UKLPG comments

[scottyf]

I told insurance and it cost me the admin fee.

They didn't refuse insurance unless you got your car onto UKLPG's database, then?

No I did word the sentence with - If I have LPG conversion to my car would I need any certificates or invoices to insure my car with you or do I just let you know.
They just said let us know and if I didn't in the event of a claim I "Could" be uninsured.


I agree the MOT check would never accept one over the phone.



I'd probably be a bit arrogant about getting it working etc. But I guess where I differ is that I am willing to have a go. I am also one that listens intently to those offering free advice based on experience.
The quickest way you learn is by the mistakes of others.

[Gilbertd]

Thanks for noting the paragraph you refer to and implying that you agree but did you notice the other paragraphs between the one you refer to here and the 'axe to grind' paragraph? No comment on the other things I've said?

Not really, you didn't say anything different to what you've been saying for the last 29 pages and I think all of them have been covered at one point or another.

Toolless install might be unsafe even if it doesn't run on LPG... It could still have a heavy and unsecured tank full of gas in the boot ready to smack him or a passenger at the back of the head in a crash?

I think most people would consider that a bonus and a quantifyable improvement in the gene pool...... Lots of people drive around with big heavy things in their boot, I carry a 2 tonne trolley jack (although I suspect the spare wheel and back seat separating it from the back of my head would stop it getting that far) but there's no law against it.

You have already described Rated People.com and Guild of Master Craftsmen as pointless / laughable. I have pointed out failings in UKLPG scheme but you still differentiate between Guild of master Craftsmen and UKLPG? What bragging rights would you suggest I claim now that I have pointed out big failings in UKLPG scheme?

That you are a member of the Trade Association for LPG installers? You could pay your money and be listed on Rated People.com and advertise that fact so it makes you appear to be better than the others that aren't on there. You could pay your money to the Guild of Master Craftsmen, use their logo in your adverts and on your letterhead and make it appear that you are better than others that aren't a member. In just the same way, you could pay your money and join UKLPG, use their logo in your adverts and make it appear that you are better than those that aren't a member. You know it's bollox but I suspect that others that pay their money to the other two organisations know it is too, but it gives them bragging rights and allows them to make out they are better than the others even if they aren't. Mind you, I suspect that as Mike Chapman knows all about your vendetta, he would veto any application for membership from you anyway......

[LPGC]

LPGC wrote:
Thanks for noting the paragraph you refer to and implying that you agree but did you notice the other paragraphs between the one you refer to here and the 'axe to grind' paragraph? No comment on the other things I've said?
Not really, you didn't say anything different to what you've been saying for the last 29 pages and I think all of them have been covered at one point or another.

I regret having to point this out... But you're back to taking the stance of being reluctant to answer because you reckon I'm repeating myself, and so soon after last time too? To shorten your answer (by what you must be implying would be a lot if you make out to suggest that I am so often wrong), you could claim you disagree with all points, but maybe you agree with all points but just don't want to say so... I reckon you'd find it difficult to disagree with any point! Now you can be as cryptic with your reply as you see fit - People will see that I give full and un-cryptic answers and may wonder why you don't do the same,. Answers in the past have been hard to follow at the best of times because they are spread out all over this thread with discussion being side-tracked / ebbing off and refocussing on minor points, so not so many points were previously said in one post and perhaps more relevantly were not previously considered in the light of Mike Chapman agreeing with me that an MOT following every new install would be better than what we have now.

LPGC wrote:
Toolless install might be unsafe even if it doesn't run on LPG... It could still have a heavy and unsecured tank full of gas in the boot ready to smack him or a passenger at the back of the head in a crash?
I think most people would consider that a bonus and a quantifyable improvement in the gene pool...... Lots of people drive around with big heavy things in their boot, I carry a 2 tonne trolley jack (although I suspect the spare wheel and back seat separating it from the back of my head would stop it getting that far) but there's no law against it.

Agreed on all points here... Poor old Toolless, though Next comment isn't aimed at anyone in particular, or maybe it is aimed at all of us... On your carrying heavy stuff around point.. We're all guilty, we all get things out of context. Not much real difference between an LPG tank smacking you at the back of the head or a two tonne trolley jack, but as installers we throw arms in the air at the thought of an unsecured LPG tank.... But maybe it's the fact that the tank is supposedly a permanent vehicle fixture that makes all the difference..

LPGC wrote:
You have already described Rated People.com and Guild of Master Craftsmen as pointless / laughable. I have pointed out failings in UKLPG scheme but you still differentiate between Guild of master Craftsmen and UKLPG? What bragging rights would you suggest I claim now that I have pointed out big failings in UKLPG scheme?
That you are a member of the Trade Association for LPG installers? You could pay your money and be listed on Rated People.com and advertise that fact so it makes you appear to be better than the others that aren't on there. You could pay your money to the Guild of Master Craftsmen, use their logo in your adverts and on your letterhead and make it appear that you are better than others that aren't a member. In just the same way, you could pay your money and join UKLPG, use their logo in your adverts and make it appear that you are better than those that aren't a member. You know it's bollox but I suspect that others that pay their money to the other two organisations know it is too, but it gives them bragging rights and allows them to make out they are better than the others even if they aren't. Mind you, I suspect that as Mike Chapman knows all about your vendetta, he would veto any application for membership from you anyway......

