. On all tanks it can be assumed a valve is fitted and like you said it can be assumed it is E marked, if it is E marked it will have been made with a PRV.

Most, many, some, few, assume, any old valve will do. This is quite scary, the proposal is to issue "100% safe and A-OK, signed off, officially fit for purpose and endorsed by HM the Queen" status for things that have never ever been looked at, and rely on fingers crossed and this year's fashions.
Does anyone imagine Vehicle Inspectorate buying into this?

Is it a UKLPG requirement that all member installers need to have means of testing the filler for leaks?

How dumb can you playact? It is a requirement that we actually fire up our conversions on gas. This requires putting gas in, durr. It's completely immaterial how that is acheived, if that is what clever point you are probing for. Bunker on premises, trip to Tescos, handpump out of a bottle, who cares. What a stupid question.
Come on then, produce your shocked disbelief again.
(Extra points for inventiveness if you suggest that approved installers must really buy pre-filled tanks, then the filler wouldn't get checked.)

I do know of one long time pro installer who has advocated using Tiger Seal to hold tanks in place.. not something I would recommend, he argues that Tiger Seal and the like are used to hold modern car panels together and similar agents to hold fighter plane wings on...

I expect thats something we've all thought about. The use of glues for those purposes is under strictly controlled conditions with carefully designed and prepared surfaces, not really something we're going to achieve.

I can't think of any other cheap, appropriate schemes that wouldn't put installers or customers out too much....

And here we see the reasoning behind the insistence on calling it "MoT", and so collecting all the baggage that would make it hopelessly ineffective. Cheap, convenient, rate more highly than safety. What was the purpose of this scheme again?

A really convenient scheme with few costs is to have installers self-certify their output. That's entirely appropriate in automotive certification activities; its routine and unremarkable for MoT garages to pass their own work, their own vehicles. It is routine and unremarkable for people like Ford to sell vehicles and put them on the road without anyone else inspecting them for years.

There's several ways for the government to introduce a one-off certification, they'd all probably be more costly (because it would have to at least look self-funding) and "convenient" depends on the implementation. If you were able to have such certification done at an MoT station, it is no different to yours (I think - it is always unclear whether you are proposing an enhanced MoT or some special-for-LPG MoT). In real life, many stations wouldn't elect to offer the service though. That could apply to your scheme too, and you have mentioned that yourself before. It's never going to be easy or convenient on Orkney.

I've been through several possibilities before. Should I relist them for you in a bit more detail? Can do. It's all so roundy-roundy and pointless, but you do seem incapable of remembering or referring back - unless it suits you, like the filler thing. I know, you're a busy man, with barely enough time to write all that stuff, never mind looking into the basis for it.

[Dave K]

So when Joe public has paid for his conversion and whipped it round to the MOT station for a fresh new MOT that involves removing all sorts of trim and checking every nut and bolt on his new gas conversion, he's going to be presented with another massive bill because this is BRITAIN and the govt are going to make sure that an MOT of this magnitude is paid for in full. What do you reckon for the checking time... 2, 3 ,4 hours at around £60 an hour ? Of course the whole exercise would need to be repeated every year. Quickly removes the savings you'd thought you'd make by running on LPG, especially as the govt has already made it clear that it intends to increase the fuel duty on LPG by more than that on other fuels in order to bring the duties up to the same level of those other fuels. Hope you have plans for the future when you get your MOT wish cos the number of installs you'll be doing will be some what lower.

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
Now there's just the points I make above to think about replying to!
What points are they, they are the same points you've been making all along

I asked you to consolidate the points I listed and I said...

Really, even given the above (points)? I suggest that in these 19/20 DIY installs that currently have no check, MOT man would find silly mistakes like tanks not bolted in at all, like fuel lines running through suspension trap points, like components loose under the bonnet... Things that are already included in the MOT as it stands. I have also said the MOT scheme would only become more effective when DOTs method of ensuring that MOT checks are standardised / testing stations that fail below average numbers of vehicles on specific points are singled out for checks by DOT

You did reply...

You can bang on all you like about the number of unchecked vehicles that are on the roads but they aren't going around spontaneously combusting are they? They are all being MoT'd every 12 months aren't they?

