LPG Discussion Forum

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

Any modification is seen as possibly negating the type approval of the vehicle. Whether anyone realises it or not but if a vehicle is modified in any way prior to being registered, it has to be subject to an IVA test anyway. I didn't until I got involved in specifying modifications to a specialist vehicle we use at work. We currently have a VW Transporter van which has had the original double front passenger seat moved into the rear and a single front drivers seat from a LHD version fitted in the passenger side instead. The new vehicle is being converted in the same way but, as it is being done to a brand new van before it is registered, it has to have a purpose designed auxiliary seat on E marked mountings fitted (at a cost of over £2k) and then be IVA tested before it can be registered.

So if a mod to a brand new vehicle needs an IVA test, why shouldn't a similar mod to a used one not be treated the same?

Gilbertd wrote:

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

Any modification is seen as possibly negating the type approval of the vehicle. Whether anyone realises it or not but if a vehicle is modified in any way prior to being registered, it has to be subject to an IVA test anyway. I didn't until I got involved in specifying modifications to a specialist vehicle we use at work. We currently have a VW Transporter van which has had the original double front passenger seat moved into the rear and a single front drivers seat from a LHD version fitted in the passenger side instead. The new vehicle is being converted in the same way but, as it is being done to a brand new van before it is registered, it has to have a purpose designed auxiliary seat on E marked mountings fitted (at a cost of over £2k) and then be IVA tested before it can be registered.

So if a mod to a brand new vehicle needs an IVA test, why shouldn't a similar mod to a used one not be treated the same?

Actually there was some mention of similar in the motorcycling field a couple of years ago - more around limiting what mods could be done than anything though I'm not sure what became of it exactly or if its still in progress as such

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15054139

Brian_H wrote:Actually there was some mention of similar in the motorcycling field a couple of years ago - more around limiting what mods could be done than anything though I'm not sure what became of it exactly or if its still in progress as such

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15054139

Such things pop up from time to time. Not long ago there was a scare that any mod would be specifically restricted to e-marked components and would need a "mini-IVA" test afterwards. Raised "considerable concern" in the Land Rover community. IIRC both the UK Gov and EU bodies were fairly quite to clarify that this was aimed at certain other countries with a "relaxed" attitude to vehicle condition and modifications - and that the EU were happy that the UK MoT test system provided quite adequate supervision.

However, I gather that certain other countries do eye our "permissive system" with alarm - and would quite happily impose a blanket "nothing without full type approval" rule for anything on the road. Having said that, we are already half way there in that most new vehicles are allowed due to an EU type approval - and fitting any non-approved component invalidates that. As an example, it was pointed out a while ago by one of the clubs that caravanners were driving illegally by continuing to use old (or even new but non-approved) mirror extensions on their newer type approved cars.

SimonHobson wrote:As an example, it was pointed out a while ago by one of the clubs that caravanners were driving illegally by continuing to use old (or even new but non-approved) mirror extensions on their newer type approved cars.

There's a few others. It is possible to buy 100/60W Halogen headlight bulbs but they are not E marked as the C and U regulations state that dipped beam should have a maximum output of 110W (55W per side). Any car with those fitted should, in theory, fail the MoT for having non E marked parts fitted. It doesn't happen though as no MoT tester is going to remove the light bulbs from every car he tests just to see if they are E marked. However, the same cannot be said about the aftermarket HID conversions that are available. Anyone looking at a car with them fitted will notice them immediately but the regs state that, due to the potential to dazzle other road users, they are only fitted to cars with self levelling headlamps and headlamp wash/wipe. So, if they are fitted to something that didn't have them in the first place and there is no self levelling or headlamp wash/wipe, it is an immediate MoT fail (see http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_170.htm).

Drifting even more off-topic off topic, it doesn't say that. You'll notice that self levelling and washers "may be fitted" and "Where such systems are fitted, they must work".

However, you are correct in that "bulb conversions" should be failed as the "bulb" cannot be e-marked for use in that sort of unit as the approval for the unit will only have been for a filament bulb with specific dimensions. Thus fitting the HID conversion invalidates the approval of the unit. But if you look at that page, no-where does it offer "not approved" as an RFR.
So unless the rulebook has been updated and that [age is out of date, it's not grounds for an MoT failure - but dibble could certainly have you on a C&U charge.

Where the "must have levelling and washing" comes in is from a guidance note issued by (IIRC) DfT. In a rare outbreak of common sense, they've said that it would be unreasonable to prohibit upgrades to a spec that is readily available on many new vehicles - provided certain things are done, specifically, washers and levelling (which can be on the light fitting itself, or on the vehicle suspension). They still don't permit HID conversion bulbs in standard units.
That does mean that the HID upgrade must be by way of complete HID lamp units - not by stuffing a conversion into the existing unit.

What would we do if we weren't treated to all these wonderful regulations from the EU on an almost weekly basis ? The streets would be full of dead and injured I've no doubt.

Gilbertd wrote:

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

I'm accused here of rocking the boat!

We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.
The LPGA / UKLPG came along with a code of practice. The code of practice is only a method to achieving the standard but LPGA/UKLPG are seemingly very happy to have people - insurers, potential customers and installers, believe that their code of practice actually IS the standard. They are happy for potential customers to believe that unless an install is done by one of their members the install might not be safe and might not be insurable. All the above is done at the expense of none members - this is an incentive for none members to buy into the empire and go on to repeat the same misinformation... After all, the same misinformation also serves the interests of members. The ideal situation for LPGA / UKLPG, the situation that would achieve highest profit, would be to have a situation where it is compulsory in law to have installs done or checked by an LPGA / UKLPG member. There is no competing scheme to LPGA/UKLPG's scheme. Somebody has already said that LPGA/UKLPG are empire building. Anyone making a profit from a business wants that business to expand and make more profit. Some people in business are more ruthless than others, some are happy to mis-advise people and have them believe all sorts as long as this helps build the business and make more profit.