Guilty of a bit of repetition yourself there mate? I don't want to pay my money into any scheme that is bolx. You can fully see why Mr Welder doesn't want to pay into the Guild of Master Craftsmen, you would see the same point even if Mr Welder was at the peak of his welding career - you have decided to claim you cannot see why I won't pay into UKLPG but I suggest you can see why, really... In addition, you can see why customers shouldn't read much into a UKLPG database entry.. Regards the prospect of me joining UKLPG, Mike did say he realised I was a good (and safety conscious) installer... Any sentiment aside, then, the kind he would like to join UKLPG? Sentiment included, Mike suggested I might decide to join UKLPG - Mike and I are on good terms, he, at least, can see my points... unlike some people arguing against my points (and side stepping my points) on this forum. Reading further into the implications, if I were to join UKLPG... I would be signing on the line to contractually agree I would not say anything negative about UKLPG. I put the idea out there that UKLPG members are contractually obligated not to say negatives about UKLPG even where they might otherwise see fit.... But, guess what... I now cannot find the bit on this, that I previously quoted on this forum, that implies such. My mistake this evening... or I wonder why that was changed?

After all this time and discussion, would have thought by now we would all be aware that if either of us were to attempt to argue white was black the other would prove the true situation - That's probably a good sign, considering how our courts work eh? I know that you and Rosko are both clever and (mostly ) reasonable men - I reckon you can only really have the same opinion reflected back at me - when I'm not winding you up too much But now it seems to me that you seem to be taking the stance that a none answer cannot be criticised as much as an answer which you know is very much on thin ice....

Simon

[Dave K]

How many vehicles are actually converted on the roads then?

About 155k?
Does this represent about 0.78% of cars on UK roads?

How many LPG related accidents are reported?

I suspect NONE but don't let that stand in the way of the ' it could happen " scare bears.

[scottyf]

So what I gather is that peoples stance are :-

Simon - If I should join something it should be worthwhile and actually mean some thing If I have to pay into it and it should be a government approved and credited.
Other Traders - Already pays into it and uses it as a plus point to promote sales should they need it.
Me - Not too fussed by it because my insurer doesn't care and its not a legal requirement

However everyone is concerned by Safety and wants everyone to be as safe as possible.


Just seem like this thread is going round in a loop.
Are there any plans to change things in the future or is it a fact that because LPG isn't really that popular in the UK very little will really be changed?
Does it need to change?
Is it really a concern given the current Trade body although isn't super effective no real safety issues are cropping up therefore its such little value that its over looked...

[LPGC]

So what I gather is that peoples stance are :-

Simon - If I should join something it should be worthwhile and actually mean some thing If I have to pay into it and it should be a government approved and credited.
Other Traders - Already pays into it and uses it as a plus point to promote sales should they need it.
Me - Not too fussed by it because my insurer doesn't care and its not a legal requirement

Simon - If I join something it should be worthwhile and meaningful, especially if I have to pay into it, especially before I advise other people that it is worthwhile and meaningful, especially before I agree with others that it is worthwhile and meaningful. If others make such claims but I believe it isn't worthwhile and meaningful, if this disadvantages me and flies in the face of common sense, I will point that out. I'm not a commi mate ...It wouldn't necessarily have to be government backed / credited to be worthwhile and meaningful but it is difficult to see how it could be worthwhile and meaningful without being government backed by some sort of legislation - The current situation is that the voluntary scheme sees only the vehicles which we would most likely expect to pass a test, it doesn't see the vehicles converted by DIYers and done in a day installers that we would most likely expect to fail such a test... This is of less importance where DIYer still owns the car that he converted himself, but consider how this affects the guy who buys the car converted by DIYer...

Other traders - Not necessarily only where they need to.. Check out some members websites. If you were to do a random survey of 1000 people and ask them 'do you think it is intuitive that there will be a mandatory safety scheme involved in the conversion of vehicles to LPG', most people would tick the 'yes' box.... UKLPG members realise this and then give just the information that re-inforces this expectation without telling the full story. So the majority of the people in the survey will expect that if they buy an LPG converted vehicle it will have passed a safety test and this isn't necessarily the case. It isn't even necessarily the case even if the vehicle has a UKLPG database registration, due to the 'phone a friend' method of registering vehicles on the database.

You - Well you know your own thoughts Yes.

Just seem like this thread is going round in a loop.

Yes it does and of course I am partly to blame for the loop, but I think others involved are more to blame for the loop - Where I make (what I believe is) a convincing argument, others sidestep the argument and go off at right angles by saying things like 'it isn't going to happen' rather than explaining their thoughts on how it would be if my suggestions did happen and then looking at what is preventing it from happening and ways to overcome that prevention. Recent instances have been where... Granted, I have made similar points to those I have made in the past, but where in the past those points have been made singularly and debated at various points throughout this 18month long thread, now (in the light of Mike Chapman from UKLPG saying he has suggested an MOT scheme to DOT) I have listed many of those points in one thread, asked people to comment on their views on each point and asked people for their 'summing up' view which considers all points. In fairness, I think Gilbert has made some effort in reply but I think he has done so in a rather indirect fashion, still avoiding directly answering points and still avoiding a reply which fits with the context of the question (so ner Gilbert mate ).

Does it need to change?

Down to point of view. Safety aside for the moment, if you don't like bulls**t then the points above on misinformation (issued by some in the trade) might make you want a change, or the implications of this (bad for the industry when different installers give conflicting advice) might make you want a change. From a safety standpoint, what about those DIY converted vehicles that are then sold on.. Factoring in common sense, the insurance issue, and vehicle buying public expectations and it seems to me that a scheme that is universal in it's scope and ease of understanding, that is not open to hype or sales talk, would be better on all counts except thoroughness of the check.. But we now seem to agree that a really thorough check isn't totally necessary from a safety (or any other) standpoint.

Is it really a concern given the current Trade body although isn't super effective no real safety issues are cropping up therefore its such little value that its over looked...

The safety aspect was less of a concern a few years ago compared to today. As said previously, we now have a situation where there are a great many times the number of DIY installs being done compared to a few years ago, the only tech support many of these people get at all is via this forum (if they know about this forum) - The cheapest suppliers don't speak English very well, tech support from them is limited and mostly aimed (shall I say it) at pacifying customers so they can get their install working as quickly as possible, such support therefore addresses the tech questions such as wiring / piping arrangements rather than how to bolt stuff on.