Agreed. But this reply doesn't address that the low numbers of spontaneously combusting LPG vehicles is in despite of UKLPG only seeing 1/20 DIY installs (those which we might most expect to be unsafe), that LPG installs are therefore for the most part likely inherently safe, that MOT man would have a better chance of seeing (and failing) the really dodgy installs that despite LPG conversions being inherently safe might still be unsafe due to stupid install errors and despite MOT man not being able to lift carpets etc. You have, after all, agreed in principal that a less through check on all vehicles is better than a thorough check on a fraction of vehicles.. The fact that LPG conversions are inherently safe means that a safety scheme that looks for the stupid and very basic install errors is sufficient, so the inherently safe nature lends weight to my reasoning, not to yours?

As Ross says, you have invented the cart but can't work out how to attach the horse but you haven't invented it because you need it as a means of transport, you have invented it as an alternative to something else. You talk about safety but that isn't the prime driving force, the prime driving force is that you don't like what you see as scaremongering by UKLPG members. They go around telling people that if they have an install done by a non-UKLPG member it may not be safe. Quite correct, it MAY not be safe no matter who does it, equally it may be perfectly safe. Just like a member of any other trade body, they will try to use their membership to their own advantage

I have suggested even an unchanged MOT check will see all DIY installs and therefore will see more problems with LPG installs than a UKLPG member. The only reason my cart isn't connected to my horse is because DOT haven't stipulated that new LPG installs need go for an MOT. Mike and UKLPG would prefer the MOT system to UKLPG checks too but reading just a little between the lines, Mike suggested a very much changed MOT to DOT and DOT didn't opt for it because the changes would involve expensive MOT man training etc. I suggested to Mike he re-approach DOT with a much less changed MOT proposal, this wouldn't involve cost, DOT may opt for it.

Safety should always be a prime driving force but most pro installs are safe - if we are going to see a ridiculously unsafe install it is most likely going to be done by one of those 19/20 DIY installs that currently are not checked... don't you agree?
Granted the remainder of my cause is because I don't like what I see.. If there has been an outcome to this discussion so far it has been that I have showed a UKLPG database registration on a vehicle does not necessarily mean it is any safer than a vehicle without a UKLPG database registration, a UKLPG database entry might just as easily have been registered over the phone and some phone registrations are done by DIYers. Many people will consider overstating facts and issuing of misinformation by UKLPG members as tradesman telling lies to big themselves up and secure work.

Back to the picking points between UKPLG checks and a very much standard MOT check, you raised another point... You said full toroidal tanks are bolted in with bracketing aorund the top.. This is usually the case (but full toroidal tanks are available with bolt holes at the bottom too). In both cases MOT man should be able to see spreader plates and nuts underneath... The only exceptions are vehicles that have plastic undertrays under the spare wheel well.. Among these exceptions it is more likely MOT man could bolts securing full toroidal tanks than 30degree tanks. The point you raise might mean that instead of tank security being meaningfully checked on 1/20 DIY installs via UKLPG checks, instead of tank security being meaningfully checked on 20/20 DIY installs via MOT checks, tank security is now meaningfully checked on 18/20 DIY installs via MOT checks... Compromises, compromises... Still much better than the 1/20 compromise? And I can easily extend this point to pipe runs not being trapped between suspension swing points, pipe runs using correct type pipe, components being properly secured under the bonnet, all vehicle LPG emissions being checked...

Most, many, some, few, assume, any old valve will do. This is quite scary, the proposal is to issue "100% safe and A-OK, signed off, officially fit for purpose and endorsed by HM the Queen" status for things that have never ever been looked at, and rely on fingers crossed and this year's fashions.
Does anyone imagine Vehicle Inspectorate buying into this?

Vehicle inspectorate currently buy into no vehicles being checked or 33% of vehicles being checked depending on how you look at it. As said, maybe if they knew 19/20 DIY installs currently had no check whatsoever they might think (how did you put it before Gilbert - ahh yes) a cursory check better than no check whatsoever. They might combine that thought with thoughts that MOT man could at the same time change logbook fuel type details / that since the scheme would be under their control it could be further improved in future by updating MOT man accordingly / that existing policy of checking MOT man failure rates against other MOT man failure rates would ensure a rise in number of failures on LPG points such as, examples, tank mounting and loose components.