When I first started this thread it was difficult to get anyone to discuss the situation with LPGA/UKLPG. Many installers and suppliers knew about vehicles being registered on UKLPG's database without being checked but didn't say anything. There were threads on this forum that showed pictures of dodgy installs done by UKLPG members and UKLPG members were happy to discuss where those dodgy installs didn't meat the standards but they would not discuss what was also obvious.. that those vehicles were unsafe and still on UKLPG's database. They would not discuss the implications and contradictions - come to me because I am a safe UKLPG registered installer and can register your converted vehicle on UKLPG's database yet here I am discussing unsafe installs that have been registered as safe on UKLPG's database...

I have said, and had this confirmed, that vehicles are often registered as safe on UKLPG's database without any sort of check being done whatsoever, yet UKLPG and many of their members still promote, defend and uphold UKLPG's scheme. When there is discussion about how other safety schemes, schemes that actually already exist, schemes that could ensure every vehicle was at least checked, could replace UKLPG's scheme. a scheme which is wide open to abuse and manages to have many vehicles registered as safe which have never even been checked, some supporters of UKLPG reply almost in uproar... They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points. So far the only sensible specific LPG safety points raised have only been the angle at which multivalves are mounted to tanks and tank venting! What other points would an MOT test be incapable of checking on an LPG install? It has been mentioned that emissions checks should be done - Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope. Do all MOT testers? Yes. Putting the argument for replacing UKLPG's very haphazard and none independent safety check scheme versus the MOT scheme that I propose replace it into context - some UKLPG members are less concerned that some vehicles are getting onto UKLPG's 'safety register' which they endorse even though often no sort of check is done whatsoever, or just being self checked by the guy who fitted the system, than they are concerned that an installer, including UKLPG members, might install a tank valve on upside down AND that the MOT tester might miss such a mistake. I submit that a tank valve being installed upside down might also be missed if the vehicle is self checked by the person who installed the system, it might also be missed if no check is done whatsoever(!), that the vehicle wouldn't run on LPG anyway if the valve was mounted upside down, that MOT testers would become accustomed to the correct orientation for the relatively few designs of tank valve and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

It is to the advantage of UKLPG member installers to repeat the same misinformation messages that UKLPG issues - 'come to me for your install, as a member of UKLPG your install will be guaranteed to be safe and you will be able to get insurance'. The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain. No potential customers would be swayed to have an install done by a particular installer just because that installer strongly stresses the point that they are a member of a particular trade body and stretches the truth to include anything related to safety or insurance concerns. It can be expected that UKLPG member installers will not want any such change because they will no longer to convince potential customers to come to them by stretching the truth - they would compete only on results and price. We can also expect UKLPG members not to want a change because they have paid to join up with UKLPG, paid a yearly subscription since joining up, paid to have vehicles registered on UKLPG's 'safety database' and mis-advised customers for so long about the benefits of UKLPG's scheme. It is human nature that having jumped through hoops to get into a little club it is disheartening when that little club is no longer recognised and it is realised the hoop jumping was in vain. Any change to the scheme will require a rethink by such installers on how to promote their business in the absence of the UKLPG scheme.

I consider LPGA/UKLPG to have rocked the boat initially by giving potential customers, insurers and installers the impression that they are the legislative body, that they came up with the standard, that they have the teeth to enforce the standard, that only their installers are safe, that only vehicle on their database are safe. There is currently a great unbalance on this boat, I am rocking the boat back the other way to correct the balance.

As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation, then if they did actually start to do something positive for the trade then I might join up or just ignore them. If UKLPG had a safety scheme that actually worked I would join up. I will not join up to a scheme that even if working as intended only involves installers checking their own work with a very slight chance that any converted vehicle is ever seen by someone actually from UKLPG. I will not join up to a scheme that is so easily abused, often without a member even seeing the vehicle but the vehicle registered as safe following a phone call. I will not join up and then mis-advise my customers that I believe in UKLPG's scheme and I must be a safe installer because I am a member and can register my installs on the database (along with the thousands of installs on the database that are unsafe).

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

I'm accused here of rocking the boat!

We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.
The LPGA / UKLPG came along with a code of practice. The code of practice is only a method to achieving the standard but LPGA/UKLPG are seemingly very happy to have people - insurers, potential customers and installers, believe that their code of practice actually IS the standard. They are happy for potential customers to believe that unless an install is done by one of their members the install might not be safe and might not be insurable. All the above is done at the expense of none members - this is an incentive for none members to buy into the empire and go on to repeat the same misinformation... After all, the same misinformation also serves the interests of members. The ideal situation for LPGA / UKLPG, the situation that would achieve highest profit, would be to have a situation where it is compulsory in law to have installs done or checked by an LPGA / UKLPG member. There is no competing scheme to LPGA/UKLPG's scheme. Somebody has already said that LPGA/UKLPG are empire building. Anyone making a profit from a business wants that business to expand and make more profit. Some people in business are more ruthless than others, some are happy to mis-advise people and have them believe all sorts as long as this helps build the business and make more profit.

When I first started this thread it was difficult to get anyone to discuss the situation with LPGA/UKLPG. Many installers and suppliers knew about vehicles being registered on UKLPG's database without being checked but didn't say anything. There were threads on this forum that showed pictures of dodgy installs done by UKLPG members and UKLPG members were happy to discuss where those dodgy installs didn't meat the standards but they would not discuss what was also obvious.. that those vehicles were unsafe and still on UKLPG's database. They would not discuss the implications and contradictions - come to me because I am a safe UKLPG registered installer and can register your converted vehicle on UKLPG's database yet here I am discussing unsafe installs that have been registered as safe on UKLPG's database...

