LPG Discussion Forum

Oh my lordy long gone are the days of "readers wives" hidden under the loo mat by the looks of it, how times have changed

COP 11 is fine in what is outlined. The problem is that is to open to interpratation and in some cases is poorly worded but that is true of many leagal documents.

So... How about if members and none members alike got together and said this to UKLPG.....

Members: We're not happy with UKLPG because we're aware that some installers cheat the system by clubbing together to buy one membership and then all installers in these 'clubs' register their installs with UKLPG through that one membership (one membership covers numerous installers). If the installer in these 'clubs' that holds the UKLPG membership gets kicked out of UKLPG, that installers converted vehicles will continue to be registered with UKLPG because another person in the 'club' will become a member of UKLPG. In this regard, and considering you inspect so few installs, you don't know who's work is on your register or if those installs are safe, so this means our vehicle's registration with UKLPG is meaningless. It is becoming increasingly common knowledge to installers and customers that a UKLPG cert doesn't equate to a safe install, that it is difficult to get kicked out of UKLPG and that people with none UKLPG registered vehicles continue to get insurance. What will you do if we all get fed up and decide not to renew memberships? When suppliers stopped renewing UKLPG memberships, you changed your own rules (and had to to stay in business). Maybe if us installers stop paying you'll allow our installs to still be registered.... You would have to allow this, or UKLPG could not continue to exist in the hope of making some sort of comeback (when with changes they might start making money again).

None members: We don't wish to become members because there seems little advantage to doing so. We find membership fees excessive given the seemingly little advantage that being a member offers. Irrespective of the message you'd like everyone to believe regarding customers not being able to get insurance, our customers always get insurance. We're not happy that UKLPG lie that our customers won't get insurance and we could even sue you for loss of business for putting potential customers off us none members. We see an equal number of unsafe and @!## installs from both UKLPG members and none members (proportionally of course, because most installers are none members). Big suppliers that we buy from have ceased membership of UKLPG, why should we not follow their example and disregard UKLPG? Your own rules used to stipulate the whole supply chain had to be members before a converted vehicle could be registered with UKLPG. It shows how much standing you have in the industry when big suppliers cancel memberships - If no parts these suppliers sold could then go on a vehicle that could then be registered with UKLPG, it would logically follow that these suppliers would be out of business overnight.. But they are unaffected - It is the UKLPG that changed their own rules to stay in business when big suppliers cancel membership. This doesn't bode well for UKLPG's already dubious credibility - You changed your own rules to keep in business and profits! The public are becoming increasingly aware that a UKLPG cert doesn't mean a safe installation and it certainly doesn't mean a decent installation that works well.

Together:
At the moment, UKLPG seems a bit of a farce - You lie in the messages you put across and you don't command much respect even from your own members. As installers, we know that a lot of the messages you put out are false - You advise the public that they will not get insurance if their vehicles are converted by none members... You don't say they might have to change insurers, you say they won't get insurance, a lot of your members adverts also read that way. You pass yourselves off as the legislative body when in fact there is little or nothing in law to back you up. We have European standards and are getting closer to standardisation with Europe - The BS standards are going, the E standards are in. The parts we fit don't meet BS standards they fit E standards - You pass mostly already existing E standards off as your own and do little to endorse those standards. As someone on this forum said, you are not even mentioned on government websites. You have persuaded some insurers that the opposite to some points above are true but you are desperately trying to convince all insurers the same as this will increase your profits. Granted, insurers like to see standards, are looking for standards and some insurers believe they have found a standard with UKLPG, but considering points mentioned here they are misguided and may come to realise that they're misguided... Instead of asking for UKLPG certification, insurers might start instead to simply insist that all components installed meet E67 spec and that a newly converted vehicle simply has to go for a new MOT test. This would rule UKLPG out of the equation altogether, would ensure standards are met, would level the playing field and would be just fine by many installers. You advise the minority of suppliers (the small minority that continue to be your members) that they have a larger share of the market than they obviously actually do - you cannot have meaningful statistics that could back your figures up because you don't know the percentage of installs that are even registered with you. The percentage of installs that are registered with you will be lower than you'd like to believe (or say you believe). You will never stop people forming 'clubs' where only one installer joins UKLPG and all that installers mates register their own installations with UKLPG through that one installer. At the moment you don't inspect many installations, so UKLPG members that allow other installs to be registered with UKLPG through themselves know there is little chance of being caught out. Since there is little chance of being caught out, many installs are done to a poor standard by unscrupulous members of UKLPG anyway. Even if a UKLPG member is kicked out of UKLPG, they can simply continue to have their installs registered by UKLPG in these 'clubs' and their work won't have to be improved to do so.

To resolve our concerns, you need to check ALL installations. Since you will be checking all installations you should charge per vehicle. You can make all your money through the check fees, we won't pay for any membership. The price for certification Per Vehicle will be the same for all installers, which is fairer. The above will give you a better reputation and standing in the industry - Installers will start to believe that your certification actually means something and you may persuade more insurers to require your certification. If the government is showing little sign of endorsing your organisation, it may swing things in favour of endorsing UKLPG. For all you know, the government might already be thinking about an immediate MOT following a conversion as being the way to go, given the lack of penetration you have in the industry. And given that checking aspects of LPG installs is already on the cards for MOTs.