LPGC wrote:
Is it a UKLPG requirement that all member installers need to have means of testing the filler for leaks?

How dumb can you playact? It is a requirement that we actually fire up our conversions on gas. This requires putting gas in, durr. It's completely immaterial how that is acheived, if that is what clever point you are probing for. Bunker on premises, trip to Tescos, handpump out of a bottle, who cares. What a stupid question.
Come on then, produce your shocked disbelief again.

Confrontational mode again? I am surprised at your play acting of dumbness.. Not talking about a UKLPG member checking his own work following a new install, following a new install of course the installer has to put gas in to calibrate it anyway.. We can perhaps expect pro installs to be safe, it is amateur installs that might have most problems...? What happens when a DIYer brings a vehicle in for a check, it doesn't need refueling to fulfill the 'see it running on gas' requirement , it arrives with gas in the tank.. All members that don't have on site refueling ability drive that customer vehicle to Tesco etc do they...? Even those that are based miles from the nearest refueling station? During a 45 minute UKLPG check? I suggest you might, most won't, most will skip this bit altogether. I further suggest that if you wanted to really ensure tank safety during a UKLPG check you could fill the tank completely therefore checking the 80% fill limiter.. but to really ensure the tank 80% fill limiter works correctly you would need to completely empty the tank and then refuel completely.. Do you do that? If not, don't you consider this a compromise in the UKLPG check, too? All UKPLG members completely fill tanks to check the 80% fill limiter,all customers collect vehicles with a full tank do they? Even A class motorhomes that might hold 400 litres? You seemed shocked when I asked what aspects of tanks are checked, maybe because you knew I was suggesting that not every aspect of tanks are checked - Now I have demonstrated that a UKLPG check doesn't check every aspect of tanks either... the MOT check might involve further compromises but still make for a better system. 19/20 DIY fitted tanks currently have no aspects checked, MOT man would be able to check that most of these were at least bolted in properly.

And here we see the reasoning behind the insistence on calling it "MoT", and so collecting all the baggage that would make it hopelessly ineffective. Cheap, convenient, rate more highly than safety. What was the purpose of this scheme again?

Not as ineffective as a scheme which doesn't see vehicles at all. Further discussion on this in more detail above.

A really convenient scheme with few costs is to have installers self-certify their output. That's entirely appropriate in automotive certification activities; its routine and unremarkable for MoT garages to pass their own work, their own vehicles. It is routine and unremarkable for people like Ford to sell vehicles and put them on the road without anyone else inspecting them for years.

Mike and UKLPG don't want to run a scheme.. If they end their scheme tomorrow, who do you think should take over? If you think all installers should be forced to be members of a private trade body, wouldn't that involve even more of that (as you would suggest) hard to come by legislation than what I have suggested? Wouldn't legislation be needed to make us all become members of UKPLG anyway? Since UKLPGs scheme already runs at a loss, do you think UKLPG could expand to see 3 times as many vehicles as it does already? Since gas suppliers subsidise the shortfall in UKLPG vehicle check funding, do you think pump gas prices at the pump should increase to subsidise newly converted vehicle checks?

I expect thats something we've all thought about. The use of glues for those purposes is under strictly controlled conditions with carefully designed and prepared surfaces, not really something we're going to achieve.

We agree on this point at least mate I nearly went on to say the same.

There's several ways for the government to introduce a one-off certification, they'd all probably be more costly (because it would have to at least look self-funding) and "convenient" depends on the implementation. If you were able to have such certification done at an MoT station, it is no different to yours (I think - it is always unclear whether you are proposing an enhanced MoT or some special-for-LPG MoT)

I've suggested both... either a modded MOT or a standard MOT. Regards modded / unmodded MOT's it depends whether we're talking about the actual MOT hands on check procedures or some of the admin systems involved. My suggestion would at least involve some admin changes IF it were to include facilitating the change of fuel type at the same time. You would be right to point out that some of these admin changes would also involve legislative changes - Gilbert has rightfully pointed out that if you were to produce a newly LPG converted vehicle for MOT at the moment they would simply say 'your vehicle isn't due a test for X months yet sir'. Where others have said a modded MOT isn't likely to happen I've suggested that even an unmodded MOT might be better that the current situation. Which (if any) aspect(s) of the 'hands on' part of the test could be changed without involving much cost / something that DOT might opt for is open to debate and compromise.