Simon

[scottyf]

From a DIY perspective its not the hardest thing to do in the grand scheme of car mechanics.
I had some wishbones I felt where more difficult. The vague instructions placed in kits could do with a bit more of a fettle to make them truly full proof.

Then i guess the rest on tuning etc comes from experience.

Most the kits though seem to be pretty robust but even now I still had to research enough and to be honest I just bit the bullet one day when I went a bit mental. I'd say I was an experienced home mechanic.
But even I had to ask questions.



I guess as fuel prices are dropping and innovative new small diesels and petrol turbo's floating about boasting high mpg there seems to be a less of a need for LPG for the mainstream.
I've spoken to many people at work that don't even know about LPG as a viable source of fuel for their cars. They didn't even know it existed.

I'm not sure in my head that DIY conversions of their own car (not others I wouldn't bother ever attempting to do someone elses car because of the public liability) with purpose built kits is really a huge issue. Mine isn't perfect but not unsafe. So the fact I don't need to take it for a specialized test is great.
But I can understand the need for it. I don't have an issue with doing so though. So long as like an MOT they tell me whats wrong and how I could fix it.

[Gilbertd]

Simon - If I should join something it should be worthwhile and actually mean some thing If I have to pay into it and it should be a government approved and credited.
Other Traders - Already pays into it and uses it as a plus point to promote sales should they need it.
Me - Not too fussed by it because my insurer doesn't care and its not a legal requirement

Scotty, what you have just done is nailed it in one rather than 29 pages. I can see Simon's point of view, why pay to be a member of something that doesn't deliver what it states that it does and has processes that are being quite openly abused? Of the installers that are members, some, such as Rossko's employers, have been members for many years and probably joined thinking that all others would raise their game and join further down the line. What we may have now is some of the newer installers that are joining purely so it makes them appear better than non-members. Ooh look, we're members of UKLPG so we must be better than that LPGC bloke in Leeds because he isn't. No different to the Rated People and Guild of Master Craftsmen organisations I've already mentioned.

Just seem like this thread is going round in a loop.

It most certainly is. Simon has come up with an idea of a replacement to the UKLPG scheme. Any replacement scheme must be able to be shown to check that an install fully complies with the BSEN and an install done to CoP11 will do just that. So whichever is used as the benchmark is irrelevant. The MoT system as it stands cannot do that so it is pointless nit picking on individual points. Whether it is tank security, marking of components, security of components or whatever, these are finer details that may or may not be capable of being checked under the current restrictions placed on an MoT tester. The visit from Mike Chapman seems to have taken the wind out of Simon's sails slightly as it transpires that UKLPG have already suggested an enhanced MoT test with alterations that would mean a tester could check to the BSEN and DoT aren't interested. So the existing MoT test isn't fit for purpose and DoT have no desire to amend it so it is. All cars get an MoT every year anyway so anything glaringly obvious would be picked up then. As said a number of times, there aren't cars continually bursting into flames due to unsafe installations so even something such as a completely unsecured tank rolling around in the boot isn't necessarily going to become an incident but would definitely be picked up at MoT time.

Are there any plans to change things in the future or is it a fact that because LPG isn't really that popular in the UK very little will really be changed?
Does it need to change?
Is it really a concern given the current Trade body although isn't super effective no real safety issues are cropping up therefore its such little value that its over looked...

I don't think it needs to change, particularly as any change is likely to be more onerous on the owner/installer/DIYer. A 10 minute VIC test on a rebuilt write off costs £41, a 2-3 hour IVA test costs £495. If Government were to decide an alternative is needed, which I suspect they don't due to the infinitesimally small number of incidents, the alternative options would be either something midway between the two with a cost to reflect that or a full IVA test.

In fairness, I think Gilbert has made some effort in reply but I think he has done so in a rather indirect fashion, still avoiding directly answering points and still avoiding a reply which fits with the context of the question

As said above, nit picking tiny points when it needs to be looked at as a whole. All or nothing, if something fits the requirements, great, if it doesn't in even the smallest detail, then it is pointless continuing unless it is possible for it to be altered so it does. Something which DoT have already said they are not interested in doing and it is even more unlikely that they would accept a compromise.

The safety aspect was less of a concern a few years ago compared to today. As said previously, we now have a situation where there are a great many times the number of DIY installs being done compared to a few years ago,

But equally the kit is far safer than it was a few years ago. Even if someone buys a secondhand kit off eBay, it is likely to either be so old it won't work anyway or reasonably new that it includes all of the safeguards. It will have a PRV on the tank, it will have shut off solenoids, it will have a controller dealing with rpm sensing, etc. Compare that to the older type installs which were inherently more dangerous. I remember once looking at an old Nissan Patrol that had been converted. 2.8 litre, straight 6 with a mixer glued into the top of the air filter above the carb. Open loop, no shutoff on the tank, just one under the bonnet, no controller, just a couple of toggle switches on the dash, one to switch off petrol and one to switch on the gas. If the engine stalled you could see the cloud of vapour coming out of the air filter until you switched off the ignition. OK, so there were less converted vehicles about then but there still wasn't a significant number of incidents otherwise a stricter regime would have been introduced years ago. So I would say that the safety aspect is less of a concern these days than it was a few years ago rather than the other way round as the equipment has got more sophisticated with more safeguards built in.

[rossko]

Are there any plans to change things in the future or is it a fact that because LPG isn't really that popular in the UK very little will really be changed?

There are no plans.

[scottyf]

I did say when looking over my budget kit that it appears way safer than most things I've ever seen.

And thread closed until UKLPG changes something that effects us all!