We don't want to be dictated to by people that mostly don't do installs themselves on the subject of what is safe and what isn't - Granted there are aspects of LPG that might be less safe than the equivalent aspect on a petrol only vehicle, but installers, UKLPG and insurers all believe that LPG is safer than petrol don't they? Any mechanic can work on a petrol system - your regulations should be common sense to anyone who works on vehicles (the results of installing a petrol pipe next to an exhaust might be worse than installing a gas pipe close to the exhaust). Where there are points that might not be common sense, the manufacturers can advise on what is safe and what isn't (an installer who can't read the word 'top' might get multi-valve mounting orientation wrong. An installer who doesn't know that a multivalve might vent gas in certain conditions might not realise that vent pipes etc are needed, but given the knowledge and with any common sense and scrupols they would fit one). We installers will have input on what is safe and what isn't, as we are the ones that see the full range of technology and are most familiar with safety issues. We can judge our peers as well as you can.

By the way, vehicle manufacturers will always know more than you do about safety. For them it is perfectly OK to use plastic clips to secure petrol pipes and brake pipes. With a bit of common sense, given the choice, anyone would rather a gas pipe fall off a vehicle than a brake pipe! When a brake pipe falls off a vehicle and leaks, brakes on certain wheels will stop working. Given enough leaked brake fluid, all brakes may stop working. If a gas pipe falls off a car, it will leak, then when there is no pressure at the front the gas will turn off or can be turned off by the driver pressing a button. On Jags etc where brake pipes run above plastic underskirts (which would prevent the pipes falling to the road even if they came out of the clips), what is wrong with using these clips to secure a gas pipe if they fit correctly? And please run it by me again why I need a forklift truck in my garage? Not all installers do MOT's and not all installers have a gas analyser. Do they really need to gas analyse emissions or can we assume that emissions will be OK on LPG if they were OK on petrol.. given that the vehicle has an MOT and we've checked lambda with a scan tool.

(It seems to me UKLPG fore-saw the conversion being mostly additional business for existing garages that do MOT's etc. and geared their pre-requisites towards such garages. Instead we are seeing more and more dedicated LPG conversion shops that don't do MOTs etc.).

Until we hear of moves towards what we propose above we will either not be renewing memberships or joining as new members, or we will form our own 'clubs' where we get together to pay a single membership fee safe in the knowledge that if a few installers in the clubs (these clubs can be large and we don't even have to know other members) do unsafe installs and are eventually found out we can simply move UKLPG membership to another installer in the clubs. In fact, we only have to have one member of UKLPG in the country, can all pay a share of that single membership fee and all have our installs registered with UKLPG (if we feel the need to register).

Will you continue to base membership sales on lies and have a poor reputation, or change and have a system which the vast majority of installers support and wish to be part of?

rossko wrote:So what's the suggestion..
a) Insurers are compelled by law to require engineer inspection for every modification?
b) Insurers are forbidden by law to ask for any inspections at all?
c,d) ditto for Mot?

I do get confused by these threads. How do these fat cats get fabulously wealthy by charging a whopping £12 once in a vehicle lifetime?
Why would it better if suppliers added a surcharge instead? (will that be £12? per part, per kit, per tank?)
How would the supplier operated scheme allow DIYers, recyclers and car importers to continue to validate their work?
Are installers tied to one supplier, if not do they need to 'approved' by every supplier they use? Will they be able to get parts to repair other systems, or we looking at "exclusive agents" here?
How could it all work in an eBay world, will LPG parts imports be prohibited except by the select few? How could that be done? How would that affect folk driving to Poland for a conversion?
What's shite about the current 'reg' (code of practice?)?

I've quoted Rosko purely because he's asked the 'what should happen instead' question. Not falling out with Rosko!

a) no, there are alternatives mentioned above.
b) no, let insurers do what they want, but let's recommend to them a vetting system that will actually work.
c) nobody would suggest that the current UKLPG system is anything like the MOT or anything like as effective. MOT's are done by impartial testers, UKLPG certs are self issued. An idea would be to have UKLPG with testing sites up and down the country, or for them to visit owners to inspect all new installs within a set time of the install. Or a future system could just involve converted requiring a new MOT test and UKLPG wouldn't be needed at all.

Don't know if anyone on this thread called UKLPG 'fat cats', if so it wasn't me. I have nothing against entrepreneurs setting up a profitable business but I do take issue with people achieving such by scare-mongering and misinformation methods - particularly when it is done at my expense. UKLPG's system is hardly the best situation for the industry, the system is designed to make profit and is at the expense of the industry and at the expense of improving safety results. Such an organisation should represent the industry more and their own profitability less. UKLPG charge £12 per converted vehicle but then there are membership fees on top? One method suggested to improve the safety situation would make them possibly more profit but might require them to invest. One method suggested would also improve the safety suggestion but would leave UKLPG out of the equation altogether. I'm not out to get UKLPG but want a better system, so I wouldn't mind either of those systems suggested.