I've been through several possibilities before. Should I relist them for you in a bit more detail? Can do. It's all so roundy-roundy and pointless, but you do seem incapable of remembering or referring back - unless it suits you, like the filler thing. I know, you're a busy man, with barely enough time to write all that stuff, never mind looking into the basis for it.

A little unfair mate... I don't remember all points raised during an 18month long thread and I know you don't! When you reminded me about the filler issue I couldn't remember all points discussed but did remember it was a part of discussion that got stretched out with side issues discussed such as SimonH talking about various ways of pressurising the filler system - that part of discussion is hard to follow and retrace. Nevertheless I thought my points came out on top on the filler issue but didn't want to irritate you by being so blunt as to say so in as many words. Failing to not irritate you, I have re-addressed points on the filler issue above in this post in the same manner that your recent reply to my points was written.... Granted not as constructive as they might have been and granted likely to raise a bit of backlash and further focus on minor / hardly relevant points but that's par for the course when we can't have a chat without getting narked and taking cheap swipes at each other eh?

So when Joe public has paid for his conversion and whipped it round to the MOT station for a fresh new MOT that involves removing all sorts of trim and checking every nut and bolt on his new gas conversion, he's going to be presented with another massive bill because this is BRITAIN and the govt are going to make sure that an MOT of this magnitude is paid for in full. What do you reckon for the checking time... 2, 3 ,4 hours at around £60 an hour ? Of course the whole exercise would need to be repeated every year. Quickly removes the savings you'd thought you'd make by running on LPG, especially as the govt has already made it clear that it intends to increase the fuel duty on LPG by more than that on other fuels in order to bring the duties up to the same level of those other fuels. Hope you have plans for the future when you get your MOT wish cos the number of installs you'll be doing will be some what lower.

No, Dave.. That's not what was suggested at all! More like - Following a new LPG conversion you take your vehicle for a one off MOT much like any other except MOT man makes sure he checks the vehicle while it is running on LPG.. MOT man isn't going to strip the vehicle to check the system, he's not allowed to, he's just going to make sure it seems fitted OK... Even during an unchanged MOT that we currently have this is something MOT man should be doing! When the test is passed, MOT man facilitates change of fuel type to 'petrol / LPG' on DVSA's database for you. Insurance firms can see that the vehicle has petrol/LPG on the logbook (via DVSA database) and have no problem insuring you. Further MOT checks are just normal MOT checks, perhaps MOT man won't care if he checks the vehicle on petrol or LPG.

Who fitted your LPG system Dave, a UKLPG member pro, a none UKLPG member pro, or an amateur?
Is your vehicle on UKLPG's database? If not are you going to have it checked by a UKLPG member?
What are your insurance company views / requirements?
What information regards safe LPG system installs have you been told by the trade? I suggest, if you make a few phone calls to people in the trade you will receive conflicting advice... Better for the trade if people in the trade gave similar / none conflicting advice and if there were no question marks?

I take your 'since this is Britain' point fully. I wonder what, if anything, government makes of all the noise that UKLPG and members make about safety.. Mike and UKLPG's direct suggestion of a highly modded MOT scheme might have stirred them up a bit - I wonder if they had sometimes considered options for a mandatory safety scheme anyway and Mikes suggestion further stirred things up... If this is the case, wouldn't it be nice if we all got together and managed to convince government that the simple, cheap, common sense MOT scheme without many alterations would be sufficient instead of an alternative they might be considering?

Simon

[Dave K]

I present my vehicle running on LPG for the test and always have done. You say MOT man isn't allowed to strip vehicle to check but from what I'm reading on here, thats what people are pushing for in the future- a nuts and bolt examination. I'd like to believe that it would be a one off but this is BRITAIN, we wallow in the art of rip off and no govt is going to spurn the chance of some extra income from a special LPG MOT at extra cost on a yearly basis.

[LPGC]

I present my vehicle running on LPG for the test and always have done. You say MOT man isn't allowed to strip vehicle to check but from what I'm reading on here, thats what people are pushing for in the future- a nuts and bolt examination. I'd like to believe that it would be a one off but this is BRITAIN, we wallow in the art of rip off and no govt is going to spurn the chance of some extra income from a special LPG MOT at extra cost on a yearly basis.