I have said, and had this confirmed, that vehicles are often registered as safe on UKLPG's database without any sort of check being done whatsoever, yet UKLPG and many of their members still promote, defend and uphold UKLPG's scheme. When there is discussion about how other safety schemes, schemes that actually already exist, schemes that could ensure every vehicle was at least checked, could replace UKLPG's scheme. a scheme which is wide open to abuse and manages to have many vehicles registered as safe which have never even been checked, some supporters of UKLPG reply almost in uproar... They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points. So far the only sensible specific LPG safety points raised have only been the angle at which multivalves are mounted to tanks and tank venting! What other points would an MOT test be incapable of checking on an LPG install? It has been mentioned that emissions checks should be done - Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope. Do all MOT testers? Yes. Putting the argument for replacing UKLPG's very haphazard and none independent safety check scheme versus the MOT scheme that I propose replace it into context - some UKLPG members are less concerned that some vehicles are getting onto UKLPG's 'safety register' which they endorse even though often no sort of check is done whatsoever, or just being self checked by the guy who fitted the system, than they are concerned that an installer, including UKLPG members, might install a tank valve on upside down AND that the MOT tester might miss such a mistake. I submit that a tank valve being installed upside down might also be missed if the vehicle is self checked by the person who installed the system, it might also be missed if no check is done whatsoever(!), that the vehicle wouldn't run on LPG anyway if the valve was mounted upside down, that MOT testers would become accustomed to the correct orientation for the relatively few designs of tank valve and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

It is to the advantage of UKLPG member installers to repeat the same misinformation messages that UKLPG issues - 'come to me for your install, as a member of UKLPG your install will be guaranteed to be safe and you will be able to get insurance'. The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain. No potential customers would be swayed to have an install done by a particular installer just because that installer strongly stresses the point that they are a member of a particular trade body and stretches the truth to include anything related to safety or insurance concerns. It can be expected that UKLPG member installers will not want any such change because they will no longer to convince potential customers to come to them by stretching the truth - they would compete only on results and price. We can also expect UKLPG members not to want a change because they have paid to join up with UKLPG, paid a yearly subscription since joining up, paid to have vehicles registered on UKLPG's 'safety database' and mis-advised customers for so long about the benefits of UKLPG's scheme. It is human nature that having jumped through hoops to get into a little club it is disheartening when that little club is no longer recognised and it is realised the hoop jumping was in vain. Any change to the scheme will require a rethink by such installers on how to promote their business in the absence of the UKLPG scheme.

I consider LPGA/UKLPG to have rocked the boat initially by giving potential customers, insurers and installers the impression that they are the legislative body, that they came up with the standard, that they have the teeth to enforce the standard, that only their installers are safe, that only vehicle on their database are safe. There is currently a great unbalance on this boat, I am rocking the boat back the other way to correct the balance.

As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation, then if they did actually start to do something positive for the trade then I might join up or just ignore them. If UKLPG had a safety scheme that actually worked I would join up. I will not join up to a scheme that even if working as intended only involves installers checking their own work with a very slight chance that any converted vehicle is ever seen by someone actually from UKLPG. I will not join up to a scheme that is so easily abused, often without a member even seeing the vehicle but the vehicle registered as safe following a phone call. I will not join up and then mis-advise my customers that I believe in UKLPG's scheme and I must be a safe installer because I am a member and can register my installs on the database (along with the thousands of installs on the database that are unsafe).

Simon
Lpgc

But none of that seems to address the cost issue which others have already mentioned? Bear in mind that if anything the lpg industry in this country is shrinking (at least going by the falling number of filling stations) so inflicting more cost will just accelerate this process.

LPGC wrote:They would not discuss the implications and contradictions - come to me because I am a safe UKLPG registered installer and can register your converted vehicle on UKLPG's database yet here I am discussing unsafe installs that have been registered as safe on UKLPG's database...

and the point you are trying to make is? I would think every installer, UKLPG member or not, has seen some unsafe installs. If they are on the register then what has been done since they were placed on the register? Who has been under the bonnet changing things or is it as it was when it was registered? Nobody knows.

LPGC wrote:They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points.

It may seem simple and common sense to you but is that how VOSA would see it? I would think that if it was decided that an overhaul of the system was necessary, then moving it from one group of, what you are implying, semi-skilled group to another may be no better. Why not go the whole hog and do the job properly?

LPGC wrote:Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope.

Well they bloody well should have. All UKLPG members must have as it is one of the requirements of membership. So you are suggesting that someone without basic test equipment can install system properly? Sorry Simon, you are just clutching at straws now.

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

I'm accused here of rocking the boat!

We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.
The LPGA / UKLPG came along with a code of practice. The code of practice is only a method to achieving the standard but LPGA/UKLPG are seemingly very happy to have people - insurers, potential customers and installers, believe that their code of practice actually IS the standard. They are happy for potential customers to believe that unless an install is done by one of their members the install might not be safe and might not be insurable. All the above is done at the expense of none members - this is an incentive for none members to buy into the empire and go on to repeat the same misinformation... After all, the same misinformation also serves the interests of members. The ideal situation for LPGA / UKLPG, the situation that would achieve highest profit, would be to have a situation where it is compulsory in law to have installs done or checked by an LPGA / UKLPG member. There is no competing scheme to LPGA/UKLPG's scheme. Somebody has already said that LPGA/UKLPG are empire building. Anyone making a profit from a business wants that business to expand and make more profit. Some people in business are more ruthless than others, some are happy to mis-advise people and have them believe all sorts as long as this helps build the business and make more profit.