You missed out that brake fluid is more flammable than both petrol and propane - been demonstrated plenty of times that it's far easier to light up on a hot manifold.

Seem to be saying, "we want what UKLPG has but dont want to pay. We think it's rubbish really, but we're prepared to cheat and lie to get it." Doesn't sound like a good basis for deal brokering? I expect that wasn't what was meant, more refinement required?

(the context for mentioning MoT was that (some/all?) insurers of now-exempt old cars could ask for MoTs anyway, but don't. It's a sort of parallel to UKLPG certification, suggesting that insurers need not make that requirement that either. As indeed, some don't.)

I've said before, I don't reckon UKLPG is not going to fall in a hole because Autogas installers withdraw, tiny slice of their half million turnover.
https://www.duedil.com/company/00977549 ... financials

As an aside, those believing the govt doesn't recognise UKLPG should check out HSE relationships
http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/lpg/about.htm
where they are the reference for guidelines, safety pipework programmes, etc.
I suspect the relationship with DfT is more standoffish, they're more excited about non-fossil fuel these days, but I don't understand why it's claimed to be unmentioned; example
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/d ... -guide.pdf
section 2
and even boats
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/l ... g_code.htm

EDIT
"Do they really need to gas analyse emissions "
Yes. Partly to demonstrate the installer hasn't buggered existing car emissions features, partly to demonstrate lower emissions on LPG. Documented C02 emissions reductions are exciting things to govt, and can be used to lobby for continued duty breaks on LPG itself. Bigger pictures involved here.

MORE EDIT
"And please run it by me again why I need a forklift truck in my garage?"
Dunno. Nowt to do with UKLPG - their requirements
http://www.uklpg.org/uploads/DOC4DA8050C6DBB1.pdf
although it could be sensible to handle pallet loads of tanks?

"it is perfectly OK to use plastic clips to secure petrol pipes and brake pipes."
Yes. Nor does CoP11 forbid plastic clips for LPG lines.

I'd suggest nitpicking technical stuff is just clouding the issue here.

At the risk of giving myself severe eyestrain, I put off reading this until I thought I might be capable. But curiosity got the better of me.....

LPGC wrote:So... How about if members and none members alike got together and said this to UKLPG.....
Members: We're not happy with UKLPG because we're aware that some installers cheat the system by clubbing together to buy one membership and then all installers in these 'clubs' register their installs with UKLPG through that one membership (one membership covers numerous installers). If the installer in these 'clubs' that holds the UKLPG membership gets kicked out of UKLPG, that installers converted vehicles will continue to be registered with UKLPG because another person in the 'club' will become a member of UKLPG. etc

and the problem with this is? What is different here to a DIYer or non-UKLPG member taking his install to a UKLPG member to have his install inspected? I assume that some members might be miffed that they have jumped through the hoops that they need to become members but, with the system as it is stands, then I don't see this as a problem personally. Inspecting installations done by non-members is a further source of income for them.

LPGC wrote:None members: We don't wish to become members because there seems little advantage to doing so. ...........We see an equal number of unsafe and @!## installs from both UKLPG members and none members

If installs done by members are that bad, then there is no way that the converted vehicle should pass an MoT. An install that is untidy, with injectors mounted in the wrong orientation, unequal length hoses, etc may not be good engineering practice, or result in ideal running or longevity, but it isn't dangerous or even in contravention of CoP11. The MoT test always has specified that all parts of the fuel system should be leak free and secure (and for the last year testers have had to use leak spray on an LPG vehicle as a gas leak is not as immediately obvious as a petrol or diesel leak), while the emissions test would show if a system is badly out of tune (although quite how this is really relevant to the standard of an install, I'm not sure).

LPGC wrote:a load more stuff

Most of which seems to be rambling nonsense except for one point. The story put out by UKLPG that you won't get insurance without their registration is patently wrong. Many people have insurance without, some have a certificate issued by a 'competent person', with or without a UKLPG logo, some have on the basis that the car is shown on the V5 as being Petrol/LPG. My Saab was shown as petrol on the V5 but the previous owner had a LPG Safety Report done on it by an installer. This report was perfectly adequate for my insurers although not good enough for DVLA to alter the V5. They wanted a copy of the invoice from the installer. Not a UKLPG member installer, just the installer. Equally, the V5 for my P38 showed the fuel type as petrol when I got it. My insurers asked if I had a certificate but were quite happy when I told them that it had been done before I got it and I didn't receive one with the car. The fact that it had passed the MoT test running on LPG was good enough for them. In fact, that was good enough for DVLA too. After my last test, they sent me a revised V5 showing the fuel type as Petrol/LPG.

So, I agree that the publicity put out is tantamount to scare mongering but other than that, while the situation remains as it is, I don't have a problem. It just makes me wonder why LPGC has such a problem......

