LPG Discussion Forum

I was fully aware of that. But I think we all know Simon is the one having problems.......

Aaaaarrrrrggghhhhh

Gilbert wrote: Oi! Which Mod decided he was going to be a censor? Appreciate that the thread had gone well off topic but it was still being read and contributed to by quite a number of people (and I spent bloody ages on my last post!). Lock it if you think it is getting out of hand (which I don't think it was) but don't go and delete 5 pages of discussion.....

Wouldn't be true but might have been comical if I'd have said 'I think they might have deleted it because I let on to the mods that I only wrote all that lot to wind Rosko up'

Gilbertd wrote:I was fully aware of that. But I think we all know Simon is the one having problems.......

Oy! Which Simon? What problems?

But seriously I'm quite happy with how that/this thread was/is going!

Simon
www.Lpgc.co.uk

Gilbertd wrote:LPGC wrote:
See if you can stop UKLPG and their members from implying points and making claims based on numbers they cannot know.
Only when you stop doing exactly the same.....

To me, to you, to me, to you UKLPG started this, I wouldn't have had any reason to disprove claims or dispute numbers if UKLPG hadn't made claims or mentioned numbers. If UKLPG hadn't started making claims and basing some of those claims on made up numbers I wouldn't be concerned they have a website telling people all about their schemes that are only relevant to Calor Gas etc. They could say they accept membership from vehicle convertors and hardly anyone would care, I certainly would not care or even bother to mention them. A few installers might become members and use the UKLPG logo on their letterheads etc, still nobody would care. Only when they make claims and mention numbers does anyone care, do customers start to think a UKLPG member installer is in some way better, do installers think it seems to make financial sense to join them. If I thought the claims and numbers made sense I would have joined up. The fact that I don't agree with the claims or numbers, the fact that I and others believe this leaves the industry in a bit of a farcical situation without a working safety scheme are the reasons we are having this discussion at all.

Gilbertd wrote:Bugger off, I'd pick a decent system and stick with it then if it doesn't behave as expected I'd know I'd got a faulty component and not something that was supposed to behave that way. I might experiment with odd bits and pieces from here and there on my own cars (or the wife's) but not on something I was being paid to convert.

Maybe you don't know that the installers that generally stick to the same system components contact other installers that are familiar with a wider ranger of systems when they convert certain vehicles that they know are going to be a bit more demanding... i.e. What would you fit on this vehicle mate? Might not be a great idea to fit say V34 injectors on a supercharged Rangerover even if you do praise V34s all the time on the forum. The same goes for, say, CPR reducers. We can extend this to ECUs in some cases. If you don't then know much about, say, other injectors performance or even have a yardstick to compare you need to ask advice from those that do. Only by comparing components do you get the yardstick. Better to sometimes fit better components than you usually might on medium demand (in terms of components) engines like say a Subaru Turbo, you might know that the V34s will cut it on this engine but you might try some different injectors that respond a bit better. When you see that these other injectors flow just as well with nozzle sizes 0.5mm smaller than V34s you take note. When you see that the map on these injectors is flatter that the map you know you'd have with V34's you they are more linear. So you might decide to fit those injectors on a SC Rangerover and since you've also done similar with reducers you might know that instead of 2 x CPR reducers you could fit a single reducer of a different make but back to the injectors again you can start with nozzles a bit smaller than you'd expect because this other reducer will only dial down to 1.2 bar but will go up to higher than usual reducer pressures... And to put if from another angle, Ford don't fit the same spec injectors and fuel pump on a Fiesta and a supercharged V8! A wide approach makes you better and more rounded at your job, also makes you more likely to have equipment / ability to work on a wide range of systems that might be brought to you for repair. Would you want to be a vehicle LPG fuel system expert or just an expert on just a tiny subset of vehicle LPG conversion parts?

Gilbertd wrote:While some insurers want a car to be on the Register then yes, I would ensure that every conversion I did was on there

I think the number of insurers concerned with this private database are low and that is the experience of most people on this thread. I suppose it's where you see the numbers are and how much of a problem you think it would be to put the car on the database in future if need be. I know that it is as simple as making a phone call but I won't make a call to spend money until necessary. Insurers can ask for what they want - there might be an insurer that refuses to insure a vehicle unless it is painted luminous orange 'for visibility', you won't go out and paint your car dayglow orange in case you ever want to use that insurer

Gilbert wrote: I mean, I could even make a few quid by adding cars to the Register in return for a bung without even having to get out of bed!
LPGC wrote: Yes you certainly could! And once you were in this trade you might see that this happens regularly.
Gilbert wrote: I was actually being facetious, but just because it happens doesn't mean I would drop to the same level.[/quote]

Some of us have qualms about repeating misinformative claims and benefiting from those claims. That's one reason I won't join UKLPG. Funny how people change their tune when they have been none member installers for years then joined UKLPG.