When I first started this thread it was difficult to get anyone to discuss the situation with LPGA/UKLPG. Many installers and suppliers knew about vehicles being registered on UKLPG's database without being checked but didn't say anything. There were threads on this forum that showed pictures of dodgy installs done by UKLPG members and UKLPG members were happy to discuss where those dodgy installs didn't meat the standards but they would not discuss what was also obvious.. that those vehicles were unsafe and still on UKLPG's database. They would not discuss the implications and contradictions - come to me because I am a safe UKLPG registered installer and can register your converted vehicle on UKLPG's database yet here I am discussing unsafe installs that have been registered as safe on UKLPG's database...

I have said, and had this confirmed, that vehicles are often registered as safe on UKLPG's database without any sort of check being done whatsoever, yet UKLPG and many of their members still promote, defend and uphold UKLPG's scheme. When there is discussion about how other safety schemes, schemes that actually already exist, schemes that could ensure every vehicle was at least checked, could replace UKLPG's scheme. a scheme which is wide open to abuse and manages to have many vehicles registered as safe which have never even been checked, some supporters of UKLPG reply almost in uproar... They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points. So far the only sensible specific LPG safety points raised have only been the angle at which multivalves are mounted to tanks and tank venting! What other points would an MOT test be incapable of checking on an LPG install? It has been mentioned that emissions checks should be done - Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope. Do all MOT testers? Yes. Putting the argument for replacing UKLPG's very haphazard and none independent safety check scheme versus the MOT scheme that I propose replace it into context - some UKLPG members are less concerned that some vehicles are getting onto UKLPG's 'safety register' which they endorse even though often no sort of check is done whatsoever, or just being self checked by the guy who fitted the system, than they are concerned that an installer, including UKLPG members, might install a tank valve on upside down AND that the MOT tester might miss such a mistake. I submit that a tank valve being installed upside down might also be missed if the vehicle is self checked by the person who installed the system, it might also be missed if no check is done whatsoever(!), that the vehicle wouldn't run on LPG anyway if the valve was mounted upside down, that MOT testers would become accustomed to the correct orientation for the relatively few designs of tank valve and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

It is to the advantage of UKLPG member installers to repeat the same misinformation messages that UKLPG issues - 'come to me for your install, as a member of UKLPG your install will be guaranteed to be safe and you will be able to get insurance'. The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain. No potential customers would be swayed to have an install done by a particular installer just because that installer strongly stresses the point that they are a member of a particular trade body and stretches the truth to include anything related to safety or insurance concerns. It can be expected that UKLPG member installers will not want any such change because they will no longer to convince potential customers to come to them by stretching the truth - they would compete only on results and price. We can also expect UKLPG members not to want a change because they have paid to join up with UKLPG, paid a yearly subscription since joining up, paid to have vehicles registered on UKLPG's 'safety database' and mis-advised customers for so long about the benefits of UKLPG's scheme. It is human nature that having jumped through hoops to get into a little club it is disheartening when that little club is no longer recognised and it is realised the hoop jumping was in vain. Any change to the scheme will require a rethink by such installers on how to promote their business in the absence of the UKLPG scheme.

I consider LPGA/UKLPG to have rocked the boat initially by giving potential customers, insurers and installers the impression that they are the legislative body, that they came up with the standard, that they have the teeth to enforce the standard, that only their installers are safe, that only vehicle on their database are safe. There is currently a great unbalance on this boat, I am rocking the boat back the other way to correct the balance.

As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation, then if they did actually start to do something positive for the trade then I might join up or just ignore them. If UKLPG had a safety scheme that actually worked I would join up. I will not join up to a scheme that even if working as intended only involves installers checking their own work with a very slight chance that any converted vehicle is ever seen by someone actually from UKLPG. I will not join up to a scheme that is so easily abused, often without a member even seeing the vehicle but the vehicle registered as safe following a phone call. I will not join up and then mis-advise my customers that I believe in UKLPG's scheme and I must be a safe installer because I am a member and can register my installs on the database (along with the thousands of installs on the database that are unsafe).

Simon
Lpgc

Very well put. It will take a lot to convince me that scaremongering is not the LPGA/UKLPG number one weapon.

LPGC wrote:We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.

Which EU or BS standards actually apply to aftermarket conversions? Genuine question, been asked before.

LPGC wrote:They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points.

Yup. You must agree the MoT as it stands is hopelessly unsuitable. You can take a vehicle for MoT with a calor cylinder ratchet-strapped in the boot, a length of orange barbeque hose under the car with a leaky joint in the middle and the open end taped to the air intake. It will not fail on this (so long as you remember to turn the cylinder knob off before testing).
If you want to talk about how the test would need modifying, by all means lets do so. We have done that before, I still believe there are serious obstacles to making the test as comprehensive as the derided existing inspection. Nothing will come of it anyway.

LPGC wrote:Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope.

All UKLPG approved installers do
And don't forget that forthcoming BS for LPG vehicle workshops, I suspect that could cause pain to us all, some more than others.

LPGC wrote:.. and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

Ah, that is new. Now we are have an MoT and some other check, getting expensive. Who's going to profit there ... but really, either an MoT tester/test is trained/suitable to check or he/it isn't.
You do realise not all MoT testers need to be able to offer all classes of tests, that might be a simpler solution.

LPGC wrote:The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain.

Why, where will these results be displayed?

LPGC wrote:As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation,

Did you perhaps miss the aside that UKLPG sit on the BS committee that author BS Standards relating to LPG? It's hardly suprising, it would be very remiss of BSI not to include the relevant trade bodies.
LPGA was / UKLPGA are routinely consulted by DfT, HSE, etc, on regulatory issues.
It would be a poor trade body if it did not involve itself in these matters. You want it to stop all that? Too bad!