Getting a bit of eye strain myself now lads, but have noted I'm not the only one to write long posts. Sometimes it seems people like to jump on the bandwagon and reply with a similar tone to their mates, particularly when someone they don't know so well is prepared to make bold statements and discuss points and subjects they might rather leave lying low.

rossko wrote:Seem to be saying, "we want what UKLPG has but dont want to pay. We think it's rubbish really, but we're prepared to cheat and lie to get it." Doesn't sound like a good basis for deal brokering? I expect that wasn't what was meant, more refinement required?

I said I don't care if UKLPG is involved or not and suggested two situations, one involving UKLPG and one that doesn't need to involve them. The facts someone mentioned about we need to do an emissions test in case we've 'buggered something else up' would seem to be a point in favour of my MOT suggestion wouldn't it?

It's been mentioned that the government recognises UKLPG - Did they not previously recognise Eureopean standards and do they not still recognise the European standards that COP11 are based on then? If their is a contradiction in these standards, won't that leave the government in the unacceptable position of having double standards?

I may have been wrong about the forklift requirement, thought they used to require a forklift? I would let the HSE worry about that, not something UKLPG has to be involved in.

SimonHobson wrote:"it is perfectly OK to use plastic clips to secure petrol pipes and brake pipes."
Yes. Nor does CoP11 forbid plastic clips for LPG lines.

I'd suggest nitpicking technical stuff is just clouding the issue here.

There are many installers who would fail a COP11 test if they found *another* installer had utilised existing (unused/free) plastic clips on a vehicle to secure LPG pipes, that was my point. I agree that nitpicking tech stuff is off the point and will cloud the issue, I regret clouding the issue! The ** are there to highlight the word another. They might be pedantic with another installer's work but might let themselves off. This happens!

I stand by the major points I brought up and so far even my critics seem to agree with them: UKLPG tell lies. UKLPG's system isn't working - Or it wouldn't be possible to cheat the system would it? UKLPG membership is voluntary - other schemes would be compulsory. If we agree other schemes should be compulsory then do we not agree testing on every vehicle should be compulsory? Are UKLPG in a position to test every vehicle? Would UKLPG want to test every vehicle or rather not because any such scheme would hurt profits?

Gilbertd wrote:At the risk of giving myself severe eyestrain, I put off reading this until I thought I might be capable. But curiosity got the better of me.....

LPGC wrote:So... How about if members and none members alike got together and said this to UKLPG.....
Members: We're not happy with UKLPG because we're aware that some installers cheat the system by clubbing together to buy one membership and then all installers in these 'clubs' register their installs with UKLPG through that one membership (one membership covers numerous installers). If the installer in these 'clubs' that holds the UKLPG membership gets kicked out of UKLPG, that installers converted vehicles will continue to be registered with UKLPG because another person in the 'club' will become a member of UKLPG. etc

and the problem with this is? What is different here to a DIYer or non-UKLPG member taking his install to a UKLPG member to have his install inspected? I assume that some members might be miffed that they have jumped through the hoops that they need to become members but, with the system as it is stands, then I don't see this as a problem personally. Inspecting installations done by non-members is a further source of income for them

Did you misunderstand? The problem with this is that it is even possible. Because it is possible it follows that no matter how many times UKLPG kick someone out, that installer can continue to do unsafe work and still have those unsafe installs go on the UKLPG register. If unsafe installs can go on UKLPG's register, UKLPG's register is a shambles and vehicle registration means nothing. Unless members or organisers or UKLPG change that situation, UKLPG itself means nothing. What 'hoops' do you have to jump through? Paying UKLPG is a hoop. Given the above don't you resent that a little? Converting a vehicle or two safely (that the vehicles run OK doesn't matter) isn't a hoop is it? After membership is passed an installer can convert them as unsafely as they want knowing there's little chance of getting kicked out? And if they do get kicked out, they can ask their mate to register their installs with UKLPG for them? Hey why not go halves on a membership, or thirds or have a 1% share in one membership?

Gilbertd wrote:

LPGC wrote:None members: We don't wish to become members because there seems little advantage to doing so. ...........We see an equal number of unsafe and @!## installs from both UKLPG members and none members

If installs done by members are that bad, then there is no way that the converted vehicle should pass an MoT. An install that is untidy, with injectors mounted in the wrong orientation, unequal length hoses, etc may not be good engineering practice, or result in ideal running or longevity, but it isn't dangerous or even in contravention of CoP11. The MoT test always has specified that all parts of the fuel system should be leak free and secure (and for the last year testers have had to use leak spray on an LPG vehicle as a gas leak is not as immediately obvious as a petrol or diesel leak), while the emissions test would show if a system is badly out of tune (although quite how this is really relevant to the standard of an install, I'm not sure).

You're agreeing with some of my 'rambling nonsense'! And since an MOT test can pick faults with unsafe LPG installs, is impartial and an MOT test could be done on every newly converted vehicle, the MOT test route would seem to be a better bet regarding safety in your opinion then? That's going further than what I said.

Gilbertd wrote:e).