I don't know if our posts crossed over but you haven't addressed points I made in my edited post above (edited to answer your points). Nobody here wants a nuts and bolts examination - my post above addresses your most recent points.

Presenting the vehicle for MOT while it is running on gas is your choice, nobody makes you do that. I suspect, like many converted vehicle owners, being aware that emissions will be lower on LPG as long as your LPG system is working properly influences your decision to present it running on gas? My suggestion would force you to present it just the first time running on gas.

Simon

[rossko]

Someone start a new thread about certification for safety (needed, how, who) and keep this hate campaign out of it, then progress could be made.

[SimonHobson]

I present my vehicle running on LPG for the test and always have done. You say MOT man isn't allowed to strip vehicle to check but from what I'm reading on here, thats what people are pushing for in the future- a nuts and bolt examination. I'd like to believe that it would be a one off but this is BRITAIN, we wallow in the art of rip off and no govt is going to spurn the chance of some extra income from a special LPG MOT at extra cost on a yearly basis.

Only need to look at Japan to see how well that works out. There's a reason there are so many 3 year old Japanese spec vehicles around - their equivalent of the MoT is a big reason.
AIUI, their's takes 2 days and does involve considerable strip down - with a cost to go with it. So unless you have something particularly valuable (either monetary or sentimental) then it's not worth keeping a car when it reaches 3 years and has to go for it's first test.

[Gilbertd]

I present my vehicle running on LPG for the test and always have done. You say MOT man isn't allowed to strip vehicle to check but from what I'm reading on here, thats what people are pushing for in the future- a nuts and bolt examination. I'd like to believe that it would be a one off but this is BRITAIN, we wallow in the art of rip off and no govt is going to spurn the chance of some extra income from a special LPG MOT at extra cost on a yearly basis.

Dave, I'm not pushing for a nuts and bolts examination which, as you rightly point out, would cost a lot more. An IVA test is currently £495 so that would be the sort of figure we'd be looking at. Simon is advocating using an 'enhanced' MoT to check all newly converted vehicles and the rest of us, including Mike Chapman from UKLPG, are pointing out that at the moment an MoT tester is not allowed to dismantle anything. Not only that but they have no desire to in case something breaks and they could be held liable. This is even though every tester in the country knows that if he were to remove the plastic undertray on a Nissan Micra, he would find a rotten front crossmember, and instant fail. But, as he can't remove the undertray and can't see it, then he has to pass it. He can't fail a car on something that he thinks might not be right, he has to see that it isn't right. Therefore, if he can't see a tank and how it is fixed in place, he would have to assume it is OK and pass it.

That is the point we are trying to make to Simon but for some reason he doesn't want to listen and keeps banging on about how few converted vehicles get inspected and there should be a compulsory test at the time a vehicle is converted. He has decided that the MoT is the way forward if it is modified slightly even though they all get a standard MoT test within 12 months anyway.

I think this sums it up nicely......

[LPGC]

Only need to look at Japan to see how well that works out. There's a reason there are so many 3 year old Japanese spec vehicles around - their equivalent of the MoT is a big reason.

There's a slightly different reason behind Japan's difficult to pass and expensive scheme, though. Japan's scheme applies even to unmodified petrol / diesel vehicles - they don't want old (or too many) cars on the road, they don't like cars being imported... keeps their motor industry going very nicely but disadvantages vehicle owners...

Gilbert, did you go to the effort of searching especially for that Gif at 8:15 last night? Surely not 'merry' at that time mate <-- (sigh) better say I'm kidding

You will now again have the opportunity of saying I am repeating myself, again because you perhaps conveniently overlooked some of my points... See if you can answer these points, consolidate them, then tell me again if you think UKLPGs current scheme makes more sense than the MOT scheme which I suggest - and please don't forget to explain your reasoning:

Amateur DIY installs and done in a day installs are most likely to be the installs that have the most stupid / unsafe aspects? These are the installs that are least likely to be done by a UKLPG member or presented for a UKLPG check?