Legislation is the preserve of governments - have you seen somewhere UKLPG claiming to write the legislation or something?

I'm growing wary of directly quoting people and disagreeing with their points! Some people seem to think that makes it personal, it's not my intention of attacking anyone on a personal level... And I find it is a lot of messing about to edit all those quote marks etc

Now, having said the above, I hope to have cleared the way to disagree with someone else's points whom I don't wish to fall out with

Gilbert,

I think that given what has been discussed so far - installs get on UKLPG's database without any type of inspection, UKLPG members register their own installs on the database... UKLPG members admitting that the scheme is sadly lacking in many ways, that it would be very unlikely that all those unsafe UKLPG registered installs that we have all seen were done safe in the first place (or at the time of the registration on UKLPG's database) and far more likely that a high proportion of them were actually registered on UKLPG's database in the condition we see them in now. I doubt you really believe that all those installs were safe at the time of registration and that somebody has since tampered with them to make them unsafe since then!

My point which you questioned, I will try to explain the point in simple terms here: People including UKLPG member installers discuss unsafe installs that are registered as safe on UKLPG's database. Then they repeat UKLPG's message 'only converted vehicles registered as safe on UKLPG's database are guaranteed to be safe'. How shall I express this... At best there appears to be a strong irony here, to press the point a little bit further UKLPG installers who talk about unsafe UKLPG registered installs but then advise people to make sure their install is safe by having work done by UKLPG members are contradicting themselves, at worst those UKLPG members are deliberately misleading people.

On the simple MOT system point, why couldn't it really be simple?
It should already be law that when a vehicle is converted to LPG the logbook needs to be updated to show this (petrol/LPG on the logbook). The only way to change the fuel type on the logbook is to send the V5 off to the DVLA. At the moment the DVLA will change the logbook fuel details with a receipt from any installer. All that needs to change is that the DVLA check the vehicle has had an MOT, with the engine running on LPG and/or since the LPG conversion was installed. The DVLA can already access information provided instantly and electronically directly from MOT testers!

It is debatable whether Vosa would prefer the expensive IVA scheme over the MOT scheme. At the moment, Vosa seem to be OK with anyone converting vehicles to LPG... After all, there doesn't seem to be many accidents or problems caused due to LPG systems fitted on vehicles - the concept of vehicles running on LPG seems to be inherently safe. Vosa don't seem to be concerned who converts vehicles and don't seem to take much notice of UKLPG. If, for any reason, alarm bells about the LPG industry did start to ring at Vosa then what courses of action could Vosa take? They might check out UKLPG's scheme, which is not compulsory in any case, which has installers passing their own work, which is wide open to abuse... and what conclusions would Vosa draw about UKLPG's scheme? So they might consider that since LPG conversions are inherently safe there is no need for any type of scheme to be in place... Except that there are many installers, particularly UKLPG members, whom originally started rocking the boat by hyping up safety concerns. Let us remember that I am certainly not the person who started this ball rolling with talk about safety in an inherently safe field - the LPGA and then UKLPG did that to the industry. I am only the person to say 'hang on a minute, it is all well aiming to improve safety (even though there's not much need) but your scheme doesn't work, is about profits, misinforms people and is damaging to anyone in the trade whom is not one of your members!'. If Vosa pay too much attention to UKLPG's message about safety they might decide to implement a scheme which is mandatory and which does involve independent checks. Given the inherent safety in the industry, and the fact that the government don't intend to kill off this green industry, I think it a good guess to believe Vosa would adopt the simple MOT scheme. Time for a bit of sarcasm I'm afraid... In any case, if any UKLPG member has any worries about Vosa pushing for a change to the expensive IVA scheme that would kill off the industry, surely they believe that the mighty UKLPG would step in and 'lobby the government' to go with the MOT scheme instead, saving this industry which they have done so much to promote with all their adverts on the telly about how LPG is inherently safe?

Regarding emissions, I seriously doubt that all UKLPG member installers have emissions check equipment. It should be mentioned here that every modern fuel injected vehicle has built in emissions check equipment i.e. lambda probes. Granted, lambda probes can only measure if the mixture is correct, they cannot check HC, CO or CO2. If the mixture is correct on LPG then it can almost be taken from granted that all the nasty emissions will come down, and if not then there is a problem with the vehicle itself. However, the MOT scheme that I propose would pick up on any incorrect mixture or nasty emissions during the emissions check in the MOT! OK, let's hear it from all the UKLPG member installers whom have converted a vehicle to LPG, calibrated the system correctly, and then noticed HC levels rise.. Please explain what you had done wrong to get those results? How did you rectify the problem to enable you to register the vehicle on UKLPG's database? I expect the only answers will be ignition related.

Simon
Lpgc

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.

Which EU or BS standards actually apply to aftermarket conversions? Genuine question, been asked before.

LPGC wrote:They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points.

Yup. You must agree the MoT as it stands is hopelessly unsuitable. You can take a vehicle for MoT with a calor cylinder ratchet-strapped in the boot, a length of orange barbeque hose under the car with a leaky joint in the middle and the open end taped to the air intake. It will not fail on this (so long as you remember to turn the cylinder knob off before testing).
If you want to talk about how the test would need modifying, by all means lets do so. We have done that before, I still believe there are serious obstacles to making the test as comprehensive as the derided existing inspection. Nothing will come of it anyway.

LPGC wrote:Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope.

All UKLPG approved installers do
And don't forget that forthcoming BS for LPG vehicle workshops, I suspect that could cause pain to us all, some more than others.