[LPGC]

and thread closed until UKLPG changes something that effects us all!

Missing the point somewhat mate... UKLPG don't make rules regards safety except for their own members.

There are no plans

Agreed there are no plans now, but this isn't how Mike / UKLPG would have it... They had plans for a change to an MOT based system and went as far as suggesting an MOT based scheme to DOT.

Scotty, what you have just done is nailed it in one rather than 29 pages

Who'se knocking who regarding the 29 pages? During those 29 pages I have made people realise a few things. For instance - I can now say 'UKLPG don't make the rules' and 'UKLPG don't want to be running the safety scheme, they have themselves suggested a modified MOT' without being contradicted. A few further points 'for instances' below... If it wasn't for these 29 pages, some UKLPG members would still be hyping untruths on this forum as means to further hyping UKLPG and misinforming customers even on this forum! Instead, in light of the truth, customers are going to get a more balanced interpretation of the truth - My arguments are the reason for the truth coming to light and being spoken instead of untruths and hype, at least here.

What we may have now is some of the newer installers that are joining purely so it makes them appear better than non-members. Ooh look, we're members of UKLPG so we must be better than that LPGC bloke in Leeds because he isn't.

This is another thing I could have included after 'for instance'... We now all agree that some installs are registered over the phone without any inspection being done - This was a point I made early in the 29 pages and was a hotly contested argument for quite a while. It isn't only new installers that would make the claim 'since we are UKLPG reg't we must be safer than LPGC', long time installers make similar claims on their websites and in chats with customers too, most unjustifiably I think! 'Better' might not only mean safer, any scheme that is only about safety probably doesn't (shouldn't) imply going as far as to say 'better'. A new installer doing a safer install than me? No chance of safer but given the intrinsically safe nature of installs, a good chance of just as safe. A new installer doing a better install than me? No chance! Not unless they're working with Brian Cox, particularly lucky and also manage to apply the same kind of lateral thinking to their install as they do in their usual job.

Any replacement scheme must be able to be shown to check that an install fully complies with the BSEN and an install done to CoP11 will do just that

Agreed a COP11 check will also comply with BSEN. That BSEN is more relevant is yet another argument that I made which I could add to my 'for instances', we all now accept this as true, but it was also hotly contested for a long time during the 29 pages...
You say 'must be able to show'... Must it? Given that an MOT cannot check a Nissan Micra subframe isn't unsafe? I agree that we would expect DOT to say any LPG safety check scheme should check all BS EN points but looking at it from another point of view, if the MOT scheme did not currently apply to vehicles, if instead we currently had a more thorough scheme instead of MOTs, would we not expect DOT to disregard our MOT suggestion on grounds of the Nissan Micra example? DOT regard MOTs as a cursory test, just like you would rather have a cursory test on LPG systems?

The visit from Mike Chapman seems to have taken the wind out of Simon's sails slightly as it transpires that UKLPG have already suggested an enhanced MoT test with alterations that would mean a tester could check to the BSEN and DoT aren't interested

I think your view a bit unbalanced there mate! On the one hand, from page 1 I have been suggesting the MOT scheme take over from UKLPG checks and saying a basic check on all vehicles is better than a thorough check on a fraction of vehicles - You do agree with the more vehicles, less detail better than less vehicles, more detail concept.. On the other hand, other people have been claiming all along that UKLPG scheme would be better than the MOT scheme, in spite of the possibility than MOTs could see 100% of converted vehicles and UKLPG sees only 33% of converted vehicles (and more recently in spite of the fact that I have shown than only 1/20 DIY converted vehicles gets checked under UKLPGs voluntary scheme). UKLPG members that have disagreed with me have implied, then, that surely the boss of their trade body and the trade body itself would agree with them that my MOT suggestion could never provide as meaningful a check as one that the trade body can provide. Yet, now we know that the boss of UKLPG says he, and the rest of UKLPG would prefer the MOT to UKLPG checks and that he has in fact suggested MOT checks to DOT.. I rather think in the light of Mike's visit, where Mike said he and UKLPG would prefer some sort of MOT scheme, by MOT man, at MOT garages, that others have become becalmed much more than I have!!! That Mike's suggestion differed in detail to my own is much less of a reason to have knocked the wind out of my sails than to have knocked the wind out of others sails who said any such idea would be laughable?

I don't think it needs to change, particularly as any change is likely to be more onerous on the owner/installer/DIYer. A 10 minute VIC test on a rebuilt write off costs £41, a 2-3 hour IVA test costs £495. If Government were to decide an alternative is needed, which I suspect they don't due to the infinitesimally small number of incidents, the alternative options would be either something midway between the two with a cost to reflect that or a full IVA test.

We have all (including UKLPG) agreed that UKLPG only see 33% of converted vehicles, so if you think there is no need for a change you imply that there isn't need for a safety scheme at all, regardless of the fact that we also seem to be agreed that these 33% of vehicles will not include the most likely unsafe converted vehicles. We agree that there are good and bad installers regardless of UKLPG membership status. I suggest that installers who are proud of going the extra mile to enxure safety and do good work should state this fact on their websites etc, but not link this fact to UKLPG membership status, because the latter is irrelevant regarding safety?

Think about how the situation / misinformation can be misinterpreted in the eyes of customers... Customer thinks, I want an LPG converted vehicle, I will consider a few companies to convert my existing vehicle, company A claims UKLPG are responsible for ensuring company A are safe, therefore if I buy a vehicle already converted that is on UKLPG's database then as company A explained it must be safe, I will now also consider buying an already converted vehicle.... The already converted vehicle might have been converted by company X, not a UKLPG member but a DIYer, DIYer might have registered the vehicle on UKLPGs database using the phone a friend method.

UKLPG does not ensure safety in this industry, it does not / cannot even ensure vehicles on it's database are safe, the only person who ensures converted vehicles are safe is the installer himself, irrespective of UKLPG membership status.