LPGC wrote:a load more stuff

Most of which seems to be rambling nonsense except for one point. The story put out by UKLPG that you won't get insurance without their registration is patently wrong. Many people have insurance without, some have a certificate issued by a 'competent person', with or without a UKLPG logo, some have on the basis that the car is shown on the V5 as being Petrol/LPG. My Saab was shown as petrol on the V5 but the previous owner had a LPG Safety Report done on it by an installer. This report was perfectly adequate for my insurers although not good enough for DVLA to alter the V5. They wanted a copy of the invoice from the installer. Not a UKLPG member installer, just the installer. Equally, the V5 for my P38 showed the fuel type as petrol when I got it. My insurers asked if I had a certificate but were quite happy when I told them that it had been done before I got it and I didn't receive one with the car. The fact that it had passed the MoT test running on LPG was good enough for them. In fact, that was good enough for DVLA too. After my last test, they sent me a revised V5 showing the fuel type as Petrol/LPG.

So, I agree that the publicity put out is tantamount to scare mongering but other than that, while the situation remains as it is, I don't have a problem. It just makes me wonder why LPGC has such a problem......

Having a 'problem' with UKLPG seems to me to be a slightly loaded comment which might be interpreted I'd have a problem becoming a member - was that the way you meant your comment to be received? I find that prospect laughable quite frankly. They have phoned me up before for comments I made once on my website that went something like "we don't normally supply an LPGA cert but if you should need one we'll get you one no problem". Indeed getting a cert was no problem but was seldom needed and nothing has changed there. Getting a cert used to involve me emailing a few pics to a supplier who was a member and who was more than happy to send me a cert on the basis of the pics. Do you think the people in these 'clubs' I have mentioned bother to look at pics of installs? Back to the story though, the LPGA phoned me up and at the time I removed the comment from the website because I didn't want to get the supplier into bother with the LPGA. The LPGA offered me membership, I declined for all the reasons I wrote in the OP. The supplier was worried at the time but then cancelled their membership of the LPGA about a year later! Their business wasn't effected despite the then LPGA's 'whole supply chain must be a member'.

If I have a 'problem' with UKLPG it is this: UKLPG registration as it stands isn't worth the paper it is written on (and it isn't written anymore eh!). UKLPG membership costs money and doesn't mean you're the member of an organisation whose endorsement means you're a safe or a good installer. UKLPG tell lies to make themselves more profit at the expense of honest people like myself. I do safe installs and I do good installs (both on the same conversion) but UKLPG lie that installers like myself are unsafe and our customers won't get insurance - This does nothing to make me want to be a member.

Nobody has commented much on UKLPG's failures regarding the 'clubs'. Nobody has commented much on UKLPG's failures to prevent random installers work getting their endorsement. Nobody has commented on how these two points negate the whole point of a supposed safety scheme.

Where people have posted critically of my comments, the major points they make would seem to concur with my point that a changing to the MOT based system would test every converted vehicle (versus current system only a small proportion are tested), would be impartial, would require no membership fees, would be done by people who have no financial motive or would be better of financially to fail a converted vehicle (versus current system financial motive to pass a converted vehicle - you pass your own or your mates work you want it to pass).

There is another point to be made here: Safe installs are not necessarily good installs. The converted vehicle doesn't need to have good driveability on LPG to pass. Is driveability not a safety concern too? This is off subject slightly again, but another point in favour of a change in testing system is this: Granted an MOT test doesn't need to involve a drive but is still far more likely to detect an issue with the driveability of a converted vehicle than a COP11 test.

Still not falling out with anyone, I thank all for comments and this is getting more interesting!

Simon

LPGC wrote:What 'hoops' do you have to jump through? Paying UKLPG is a hoop. Given the above don't you resent that a little? Converting a vehicle or two safely (that the vehicles run OK doesn't matter) isn't a hoop is it? After membership is passed an installer can convert them as unsafely as they want knowing there's little chance of getting kicked out? And if they do get kicked out, they can ask their mate to register their installs with UKLPG for them? Hey why not go halves on a membership, or thirds or have a 1% share in one membership?

The hoops are that someone like me, Simon Hobson and probably quite a few others would never be able to get membership even if we wanted to. I could go to Tinley, FES or one of a number of suppliers who run courses and convert a car under their supervision. I would then get a certificate to say that I am suitably qualified to install their product. Does that mean that UKLPG would then accept that certificate and allow me to become a member? Does the fact that I am a professional engineer with almost 40 years experience and, on the odd occasion I choose to use them, with C.Eng MIET after my name allow me to become a member? No, it doesn't because I don't have a workshop other that a domestic garage because I am not a full time installer. If, and I sincerely hope it never does happen, but if it ever became mandatory that an install has to be done by a member I would like to be able to do as I always have and do any work on my cars myself. There is only one person I will trust to work on my cars. If that meant me becoming a member so I could certify my own work, then I would like it to be feasible for me to do so.

Membership should be based on ability and not facilities.

LPGC wrote:If their is a contradiction in these standards, won't that leave the government in the unacceptable position of having double standards?

Why, what standards are in conflict?

LPGC wrote:I may have been wrong about the forklift requirement, thought they used to require a forklift?
I would let the HSE worry about that, not something UKLPG has to be involved in.

Absolutely. Point was, when shouting about misinformation etc. need to take care about getting own house in order.