LPGC wrote:.. and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

Ah, that is new. Now we are have an MoT and some other check, getting expensive. Who's going to profit there ... but really, either an MoT tester/test is trained/suitable to check or he/it isn't.
You do realise not all MoT testers need to be able to offer all classes of tests, that might be a simpler solution.

LPGC wrote:The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain.

Why, where will these results be displayed?

LPGC wrote:As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation,

Did you perhaps miss the aside that UKLPG sit on the BS committee that author BS Standards relating to LPG? It's hardly suprising, it would be very remiss of BSI not to include the relevant trade bodies.
LPGA was / UKLPGA are routinely consulted by DfT, HSE, etc, on regulatory issues.
It would be a poor trade body if it did not involve itself in these matters. You want it to stop all that? Too bad!

Legislation is the preserve of governments - have you seen somewhere UKLPG claiming to write the legislation or something?

Rossko - Re your replies to LPGC. From the consumer point of view, consumers need protection. Trading Standards can provide remedy but I would argue that protection should also come from appropriate regulation. At present, I do not see any appropriate regulation . UKLPGA does not provide it - no argument there as it doesn''t claim to provide regulation. In fact from a consumer's point of view, UKLPGA distances itself with regards to installer quality assurance. Ok it checks record keeping systems etc and appropriateness of workshop facilities. It also apparently does spot checks on installations done. My first installation was done from a pretty basic size workshop and my installer must have slipped underneath their radar as the workmanship was downright incompetent.

With regard to LPGC's argument for an MOT type regulation - I do not think that this is the way forward. There are too many flaws ( as others have identified) in that type of system . However as regards the comments re govt regulation adding substantially to costs , I have already given the example of Turkey where EVERY modification has to be taken to a Govt agency inspection facility for independent inspection of installation and exhaust emission. As stated, no modified vehicle is allowed to drive on the public roads before the modification is inspected. The fee is paid by the vehicle owner and any deficit remedies have to be done by the modifying installer. In my opinion the £35 fee paid by the vehicle owner for inspection is a small price to pay for peace of mind. It also , to my mind , brings up standards of workmanship in that installers have a vested interest in not having additional costs re putting right any installation deficits identified in the inspection .Also the installer then has to pay the costs of subsequent inspections on a failed iinstallation.

In terms of amount of LPG used for transportation and LPG-vehicles, Turkey ranks 1st in Europe and 2nd in the world after South Korea. It is a huge market. Some may argue that their system is over the top BUT imho it gives far better protection to the consumer and does not significantly affect the price of installation.

To those who doubt non UK standards and refer to codes of practice etc, given the size of the LPG market in Turkey and the huge number of vehicles running on LPG, it just cannot afford to not give high priority to safety standards.

An interesting aside is that equipment and components tends to be Italian manufactured imports although Prins also have a good and expanding network of approved distibutors and installers.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.

Which EU or BS standards actually apply to aftermarket conversions? Genuine question, been asked before.

LPGC wrote:They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points.

Yup. You must agree the MoT as it stands is hopelessly unsuitable. You can take a vehicle for MoT with a calor cylinder ratchet-strapped in the boot, a length of orange barbeque hose under the car with a leaky joint in the middle and the open end taped to the air intake. It will not fail on this (so long as you remember to turn the cylinder knob off before testing).
If you want to talk about how the test would need modifying, by all means lets do so. We have done that before, I still believe there are serious obstacles to making the test as comprehensive as the derided existing inspection. Nothing will come of it anyway.

LPGC wrote:Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope.

All UKLPG approved installers do
And don't forget that forthcoming BS for LPG vehicle workshops, I suspect that could cause pain to us all, some more than others.

LPGC wrote:.. and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

Ah, that is new. Now we are have an MoT and some other check, getting expensive. Who's going to profit there ... but really, either an MoT tester/test is trained/suitable to check or he/it isn't.
You do realise not all MoT testers need to be able to offer all classes of tests, that might be a simpler solution.

LPGC wrote:The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain.

Why, where will these results be displayed?

LPGC wrote:As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation,

Did you perhaps miss the aside that UKLPG sit on the BS committee that author BS Standards relating to LPG? It's hardly suprising, it would be very remiss of BSI not to include the relevant trade bodies.
LPGA was / UKLPGA are routinely consulted by DfT, HSE, etc, on regulatory issues.
It would be a poor trade body if it did not involve itself in these matters. You want it to stop all that? Too bad!

Legislation is the preserve of governments - have you seen somewhere UKLPG claiming to write the legislation or something?

Rossko - Re your replies to LPGC. From the consumer point of view, consumers need protection. Trading Standards can provide remedy but I would argue that protection should also come from appropriate regulation. At present, I do not see any appropriate regulation . UKLPGA does not provide it - no argument there as it doesn''t claim to provide regulation. In fact from a consumer's point of view, UKLPGA distances itself with regards to installer quality assurance. Ok it checks record keeping systems etc and appropriateness of workshop facilities. It also apparently does spot checks on installations done. My first installation was done from a pretty basic size workshop and my installer must have slipped underneath their radar as the workmanship was downright incompetent.

With regard to LPGC's argument for an MOT type regulation - I do not think that this is the way forward. There are too many flaws ( as others have identified) in that type of system . However as regards the comments re govt regulation adding substantially to costs , I have already given the example of Turkey where EVERY modification has to be taken to a Govt agency inspection facility for independent inspection of installation and exhaust emission. As stated, no modified vehicle is allowed to drive on the public roads before the modification is inspected. The fee is paid by the vehicle owner and any deficit remedies have to be done by the modifying installer. In my opinion the £35 fee paid by the vehicle owner for inspection is a small price to pay for peace of mind. It also , to my mind , brings up standards of workmanship in that installers have a vested interest in not having additional costs re putting right any installation deficits identified in the inspection .Also the installer then has to pay the costs of subsequent inspections on a failed iinstallation.