UKLPGs scheme only sees 5% of DIY installs (going on Mike's numbers)? So UKLPGs scheme currently doesn't see 95% of the installs which we would most expect to have the most blatant issues?

The MOT scheme that I suggested would see 100% of these DIY installs and 100% of all other installs too? Even if the MOT is completely unchanged (except to make the scheme mandatory for new LPG installs) it would therefore see many more issues than UKLPGs scheme does? Even if MOT man cannot remove plastic undertrays etc?

On the far greater majority of vehicles tank bolting can be seen because they don't have plastic undertrays? On every install MOT man would be able to see if pipe routing might allow a pipe to be trapped between moving suspension components? On the vast majority of installs, MOT man would be able to check that under bonnet components were properly secured? On every install MOT man would be able to notice nasty leaks?

On the minority of installs where all such checks are not possible during the MOT (because MOT man cannot dismantle to check) he will still be able to check other aspects of the system - there might be a vehicle where he cannot see some tank mount bolts but can see other tank mount bolts, he can still check LPG pipes won't get trapped in suspension and can still check underbonnnet component security?

Your current argument against the suggested MOT check (which checks most/at least some of these safety points on 100% of vehicles) , and is in support of UKLPGs scheme, flies in the face of logic and common sense when we consider that UKLPG's scheme sees only a total figure of 33% of converted vehicles, of which we can expect most to be safe (they have been converted by pros, mostly UKLPG members), the scheme only sees 5% of DIY converted vehicles, 95% of DIY converted vehicles get no check done whatsoever?

MOT man would be questioned by DOT if he didn't fail the MOT average of installs on specific points (this is DOTs existing way of ensuring the same MOT standard is upheld across all MOT stations)? MOT man awareness would increase due to DOTs scheme and he would start to be more critical of LPG systems on already converted vehicles during his usual MOTs? This would imply LPG systems did just only have a one time check but also received a more thorough annual check too?

Seems every attempt is made to rubbish my suggestion of the MOT scheme and to support UKLPGs scheme - yet Mike Chapman, gaffer of UKLPG, has suggested to government that he too would prefer the MOT scheme (granted probably a more modified MOT than anything I have suggested), he too still refers to his suggestion as an MOT, he has stated UKLPG do not with to continue running UKLPGs scheme.

Logical / valid arguments don't really call for much p*** taking, do they?

We only became aware of Mike's MOT suggestion to government because of the chat I had with Mike Chapman (unless anyone else here already knew? if so, that would beg the question why nobody here said so). I wonder what other discussions are going on regards ensuring standards in this industry... If UKLPGs scheme were to end tomorrow, I wonder what we might expect government to do... The answer might be nothing, but suppose government fully believed UKLPGs scheme was currently preventing incidents and required some sort of scheme replace it... Now suppose the decision what kind of scheme replace UKLPG's scheme was to be made by UKLPG members (I know, unlikely but what if)... Would those defending UKLPGs scheme here then wish they had agreed with the MOT system and now vote for the MOT system, or would they still say the MOT wasn't good enough and vote for compulsory independent COP11 checks?

I suspect most would vote for MOT checks - because they know LPG conversions are inherently safe unless the most stupid and daft install mistakes are made and they don't want an expensive check system involved which would kill the industry.. Now feed this sentiment back in from the start and even if your initial reasoning was against the MOT, it might now change to support the MOT.


Simon

[luke123]

Do the UKLPG not do mystery shopping like vosa do for test stations?

But if vosa corporate something in with the M.O.T scheme would all the UKLPG members who do inspections loose business?

Simon LPGC,

Are you thinking that vosa make a scheme up where in fact you pay some money to vosa, do some training with vosa/uklpg and then they come out to the place of business and inspect your premises etc.

So an m.o.t station can register/inspect vehicles and also UKLPG members still do this practise also?

[SimonHobson]

There's a slightly different reason behind Japan's difficult to pass and expensive scheme, though. Japan's scheme applies even to unmodified petrol / diesel vehicles - they don't want old (or too many) cars on the road, they don't like cars being imported... keeps their motor industry going very nicely but disadvantages vehicle owners...

I didn't say anything about modified vehicles. I was merely pointing out what happens when "officialdom" decides (for whatever reasons) to go OTT with some form of periodic testing/inspection.