LPGC wrote:UKLPG tell lies.

Show me?

LPGC wrote:And since an MOT test can pick faults with unsafe LPG installs

I don't believe it will, or rather won't find every problem - this all got done to death here
"What should be in an MOT check if LPG systems werein it"
http://www.lpgforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9613
but there's actually more meat in this one
http://www.lpgforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9232
there are things that need one-time checks (eg correct tank type) but would be ridiculous to perform every MoT

LPGC wrote:Nobody has commented much on UKLPG's failures regarding the 'clubs'.

Personally, I don't know anything about it. You seem to have inside knowledge of the fraud - should/has it been passed to UKLPG or police?

As it happens, I had a chat with a chap this afternoon - just bought a gassed car. Not on UKLPG database, but did come with "In accordance with CoP11..." paper. He rang the installer (I don't know who, can guess, but there is no fraud in this story) who told him "our company is not UKLPG registered but some of the fitters are". Which doesn't help him because its still not on the database ... he's sent off his bit of paper to his insurers, I'll be interested to see the outcome.

LPGC wrote:the major points they make would seem to concur with my point that a changing to the MOT based system would test every converted vehicle

See also the extensive 'MoT' thread referenced. So far as I know, no-one responded to the then-current consultation from VOSA. It always peters out to so much hot air in the end.

LPGC wrote:There is another point to be made here: Safe installs are not necessarily good installs.

Absolutely. Even the odiferous UKPLG draws a clear distinction between 'outside' jobs safety checked only, and members jobs.
As you're proposing some other check/test system, could we be clear about what it covers - safety only, or the rest of it (which I think would be very difficult to "test")

LPGC wrote:Granted an MOT test doesn't need to involve a drive but is still far more likely to detect an issue with the driveability of a converted vehicle than a COP11 test.

Really, hows that?

Gilbertd wrote:The hoops are that someone like me, Simon Hobson and probably quite a few others would never be able to get membership even if we wanted to.

Your obstacle is that it's a trade body - the assumption has to be that you are in business; to operate a professional business of this kind, you need premises and gear and records blah.
No-one is stopping 'DIY' jobs getting checked, for a fee of course

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:UKLPG tell lies.

Show me?

OK, here's two :
http://www.drivelpg.co.uk

... choose a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer safe in the knowledge that their work has been independently inspected and standards monitored, choosing an LPG system from a UKLPG Accredited Distributor will ensure effective after sales support throughout the UK.

The discussions here show that clearly the system doesn't protect end users, and we know the one about independent inspection is a complete lie - installer certify their own work.

http://www.drivelpg.co.uk/advice-and-in ... insurance/

The only way to guarantee that you, or the person you may want to sell your vehicle to in the future, can get insurance is by having the conversion undertaken by a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer or inspected and if found satisfactory then placed on the UKLPG Vehicle Register.

It's not quite the old "you won't get insurance ..." lie they used to put out, but to most people it will mean the same.

rossko wrote:

Gilbertd wrote:The hoops are that someone like me, Simon Hobson and probably quite a few others would never be able to get membership even if we wanted to.

Your obstacle is that it's a trade body - the assumption has to be that you are in business; to operate a professional business of this kind, you need premises and gear and records blah.
No-one is stopping 'DIY' jobs getting checked, for a fee of course

Indeed, and the same applies in other areas. One that particularly peeves me is what it colloquially known as "Part P" regs for domestic electrics. Actually "Part P" only says that work has to be safe, it's other bits that make it notifiable. Thankfully the government have seen sense (the over-presciptive rules were actually causing problems) and almost all the notification requirements disappear on 6th April but some things do stay notifiable. What really grates is that you can either use someone in a registered body who can certify through their trade body for a pittnce, or you have to notify your local building control department - who charge (in some cases) £400 to handle notification of some very minor electrical work

SimonHobson wrote:[ref lies]
http://www.drivelpg.co.uk
... choose a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer safe in the knowledge that their work has been independently inspected and standards monitored ...

Depends on your frame of mind when you read it. I have been independantly inspected/assessed, examination piece etc., and deemed fit to sign off.
My work is randomly re-assessed to monitor it.
I see no lie?

SimonHobson wrote:The discussions here show that clearly the system doesn't protect end users

Hearsay; show me?
I'm not being funny here; I haven't seen an unsafe job from another UKLPG installer. I'd agree I'm unlikely to be presented with one, they'll turn up elsewhere? People have been ejected from UKLPG so it must go on.

Other complaints about UKLPG have been shown to be false already (no forklift required) so let's not just take statements for granted.

It's not quite the old "you won't get insurance ..." lie they used to put out, but to most people it will mean the same.

Okeydoke, so no untruths there either?

SimonHobson wrote:[ref electrical works]
What really grates is that you can either use someone in a registered body who can certify through their trade body for a pittnce, or you have to notify your local building control department - who charge (in some cases) £400 ...

[/quote]
Interesting parallel, seems making laws and regulations to cut out the trade body and put the work in 'institutional' hands didn't pan out well?

I've not read through everything here as lot of it does appear to be nit picking.