In terms of amount of LPG used for transportation and LPG-vehicles, Turkey ranks 1st in Europe and 2nd in the world after South Korea. It is a huge market. Some may argue that their system is over the top BUT imho it gives far better protection to the consumer and does not significantly affect the price of installation.

To those who doubt non UK standards and refer to codes of practice etc, given the size of the LPG market in Turkey and the huge number of vehicles running on LPG, it just cannot afford to not give high priority to safety standards.

An interesting aside is that equipment and components tends to be Italian manufactured imports although Prins also have a good and expanding network of approved distibutors and installers.

What about BS EN 12979 ? Gilbert mentioned it earlier on the thread and lots of people seem to agree...

I have previously said that all the MOT tester has to do is check the components for the E67 mark. The Calor cylinder and Calor gas piping won't have those stamps. I will go as far as to agree with you that the MOT system, as it stands, isn't entirely suitable, I brought up the points about multivalves and tank venting etc before you brought up those points and nobody has mentioned any other sensible points regarding LPG system safety that an MOT tester might miss...

The prospect of a mandatory independent check by an MOT tester on 100% of newly LPG converted vehicles has got to be better than UKLPG's scheme - This scheme isn't mandatory, it involves installers checking their own work, in many cases it involves vehicles being registered as 'safe' on a database without anyone supposedly 'qualified' even seeing the vehicle. What is better - A check by someone who is used to checking vehicle and fuel system safety versus a system with no check at all or a check by someone with a vested interest to pass (if checking their own or a friends work) or a vested interest to fail (when checking a strangers work and there isn't much other work on)..

If someone from UKLPG sits on a panel where BS standards are made, then so be it, but how long will he sit there if the government decide to enforce the standard that is being made and it is realised that UKLPG are not in a position to enforce the standard? It might be decided to go with a system that is enforceable, which UKLPG wouldn't be able to provide, hence UKLPGs money would dry up considerably and there guy on the panel might lose his job and therefore no longer sit on the panel!

What is the point of a standard if it isn't enforced? I would expect enforcement to be discussed in these meetings. What could the guy from UKLPG recommend regarding enforcing the standard?

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:

Dave K wrote:the bell tolls and all because some one has seen fit to rock the boat to build an empire.

In my view the only person here rocking the boat is Simon who started it all. If his complaints that the UKLPG scheme is not working, is flawed, being routinely abused, etc get taken seriously, then the next logical step would be for conversions to be subject to an alternative such as an IVA test instead. It's totally independent, operated by a Government department and already fully equipped to do such tests. With the cost of an IVA test (£471.15 plus VAT), it'll kill the industry overnight. Ross's point on checking that a conversion hasn't increased rather than reduced CO2 emissions would make the test justifiable even if the safety of the installation was of no concern.

I'm accused here of rocking the boat!

We have European and/or BS standards to work to as a legal requirement.
The LPGA / UKLPG came along with a code of practice. The code of practice is only a method to achieving the standard but LPGA/UKLPG are seemingly very happy to have people - insurers, potential customers and installers, believe that their code of practice actually IS the standard. They are happy for potential customers to believe that unless an install is done by one of their members the install might not be safe and might not be insurable. All the above is done at the expense of none members - this is an incentive for none members to buy into the empire and go on to repeat the same misinformation... After all, the same misinformation also serves the interests of members. The ideal situation for LPGA / UKLPG, the situation that would achieve highest profit, would be to have a situation where it is compulsory in law to have installs done or checked by an LPGA / UKLPG member. There is no competing scheme to LPGA/UKLPG's scheme. Somebody has already said that LPGA/UKLPG are empire building. Anyone making a profit from a business wants that business to expand and make more profit. Some people in business are more ruthless than others, some are happy to mis-advise people and have them believe all sorts as long as this helps build the business and make more profit.

When I first started this thread it was difficult to get anyone to discuss the situation with LPGA/UKLPG. Many installers and suppliers knew about vehicles being registered on UKLPG's database without being checked but didn't say anything. There were threads on this forum that showed pictures of dodgy installs done by UKLPG members and UKLPG members were happy to discuss where those dodgy installs didn't meat the standards but they would not discuss what was also obvious.. that those vehicles were unsafe and still on UKLPG's database. They would not discuss the implications and contradictions - come to me because I am a safe UKLPG registered installer and can register your converted vehicle on UKLPG's database yet here I am discussing unsafe installs that have been registered as safe on UKLPG's database...

I have said, and had this confirmed, that vehicles are often registered as safe on UKLPG's database without any sort of check being done whatsoever, yet UKLPG and many of their members still promote, defend and uphold UKLPG's scheme. When there is discussion about how other safety schemes, schemes that actually already exist, schemes that could ensure every vehicle was at least checked, could replace UKLPG's scheme. a scheme which is wide open to abuse and manages to have many vehicles registered as safe which have never even been checked, some supporters of UKLPG reply almost in uproar... They attempt to steer the conversation away from the simple and common sense MOT scheme proposal with scaremongering of expensive IVA testing and/or comment on how MOT testing would never fully cover all the specific LPG safety points. So far the only sensible specific LPG safety points raised have only been the angle at which multivalves are mounted to tanks and tank venting! What other points would an MOT test be incapable of checking on an LPG install? It has been mentioned that emissions checks should be done - Do all installers have emissions check equipment? Nope. Do all MOT testers? Yes. Putting the argument for replacing UKLPG's very haphazard and none independent safety check scheme versus the MOT scheme that I propose replace it into context - some UKLPG members are less concerned that some vehicles are getting onto UKLPG's 'safety register' which they endorse even though often no sort of check is done whatsoever, or just being self checked by the guy who fitted the system, than they are concerned that an installer, including UKLPG members, might install a tank valve on upside down AND that the MOT tester might miss such a mistake. I submit that a tank valve being installed upside down might also be missed if the vehicle is self checked by the person who installed the system, it might also be missed if no check is done whatsoever(!), that the vehicle wouldn't run on LPG anyway if the valve was mounted upside down, that MOT testers would become accustomed to the correct orientation for the relatively few designs of tank valve and until they get accustomed at least every vehicle would be inspected, independently, by someone with common sense and experience in checking vehicle safety.