Like I said earlier, I think you have ruled out the possibility of DOT opting for a cursory test on LPG installs too early - This suggestion, including all the pros I have listed previously (100% of converted vehicles get checked, no more question marks for LPG vehicle consumers regards insurance - better for the industry and hence government 'green vehicle' aspirations / targets, logbook fuel types on all converted vehicles get changed within 12 months) hasn't been suggested to DOT yet. Instead of this suggestion, UKLPG have suggested a heavily modified MOT check on LPG vehicles that DOT ruled out because it would cost too much to retrain MOT men.


Simon

[Gilbertd]

and thread closed until UKLPG changes something that effects us all!

Missing the point somewhat mate... UKLPG don't make rules regards safety except for their members.

There are no plans

Agreed there are no plans now, but this isn't how Mike / UKLPG would have it... They had plans for a change to an MOT based system.

I think what Scotty was saying is that there is no point in discussing it further until there are any plans by anybody to change the current system in a way that affects installers and users.

in spite of the possibility than MOTs could see 100% of converted vehicles and UKLPG sees only 33% of converted vehicles (and more recently in spite of the fact that I have shown than only 1/20 DIY converted vehicles gets checked under UKLPGs voluntary scheme).

Maybe that should be rephrased. In spite of the FACT that MoT's WOULD see 100% of converted vehicles. You seem to keep forgetting that all cars get an MoT test every 12 months anyway so if that was to be used as an installation test nothing needs to change.

[LPGC]

Gilbert mate, I hope to find a reducer to give to you in the morning (if I see you at some point through the week), in which case I'll give it to you and help you fit it as a mate, and while we fit it we don't have to talk about UKLPG This isn't a massive deal to me but where someone argues black is white on a public forum related to my trade I have an irresistible urge to prove the truth I argued with my dad like this, I argue with mates like this, I very much like em all - just a discussion with an argument but I nevertheless still like you eh!

I think what Scotty was saying is that there is no point in discussing it further until there are any plans by anybody to change the current system in a way that affects installers and users

Agreed, but if we had a consensus here where we all agreed, we could be the ones putting forward a proposal. In the meantime, it seams people are putting forwards proposals without us even knowing... Mike told DOT that UKLPG don't want to be running a safety scheme and proposed an MOT scheme without anyone knowing... What if DOT had though 'hmm Mike seems to think all points in COP11 are entirely necessary, he's also told us UKLPG only see 33% of installs - we'd better get involved, the MOT scheme doesn't look suitable, we'd better introduce IVA testing'... Wouldn't you kick yourself if government asked your opinion and you said 'Yes MOTs wonh't suffice, I can;t think of an alternative to IVA' instead of saying 'Half of COP11 is OTT, a basic MOT will catch all the major problems done by amateurs.

You seem to keep forgetting that all cars get an MoT test every 12 months anyway so if that was to be used as an installation test nothing needs to change.

Agreed, but what about my suggestion / claim that MOT's would only get better with highlighting LPG install issues with time... DOT's MOT system compares individual MOT men's failure points on a statistical basis - So will point out MOT men that don't fail enough vehicles for tanks mounting issues etc just like it points out MOT men that don't fail enough vehicles on bulbs.... In time, the MOT scheme achieves a countrywide standard on checking LPG installs. Also, MOT men that might be inclined to pass an LPG vehicle today with, say, a loose fitted LPG tank today, would become aware that he is the guy who says whether this is safe or not, and just like an unsecured battery, he could only conclude that a loose LPG tank is not safe, too. Not only would MOt checks see 100% of new installs today, but at subsequent 'normal' MOts (normal meaning not for the purpose of passing an LPg install as safe) MOT men would find more problems with LPG installs too - An increase in safety in the order of magnitudes?

Simon

[rossko]

We now all agree that some installs are registered over the phone without any inspection being done

Don't include me in that, I have not "agreed" anything. It seems like only yesterday it was all supposedly being done by clubs of foreign installers; somewhere along the way that got forgotten and a new scheme cooked up. At first you knew nothing about it, more recently you've been defrauding customers for ten years. With every telling of that tale it grows more elaborate, which just makes me suspicious.

I have made people realise a few things. For instance - I can now say 'UKLPG don't make the rules' and 'UKLPG don't want to be running the safety scheme, they have themselves suggested a modified MOT' without being contradicted.

No-one would have imagined that LPGA were pushing DfT done this road over ten years ago until you told us ... oh hang on, that wasn't you.
I wouldn't be suprised at all to find you've got the wrong end of the stick about "modified MoT"; I don't know who said what to whom so won't contradict you on it. That does not mean I agree with your interpretation.

That BSEN is more relevant is yet another argument that I made which I could add to my 'for instances', we all now accept this as true, but it was also hotly contested for a long time during the 29 pages...

You don't understand BS EN 12979, be careful what you wish for.
You think someone asking "what is the scope of it" is hotly contesting? You think having to asking that more than once, because it was never answered, is hotly contesting? That's just paranoia.
As for relevance - what does everybody work to now? That would make that mysterious something very relevant in practice, for good or ill.

You know Simon, an awful lot of what you say is based on what you think DfT ought to find acceptable. You've never spoken with them, never even sought out the documents revealing how they think or where their priorities and limitations lie. You could have had a fairly extensive correspondance with them over the last two or three years.
enquiries@vosa.gov.uk

[LPGC]

Don't include me in that, I have not "agreed" anything

Ok, but I do include the boss of UKLPG and therefore UKLPG in that, he quite clearly admitted the same both in spoken word and in emails - or ask him to confirm if you want? In which case you think more of UKLPG's scheme than UKLPG do?