There's a good chance that if you were to push it, and our government thought there was a problem to be solved, then something more akin to the IVA would get imposed - GilbertD has given a cost for that of £495, and I could see an official LPG conversion inspection merely being to send the vehicle for an IVA. While I am not happy with the current "problem", I'd rather have what we have than the far worse "cure" for it.

Tell me, what do you think it would do to your business if you have to either a) add half a grand to your prices to cover the inspection, or b) tell your customers that when you've finished, they'll then have to hand over another half a grand to HMG ?
Further, do you think such a charge on officially registered conversions would a) increase, or b) decrease, the incidence of conversions being done as part of a black economy with no oversight whatsoever ?
Easily done if you aren't too fussed about telling the insurance co. And MoTs are no problem - just present it running on petrol and pull a wire off the reducer solenoid in case the tester tries it out on gas.

[LPGC]

Do the UKLPG not do mystery shopping like vosa do for test stations?

Yes, but Vosa (now DVSA - worth pointing out because I will refer to this below) aquire statistics from all MOT stations - they can see if one station isn't failing enough vehicles on things like bulbs and then approach that station to see what's going on.. UKLPG's mystery shopping isn't as thorough as Vosa's mystery shopping - with only a couple of staff you wouldn't expect it to be as thorough. If Vosa revoke MOT man's license for doing MOTs he won't be doing any more MOTs, if UKLPG remove members membership he can still convert vehicles to LPG just like any none member, nothing illegal about it... On top of that, the former UKLPG member will likely have a mate who is a member of UKLPG who he can pay to register his new conversions on UKLPGs database... perhaps he can do that over the phone without his mate ever seeing the vehicle.

Luke - I am not a member of UKLPG, never been a member, yet I can phone any of several people and they will register the vehicle for me on UKLPG's database without even seeing the vehicle. Some suppliers offer the same even to amateurs.

But if vosa corporate something in with the M.O.T scheme would all the UKLPG members who do inspections loose business?

Yes mate, they would lose the UKLPG inspection business - they wouldn't be inspecting others work. In some cases, they would lose the opportunity of being able to receive money over the phone for 'testing' vehcles while actually not lifting a finger other than to enter the registration on their computer. Perhaps more inportantly to them, they would not be able to misinform the public that UKLPG registered vehicles are safer and imply that they are safer because they are UKLPG members.

Are you thinking that vosa make a scheme up where in fact you pay some money to vosa, do some training with vosa/uklpg and then they come out to the place of business and inspect your premises etc.

No... Vosa don't need to make a scheme up, the MOT scheme already exists. Nobody inspects anybody's premises (except Vosa inspect MOT premises as usual). The proof is in the pudding - the newly LPG converted vehicle goes for an MOT... It doesn't matter where it was converted as long as the final job is safe, does it? The customer pays the usual MOT fee to MOT man - not a difficult concept for customer or the trade to grasp?

So an m.o.t station can register/inspect vehicles and also UKLPG members still do this practise also?

That was one compromise suggestion I made before Mike Chapman from UKLPG informed me/us that UKLPG didn't want to be involved with inspecting vehicles. The point is that following a new LPG install the install is seen by a competent person - MOT man is licensed by VOSA to inspect vehicles so I suggested he would be a logical choice without a scheme going over the top with the associated expense. Since UKLPG don't want to be involved I now suggest UKLPG are not involved with inspecting vehicles at all, the MOT scheme does it all, i consider this idea to be less compromised than a scheme involving UKLPG members because MOT man is regulated by VOSA, which has teeth, UKLPG man is regulated by UKLPG which has no teeth, MOT men are much less likely to pass an MOT for a vehicle over the phone.

DVSA took over from VOSA and DVLA, it combines them both. MOT man's computer talks to DVSAs computer already. It wouldn't be too difficult, maybe straight away or maybe in time, to allow MOT man's computer to update DVSA records on vehicle fuel type.. Doing so would mean following the first successful MOT pass of an LPG converted vehicle, the vehicle has correct fuel type updated on DVSA's database. In time, insurers would not need to ask customers to jump through hoops regards UKLPG checks etc, they would know that vehicles that had LPG as fuel type on logbooks had passed the MOT and were therefore safe.

Simon