It is to the advantage of UKLPG member installers to repeat the same misinformation messages that UKLPG issues - 'come to me for your install, as a member of UKLPG your install will be guaranteed to be safe and you will be able to get insurance'. The scheme that I proposed would put an end to all of that and create a level playing field where installers are judged on the results they obtain. No potential customers would be swayed to have an install done by a particular installer just because that installer strongly stresses the point that they are a member of a particular trade body and stretches the truth to include anything related to safety or insurance concerns. It can be expected that UKLPG member installers will not want any such change because they will no longer to convince potential customers to come to them by stretching the truth - they would compete only on results and price. We can also expect UKLPG members not to want a change because they have paid to join up with UKLPG, paid a yearly subscription since joining up, paid to have vehicles registered on UKLPG's 'safety database' and mis-advised customers for so long about the benefits of UKLPG's scheme. It is human nature that having jumped through hoops to get into a little club it is disheartening when that little club is no longer recognised and it is realised the hoop jumping was in vain. Any change to the scheme will require a rethink by such installers on how to promote their business in the absence of the UKLPG scheme.

I consider LPGA/UKLPG to have rocked the boat initially by giving potential customers, insurers and installers the impression that they are the legislative body, that they came up with the standard, that they have the teeth to enforce the standard, that only their installers are safe, that only vehicle on their database are safe. There is currently a great unbalance on this boat, I am rocking the boat back the other way to correct the balance.

As I have said before, if UKLPG gave a correct impression of itself, that would be the impression of a simple trade body that has nothing to do with law, standards or legislation, then if they did actually start to do something positive for the trade then I might join up or just ignore them. If UKLPG had a safety scheme that actually worked I would join up. I will not join up to a scheme that even if working as intended only involves installers checking their own work with a very slight chance that any converted vehicle is ever seen by someone actually from UKLPG. I will not join up to a scheme that is so easily abused, often without a member even seeing the vehicle but the vehicle registered as safe following a phone call. I will not join up and then mis-advise my customers that I believe in UKLPG's scheme and I must be a safe installer because I am a member and can register my installs on the database (along with the thousands of installs on the database that are unsafe).

Simon
Lpgc

I see my post agreeing with this and criticising the UKLPG view has been removed.... have we suddenly been transported to communist China ?

You guys have time to read and reply to all of this?

LPGC wrote:Vosa don't seem to be concerned who converts vehicles and don't seem to take much notice of UKLPG.

A reminder of VOSA's viewpoint in the existing IVA guidance
"you should use an installer approved by the UKLPG association. LPG systems retro-fitted by other parties will not be accepted."
It seems very clear?

LPGC wrote:What about BS EN 12979 ? Gilbert mentioned it earlier on the thread and lots of people seem to agree...

Agree what?
Presumably you are working to BS EN 12979 and have a copy, so you'll be able to tell us the Scope section of this standard i.e. does it apply to aftermarket installs?

As mention of EU standards has fallen by the wayside, are we able to assume that we do now all agree that they do not cover aftermarket installs?

Frankly it doesn't matter a toss - all these regulations are going to be very similar, and easily tweaked tyo fit the aftermarket. You are the one obsessing that UKLPG somehow cribbed someone elses work, and using that supposition again and again as fuel in a hate campaign against UKLPG. Who cares, they've all been in place for a decade.
If you must repeat this again and again, check your facts, tell us the dates of the documents Cop11, BS EN 12979 and E67R01.
It's a trick question of course, but if you can't be bothered to check simple facts like this... it does you a discredit ander undermines your own campaign.

LPGC wrote:I have previously said that all the MOT tester has to do is check the components for the E67 mark.

a) It's not enough
b) You require the MoT to be changed. You must take action.
c) Let us know when the MoT has been changed.

LPGC wrote: [re valving] nobody has mentioned any other sensible points regarding LPG system safety that an MOT tester might miss...

Doesn't matter, if it falls down on a single point.
When that's been addressed I'll think up another one if you like.

linsdav8284 wrote:my installer must have slipped underneath their radar as the workmanship was downright incompetent.

I fell embarrassed by any and all stories like this; they do the whole industry discredit. There's no answer, only "must try harder". Despite all this guff here, there's only the one approval/accreditation scheme in existence.
This 'Consumer Code' might be of interest
http://www.uklpg.org/about-uklpg/uklpg- ... nstallers/
which is new since that time. Won't fix any incompetence of course, but codifys what should happen about it.

linsdav8284 wrote:I have already given the example of Turkey where EVERY modification has to be taken to a Govt agency inspection facility for independent inspection of installation and exhaust emission. As stated, no modified vehicle is allowed to drive on the public roads before the modification is inspected.

Might be suprised I have no problems with such a scheme, though I think it might come to more than £35 in the UK
But just look at all these hobby horses being ridden around .. its never going to happen here.

Dave K wrote:I see my post agreeing with this and criticising the UKLPG view has been removed.... have we suddenly been transported to communist China ?

might wanna get your facts in order, NO post on this thread has been deleted.

Sorry to contradict you John but there was a post by Dave that seems to have disappeared. It quoted one of Simon's small novels with a single line of comment by Dave.