It seems like only yesterday it was all supposedly being done by clubs of foreign installers; somewhere along the way that got forgotten and a new scheme cooked up. At first you knew nothing about it, more recently you've been defrauding customers for ten years. With every telling of that tale it grows more elaborate, which just makes me suspicious.

I always knew that it happened, seemed quite obvious especially when certain suppliers and other installers offered this to me quite blatantly during chats, more recently I have thought why disadvantage myself by not doing the same.. More widespread than you think, especially since you don't seem to think it happens at all, yet UKLPG admit it happens and admit they cannot do anything about it. Have a chat with Mike, that should lay rest to your suspicions....

No-one would have imagined that LPGA were pushing DfT done this road over ten years ago until you told us ... oh hang on, that wasn't you.

Really - So where did someone else point this out?

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find you've got the wrong end of the stick about "modified MoT"; I don't know who said what to whom so won't contradict you on it. That does not mean I agree with your interpretation.

[quote ="Mike Chapman from UKLPG"] I confirm my / our desire for a legal requirement for proper government checks to replace the Scheme but in its absence we will do the best we can [/quote] During our chat, Mike said he had suggested this was done via MOT men at MOT stations - or if you don't agree, ask him yourself... Difficult for me to misinterpret Mike saying 'I have suggested to DOT that the MOT scheme checks LPG installs' really eh?

You don't understand BS EN 12979, be careful what you wish for.

Maybe not all points in it but last time we discussed this you hadn't fully soaked it all up either - Have you since discovered something we should be worried about? Do you still (as you recently have seemed) agree this standard is the UK (and European) standard that covers our industry? You didn't seem to believe this was true when discussion first started.. Without wishing to hammer the point too much, you used to say things like this...[quote = "rossko"]As an aside, those believing the govt doesn't recognise UKLPG should check out HSE relationships [/quote]

You think someone asking "what is the scope of it" is hotly contesting? You think having to asking that more than once, because it was never answered, is hotly contesting?

No, I think someone hyping COP11 and playing down BS EN is hotly contesting, your above quote was along those lines.

As for relevance - what does everybody work to now? That would make that mysterious something very relevant in practice, for good or ill.

Right now, UKLPG members and most of the rest of the trade and some DIYers work to COP11, some of the trade and some DIYers don't work to any standard whatsoever and this seems a case in point for the MOT scheme that I suggested. Trade and DIYers that work to COP11 instead of BS EN are only correct to do so because an install that meets COP11 should also meet BS EN... It is perhaps more luck than judgement on the behalf of those that follow UKLPG and COP11 that their installs done to COP11 also meet BS EN, because most such people took UKLPG's word for it rather than find out for themselves which standard they should be working to. If the case were that COP11 contradicted BS EN, all such installs would be wrong, might be considered unsafe by UK government (and other European governments) and technically might even have been illegal. UKLPG and members have done nothing to point out the actual BS EN standard, on the contrary in some cases members have seemingly played down BS EN by claiming BS EN was less relevant than COP11... Putting this in an analogy - When you're learning to drive, the highway code is what you must learn, not particularly what the driving instructor says... If the driving instructor contradicts highways code then he is wrong and if you drive through a red light because driving instructor tells you to then you are also wrong... Driving instructors and their trade body don't claim to have invented the highway code but some members of UKLPG claim their trade body invented all the rules on LPG install requirements and UKLPG do nothing to put this message straight.

You know Simon, an awful lot of what you say is based on what you think DfT ought to find acceptable

Agreed, but you have done a few leaps of faith yourself in defence of UKLPG, not least by hyping COP11 over BS EN. What I think ought to be acceptable is based on common sense arguments.

You've never spoken with them, never even sought out the documents revealing how they think or where their priorities and limitations lie. You could have had a fairly extensive correspondance with them over the last two or three years.
enquiries@vosa.gov.uk

But you have previously pointed out yourself that if I, as a single vehicle LPG conversion tradesman, were to approach DOT, they would discount me immediately - There have not been enough incidents for them to give two hoots either way on this issue... but that doesn't prevent some from claiming superiority in terms of safety etc on account of being members of an in-effective trade body safety scheme? Hand on heart, if I were to convince you that my suggested MOT scheme were superior in that it would at some point prevent an accident with an LPG system fitted by a DIYer that UKLPGs scheme wold not prevent, but make on difference whatsoever to trade installs, would you co-sign an email that I sent to Vosa?

Simon

[rossko]

The suggestion to contact the authorities yourself was to open a conversation, make enquiries, explore possibilities. Find out how trivial or difficult "Just an update to the tester's bible is" actually is, for an example. This is fairly vital to your plan, and you won't accept other peoples views.
If you want a conversation opener, there is one about IVA that I've mentioned many times which I can spell out for you if you like?

No, I won't be signing up to petitions or lists of demands. There's a trade body with more lobbying skills and resources to do that for us.
You don't need my support, just get on with it.

But I see no possibility of me being convinced that the MoT can deliver any kind of certification. Given how things turn, even if I said "yes" you will later say that I am secretly in agreement but only pretending to object in order to keep making pots of money.
There's no reason the MoT cannot be improved, but its not the same thing.

BS EN 12979 - no discovery, just reading it. It's not easy, and I think its made harder for us installers coming to it with preconceptions about the meanings of its words. I will spell out what I think it says, but in the first instance I'll say to read its definitions carefully and have a think for yourself. The key definitions are "lpg-system" and "manufacturer", we must read this in context and not assume the meanings that we use everyday. See what you make of it?

I have no idea why you think the relationship between UKLPG, HSE, or any other official dept means that I am hyping CoP11. I just get lost sometimes.

[LPGC]

You make some fair points Rosko mate, but I don't agree entirely...

The suggestion to contact the authorities yourself was to open a conversation, make enquiries, explore possibilities. Find out how trivial or difficult "Just an update to the tester's bible" actually is, for an example. This is fairly vital to your plan, and you won't accept other peoples views.