I'm in two minds about UKLPG/LPGA,

There are a number of positives that do come from what they do and they are making an effort to improve the standards of trade installs.
Of the installs I have seen done by UKLPG members I would say 5% were good jobs but at least 50% did not comply with COP11 and were unsafe.

Now without anyone there to put some sort of standards in place then the genral standards of installations would be a lot worse.

The Idea of having a test similar to the SVA (now called something else) is a great idea but it is not that simple. Who is going to pay for the training for the inspectors? How are you going to go about back dating things for already converted cars? Is everyone with a converted car going to have to pay for an inspection and if not how will you know if it is a new install or one done before the change is testing? How do you think customers are going to feel about adding £100+ to the conversion price to have the conversion inspected?

There is no way you could have MOT centres doing the inspection if the aim is for high standards.

The realistic answer is to actualy join up and push them to improve standards and report the shoddy installs that you do see. We might not like tthem but there are all we have at the moment

rossko wrote:

SimonHobson wrote:[ref lies]
http://www.drivelpg.co.uk
... choose a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer safe in the knowledge that their work has been independently inspected and standards monitored ...

Depends on your frame of mind when you read it. I have been independantly inspected/assessed, examination piece etc., and deemed fit to sign off.
My work is randomly re-assessed to monitor it.
I see no lie?

As you say, it depends on your frame of mind. To most people, saying that "X's work has been independently inspected" conjures up an image where an independent person will inspect the install that's done on their car. So the statement, while arguably isn't a complete lie, is IMO misleading to the same extent and purpose.

SimonHobson wrote:The discussions here show that clearly the system doesn't protect end users

Hearsay; show me?
I'm not being funny here; I haven't seen an unsafe job from another UKLPG installer. I'd agree I'm unlikely to be presented with one, they'll turn up elsewhere? People have been ejected from UKLPG so it must go on.

Sorry, I didn't know I had to keep records of them over the years. Like a friend who could smell gas from a converted vehicle when put over his pit - "proper" install, but didn't have any shutoffs so leaked gas while stationary. Don't know any more details than that.
There have been threads on here. And I've seen sites where someone has been so hacked off with a conversion, and with UK LPGs failure to anything about it, that the owner has resorted to making a website to publicise it.

Other complaints about UKLPG have been shown to be false already (no forklift required) so let's not just take statements for granted.

Not something I said, and having read the requirements (a while ago) know it wasn't in there when I read them.

It's not quite the old "you won't get insurance ..." lie they used to put out, but to most people it will mean the same.

Okeydoke, so no untruths there either?

It's a lie in that it is a statement that a) any reasonable person would know not to be true. Even if you construe the statement to be true (technically it would be true to say someone cannot be guaranteed to get insurance, but that applies regardless of whether the vehicle has an LPG conversion), then it's certainly economical with the facts (a half-truth) in a manner purposely intended to leave the reader with an impression which is not correct.

SimonHobson wrote:[ref electrical works]
What really grates is that you can either use someone in a registered body who can certify through their trade body for a pittnce, or you have to notify your local building control department - who charge (in some cases) £400 ...

Interesting parallel, seems making laws and regulations to cut out the trade body and put the work in 'institutional' hands didn't pan out well?

Actually, the law was to put work in the hands of the trade bodies.

SimonHobson wrote:[ref electrical works]
What really grates is that you can either use someone in a registered body who can certify through their trade body for a pittnce, or you have to notify your local building control department - who charge (in some cases) £400 ...

Rossko wrote:Interesting parallel, seems making laws and regulations to cut out the trade body and put the work in 'institutional' hands didn't pan out well?

SimonHobson wrote:Actually, the law was to put work in the hands of the trade bodies.

The Part P regs are actually a very good parallel. While most people on here will know of them, an explanation may assist. It was found that a lot of electrical work being done in houses by some DIYers was downright dangerous. The fact that you can go into B&Q and buy everything you will need to rewire your house means that some people did. Part P was introduced and restricts what could be done by a DIYer to fairly simple jobs, an additional power point, changing a light fitting, etc. No work in kitchens, bathrooms or fitting of power or lighting in a garden for example. The idea was that this work would be done by, or, if done by a DIYer, inspected and certified, by a qualified tradesperson. Alternatively you could notify your local building control department who would inspect it instead (at a price as Simon pointed out). The problem was, the trade weren't really interested in the small jobs (replacing a light fitting in a kitchen for instance) and didn't want to do the inspections so the punter was almost forced into doing it himself and then having to get building control to inspect it. Unfortunately, building control, like most Government departments, haven't got the time to do their core business properly so certainly didn't have the time to take on this additional work. So the whole scheme has fallen apart and, as Simon says, is now being opened up to allow the DIYer to do a lot more than he could.

We've all seen the pleas from people on here who have converted a car or bought one already done, need the install inspecting and are having trouble finding anyone willing to do it. In this case though there isn't the equivalent to building control to fall back on.