I do accept other people's views, e.g. when you previously discussed the procedures and costs involved on updating MOT man I understood and took your point, but even so I do still think your point exaggerates the difficulties and costs that would be involved. The MOT scheme has relatively recently been updated to check aspects of LPG installs anyway, yet nobody has suggested these changes were difficult or expensive to implement. Another (earlier) MOT update must have been to test the vehicle on whatever fuel it arrived at the MOT centre running on but yet again nobody has suggested this change was difficult or expensive. Seemingly these changes were hardly noticeable to vehicle owners and DfT / Vosa / MOT testers implemented them all in the usual manner of MOT updates without incurring much expense or needing to apply any unusual methods... What difficulties and how much cost do you reckon were involved in the changes that I mentioned above? If so difficult / expensive, why did the relevant bodies opt to update the MOT test with these points? As said previously, we don't know what exactly Mike suggested regards the MOT test checking new installs, but I think it's safe to assume that he will have suggested a rather large list of changes and that some of those changes would involve MOT man learning new skills / and (as you have explained) performing dismantling where the none dismantling nature of the MOT is sacrament. As discussed, my suggestion wouldn't involve anything like as many changes / updates / retraining / dismantling - In it's most basic form, my suggestion wouldn't involve MOT man doing anything much different at all regards the actual test aspect of the MOT but there may need to be minor changes in the clerical aspect of the MOT... Is it the clerical aspect that you see involving difficulties and cost or the actual test aspect?

If you want a conversation opener, there is one about IVA that I've mentioned many times which I can spell out for you if you like?

Worth reminding people that nobody in this industry would want IVA testing and certainly not you or I. Given your above suggestion, do you therefore reckon Mike used IVA testing as a conversation opener in his MOT suggestion to DfT? I would suggest Mike was very careful to completely avoid any talk of IVA testing (given that none of his members would want that)... However, if Mike (speaking as boss of UKLPG) did discuss IVA testing as a possible means of checking new LPG installs, then wouldn't you feel a little betrayed by UKLPG and wouldn't you want to have a less ominous idea/suggestion ready for Mike / DfT in case your opinion was asked? Like I have said before, in this case I reckon there would be lots of UKLPG members, including perhaps yourself, who suddenly found themselves agreeing with my suggestion rather than agree to Mikes or DfT's forefront ideas?

No, I won't be signing up to petitions or lists of demands. There's a trade body with more lobbying skills and resources to do that for us.
You don't need my support, just get on with it.

That's your answer but my question was worded like this...

Hand on heart, if I were to convince you that my suggested MOT scheme were superior in that it would at some point prevent an accident with an LPG system fitted by a DIYer that UKLPGs scheme wold not prevent, but make on difference whatsoever to trade installs, would you co-sign an email that I sent to Vosa?

I know where you're coming from on this but I suggest you might want to rethink / reword your answer given my above clearing up of the context of the question? My line of thinking - My question said 'If I could convince you that my idea was safer, at some point would prevent an accident that UKLPGs scheme would not prevent'. The reason why, I suspect, you have answered with (for all intents and purposes) 'no' is because you don't think any accidents will occur anyway, regardless of UKLPG test / MOT test / no test being done? So we're back to the inherently safe point on which we mostly agree... But in the mean-time, UKLPG and members are selling UKLPG status as a positive in safety, and I have shown how stats show UKLPG's scheme currently doesn't see the newly converted vehicles we would most likely expect to be unsafe - so how do you reconcile these points? The trade body you refer to (UKLPG) have said they don't want to be running a vehicle testing scheme, they have suggested a highly modified MOT to DfT which DfT refused for (expense and considered unnecessary) reasons we both know and which I have described above in this post.

But I see no possibility of me being convinced that the MoT can deliver any kind of certification

This again touches on a point I have already aired my views on in this post... The trade body you're a member of (UKLPG) and myself have both seen the MOT test as a possible means of certifying new LPG installs on vehicles - This is the trade body that you have above reckoned you like to represent you to government?

Given how things turn, even if I said "yes" you will later say that I am secretly in agreement but only pretending to object in order to keep making pots of money.

Here I guess you're referring to my 'would you co-sign an email' question (above) again? As just said, I cannot see why you would answer 'no' given the context of the question, but if you answered 'yes' then I wouldn't claim you were secretly in agreement based solely on your 'yes' answer to this question - because the question was worded 'IF I could convince you'.... However, this still leaves the question of why I might not be able to persuade you on that 'If' and brings me to ask.... Do you think UKLPG's scheme, which the stats suggest sees only 1/20 of amateur (DIY) installs is more likely to prevent such an accident, or do you think the MOT idea, which would see 20/20 of these (and every other) install is more likely to prevent such an accident? So again - I cannot see how you can answer 'No' to 'IF I could convince you question', I cannot see how you can say UKLPG's scheme would be more likely to prevent such an accident that the MOT scheme, I cannot see why you continue to disagree with my point that the MOT scheme would be the safer system...

There's no reason the MoT cannot be improved, but its not the same thing.

Improved in the way it tests LPG systems? I though you had spelled out reasons why the MOT couldn't be improved in this respect?

BS EN 12979 - no discovery, just reading it. It's not easy, and I think its made harder for us installers coming to it with preconceptions about the meanings of its words. I will spell out what I think it says, but in the first instance I'll say to read its definitions carefully and have a think for yourself. The key definitions are "lpg-system" and "manufacturer", we must read this in context and not assume the meanings that we use everyday. See what you make of it?

OK, I'll have another read when I get a bit more time mate. Do you reckon there is anything here that goes against the MOT idea?

I have no idea why you think the relationship between UKLPG, HSE, or any other official dept means that I am hyping CoP11. I just get lost sometimes.