In which case the Part P regs were doomed to failure from the start, the only way they would work is for every property in the land to have a detailed inventory and plan of the installation in that property so that any work done after that can be proved to have been done by the diy'r if they couldnt produce a certificate of safety for the work, there isnt nothing to prevent anyone from saying "its how it always was" if something goes wrong after they meddled with it, who is to say that the electrics wernt messed up before someone bought a property by someone else or the previous owner ?? survey's dont go that far unless its really obvious that there is something wrong with the electrics etc, I completely re-plummed my whole house before I was divorced, fitted a brand new combi, pipes ,rads, everything as it was needed desperately but it was also combined with major house renovations, job was sweet and 100% however the tradesman (who I commissioned to convert my loft into another bedroom who came well recommended and also I went to see a conversion he had done previously) really totally f****d up the job whilst also ripping me off (he was caught red handed) was finished there and then and upon inspection by the local building inspector was told, no way, it had to come out and a major re-instatement had to be done before the work could re-begin couldnt afford it so I had the perlings replaced and had to leave it at that, but where was the trade body to persue him and have him banned from building ?? nah, wasnt interested, I dont know about woodwork or making stairs or how to convert a loft or fit velox windows which is why I had someone do it, never again, ill learn about it and do it myself if there is a next time cos I know it will be done correctly because I can read plans

demonicwillow wrote:In which case the Part P regs were doomed to failure from the start, the only way they would work is for every property in the land to have a detailed inventory and plan of the installation in that property so that any work done after that can be proved to have been done by the diy'r if they couldnt produce a certificate of safety for the work, there isnt nothing to prevent anyone from saying "its how it always was" if something goes wrong after they meddled with it, who is to say that the electrics wernt messed up before someone bought a property by someone else or the previous owner ??

That was the exact situation just before Part P came in. I bought a brand new house in 1977 which was fitted with a piddly little 4 way fusebox (with fuses), Lighting, Ring main, Cooker, Immersion heater, that was it. It was a job I'd meant to do for years but with Part P on the horizon, I replaced the fusebox with a proper consumer unit, RCD protected, trips and additional circuits so I could run a proper supply into the garage and garden rather than use the extension lead from the kitchen as I had done for years. I did this about a fortnight before the regs came into force. A few weeks later my neighbour knocked on my door and said, "You know how you've replaced your fusebox and put a proper supply into the garage? As my house is identical to yours, would you be able to do mine for me?" "Nope, not allowed to, it's illegal" and told him why.

Very resourceful chap managed to produce a time machine for me so I could do it the previous month........

demonicwillow wrote:there isnt nothing to prevent anyone from saying "its how it always was" if something goes wrong after they meddled with it

The wiring colours were (coincidentally?) changed when Part P came in, so tat unless you already had stock of old coloured cable, it would be obvious which bits were added after the change in regulations.

Getting away from LPG here, although still interesting!

Gilbertd wrote:The idea was that this work would be done by, or, if done by a DIYer, inspected and certified, by a qualified tradesperson.

Actually, part of the problem was (still is) that you cannot get a qualified (ie member of approved scheme) to inspect your work - the only routes are member of scheme does work and registers it himself, or someone who isn't in a scheme needs to go the (very expensive) LABC route.

What it did do was to allow the unscrupulous to make misleading statements in order to drum up work. IN fact, only last week I was at a meeting and a chap from <one of the electrical trade bodies> made the same false statements about work "could only be done by their members".

The problem was, the trade weren't really interested in the small jobs (replacing a light fitting in a kitchen for instance) and didn't want to do the inspections so the punter was almost forced into doing it himself and then having to get building control to inspect it. Unfortunately, building control, like most Government departments, haven't got the time to do their core business properly so certainly didn't have the time to take on this additional work.

LABC could - but they didn't have the resources and outsource the inspections - I believe a nice little earner if you are on their list. There was a bit of a fuss at first because by law, only the person doing the work or LABC can issue a certificate - so it was eventually agreed that the electrician would use a PIR (Periodic Inspection Report) form (it's now an Electrical Installation Condition Report) for LABC inspections.

The biggest problem is that it was counterproductive. Because the LABC fees made it a choice between employing a tradesman or not having it done to stay legal, it actively encouraged people to do work and keep quiet about it. None of this "get a mate in the trade to check it over for you".

So the whole scheme has fallen apart and, as Simon says, is now being opened up to allow the DIYer to do a lot more than he could.

I'd like to think it was more a case of them realising the original restrictions were far too tight - even the trade thought so. They were also inconsistent - you aren't allowed to do work in a kitchen, but you can in a utility room which is arguably more likely to be wet.

mat_fenwick wrote:The wiring colours were (coincidentally?) changed when Part P came in, so tat unless you already had stock of old coloured cable, it would be obvious which bits were added after the change in regulations.

Actually not quite - there was a gap.
And in any case, the colour of the wire doesn't tell you much because it's quite legal to replace any cable if it's damaged. So an odd cable in new colours can be explained away as "it was a replacement cable".

The restrictions came in in 2005, and anecdotally, there was an awful lot of electrical work finished in 2004 I think there'll be a lot of electrical work done in April this year as well when the rules get relaxed - I know my mates kitchen won't be getting done until then