Sorry if you felt singled out - I didn't mean to single you out regarding UKLPG members hyping UKLPG to customers and using it as a selling point, I say most UKLPG members and UKLPG the trade body do so... Example.. Recently there was an advert at the top of the page on this forum for 'LPG conversions' and out of interest I clicked on it. this opened another webpage and I was asked to enter my name and email address. After doing so, the web page informed me that I could expect to be contacted by 4 installers. I then received an email from BRC asking me to reply with my vehicle details and whereabouts in the country (although I get a lot of emails this email arrived right next to BRC's installer's newsletter ). There was a link to a Youtube video in the email ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ClDsxPrUw)... This video seems to hype UKLPG.. Starting at 5:05 into the video, claims are 'There are 2 important factors to consider when converting your car to LPG, 1. The conversion centre that installs the system, 2. The equipment that is installed in the vehicle... Look out for this logo 'UKLPG approved autogas installer', 'Reputable installers will be members of UKLPG', 'This means that they will be trained installers, fitting equipment in accordance with safety guidelines COP11', 'The UKLPG carry out random inspections of vehicles converted by approved installers. This ensures that quality of workmanship and safety is maintained at all times', 'Approved installers register vehicles on UKLPG database - This is important for insurance purposes as the insurance companies will check the UKLPG database to ensure the vehicle has been converted safely and professionally'.. and it goes on to hype BRC.. 'Unlike the competition BRC have the facts and figures to support their claims - with a presence in 60 countries and an approximate market share of 25%', 'UKLPG Accredited - BRC(UK) are the UK suppliers of BRC gas equipment', 'There are over 100 BRC trained installers and servicers in the UK - This large network gives drivers an unrivalled after sales support service'...

You and I are aware that the above contains a lot of half truths and misinformation. I am saying that many UKLPG members say exactly the same types of things to potential customers. Would you like me to again point out those half truths and misinformation? If I pose as a customer and call a random UKLPG member for a quote, if I ask about UKLPG, what messages do you think I am going to hear? I wonder (if I asked several and explained what I was about to do) what proportion of UKLPG members would give me upfront permission to contact them at an undisclosed time in the future while posing as a customer and then write a transcript of that conversation on this forum...?

Simon

[rossko]

The MOT scheme has relatively recently been updated to check aspects of LPG installs anyway, yet nobody has suggested these changes were difficult or expensive to implement.

It was part of a whole raft of changes, prompted by EU Roadworthiness Directive, involving public consultations, revisions, training updates, etc. Fairly expensive exercise. Buying a can of leak-detect was probably the simplest part, and the only change involving LPG.

Another (earlier) MOT update must have been to test the vehicle on whatever fuel it arrived at the MOT centre running on but yet again nobody has suggested this change was difficult or expensive.

That was introduced alongside emissions testing in 1991, a huge disruptive event for all testers and procedures. Is this relevant?

Why not ask the horse's mouth.

Is it the clerical aspect that you see involving difficulties and cost or the actual test aspect?

Not especially clerical. It's not at all clear how the "paperwork" processes could work for a special MoT at some times driven by uncertain triggers, and an ordinary MoT at other times driven by the usual periodic need, nor how it affects non-MoTable cars; but all that could be worked out.
The technical content of your proposed check gets less at every iteration, that's what is not good enough for me.

Worth reminding people that nobody in this industry would want IVA testing and certainly not you or I.

You're not listening. The IVA already exists. The IVA has requirements for testable vehicles that happen to have LPG conversions, requirements that you ought to feel are unjust. Oddly enough, so do I. It's easy to show that they are unjust. These requirements are directly under the control of DVSA.
All this can be used as an opening gambit in a conversation about LPG and the technical standards of installation that DVSA expect to see.
Or of course, you can ignore it.
Perhaps if we don't mention it, DVSA would forget IVA exists. Shhh.

However, if Mike (speaking as boss of UKLPG)

He isn't.

Hand on heart, if I were to convince you that my suggested MOT scheme were superior in that it would at some point prevent an accident with an LPG system fitted by a DIYer that UKLPGs scheme wold not prevent, but make on difference whatsoever to trade installs, would you co-sign an email that I sent to Vosa?

No. That is not my definition of a superior system. Show me one that makes an improvement across the board. I am not interested in a supporting a cursory "test" that might one day spot the DIY tank held in with bungee cord, whilst rubber-stamping any number of calor bottles. I want better than that.

Why don't you think it would make a difference to traders though? I'd expect most customers to want the installer to sort it out for them (and if you don't offer that service for free, your competitors will). I'd expect silly disputes to arise eg. MoT failure due to cut tyre. That's all just routine pain for traders though.

No, your mind-reading failed, I didn't actually give any thought to inherent safety here.

BS EN 12979 .... Do you reckon there is anything here that goes against the MOT idea?

It depends.
If you mean does BS EN 12979 stop anyone getting an MoT, no it doesn't.
If you mean would an MoT checking against BS EN 12979 be a problem - it would automatically fail every aftermarket conversion in the UK. That could be a problem, but it is fixable. I doubt that will happen, because I doubt the whole "special MoT" idea.
If you mean does BS EN 12979 "fit" into an MoT scenario, no it doesn't as it is about design and not condition.

I didn't mean to single you out regarding UKLPG members hyping UKLPG to customers and using it as a selling point, I say most UKLPG members and UKLPG the trade body do so...

Oh okay. What you actually said that time was about "hyping" CoP11, perhaps that is why I was puzzled.

[LPGC]

Several of my recent conversion customers have said 'My insurers ask that following my LPG conversion my vehicle has to pass another MOT'.

Seems maybe I have made an impression, or maybe the insurers of these customers have steered towards this of their own accord without even noticing what I've been saying...

Simon