I think I could re-post some of the arguments I recently made as replies to most of the other points you make in your latest post( that I've quoted you from here mate). I know I go on a lot, I think it better to be clear, much better than some of the quick hit slightly offensive one liners that some people post.

Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk

Just when I thought this thread had died

Gilbertd wrote:I think the number of insurers concerned with this private database are low and that is the experience of most people on this thread.

I got an email from a friend of a friend. He'd bought an LPG converted Land Rover and his insurer demanded it go on the register. It looked like a DIY conversion and needed a few details sorted (nothing major), and I suggested he just send my certificate rather than ask - so he sent my certificate and they were happy.

I've had that with my own insurer - they said (some time ago) that they needed a UKLPG certificate, but accepted mine.

So even those that say they require UKLPG certification often don't when it comes down to it. Of course, most people will never find this out as they'll take the initial requirements at face value.

UKLPGA haven't given certificates for a long time (+5 years, maybe longer) it's all on line. Even when you do register all your vehicles you still get the odd insurer ask for a certificate because that's what they have been told to ask for.
Point being though. Why get your customers to fight your battles for you ? Surely they just want a gas conversion that works. Attracts no hassle from insurance companies when they go compare for a cheaper quote 3 years down the line because their no claims has been maxed out and capped by the previous company ?

SimonHobson wrote:Just when I thought this thread had died :roll:

It had. But then the topic resurrected itself by going off topic in a completely different thread so one of the mods merged the last 5 pages from that one into this one rather than leave it where it was.

Good guess about 'Dave' TV
http://www.lpgforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php ... =tv+advert

LPGC wrote:I'm not sure it does really answer my point Rosko, because again you have selectively quoted from a longer point that I made and my point now appears out of context.

That's what people do when presented with a long spiel. They look to the parts they know about or are interested in. If those parts are wrong, the whole spiel is dismissed. You'll know this for yourself.

Look, I'll do it again -

LPGC wrote:let's use Rosko's figures: 20% of installers are UKLPG members

Where did I say that?

LPGC wrote:70% of installs are on UKLPG's database

Who said that?

LPGC wrote:Sometimes it is easier and more sensible to pull down and rebuild than it is to repair the existing house.

Okeydoke, motives and methods clarified; destruction of only existing safety scheme, then we can think about what's next. Brilliant for the trade, fantastic for the consumers.

LPGC wrote:But maybe Rosko has good reason to prefer people to dive straight in and lobby the government with a proposal against the trade body that he seems to hold so dear, rather than them discuss it with him and others in the trade first?

Literally years this has been going on. Sometime never I suppose.
Absolutely golden opportunities have been presented (by me) for anyone to open dialogue with VOSA on directly related specific LPG matters. Nothing happened. (One of those boats has now been missed, but one remains)
Hot air.

More spoon feeding for anyone genuinely interested
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ ... regulation
Understand the system you seek to change.

rossko wrote:Good guess about 'Dave' TV
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9733&hilit=tv+advert

Well done to BRC, I never saw the advert and this is the first I have heard, did UKLPG pay for the ad?

rossko wrote:That's what people do when presented with a long spiel. They look to the parts they know about or are interested in. If those parts are wrong, the whole spiel is dismissed

Not really, I look at all points made, maybe you should reply to points you reckon you're not interested in... There won't be many points that are not relevant.

rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
let's use Rosko's figures: 20% of installers are UKLPG members

Where did I say that?
LPGC wrote: 70% of installs are on UKLPG's database

Who said that?

rossko wrote:Pick an area you know, estimate how many installers you know. Use the map to see how many are UKLPG. Now you can get a ratio, say 2 to 1, and the number of UKLPG in that area. Then you can multiply up to get a national figure, with say 300 other installers to 150 UKLPG.

Ok Rosko, here you implied 33% of installers are UKLPG members. But then later you went on along with Dai's / Tubbs / Gilberts figures which seemed to be more like 20%. 33% is of course still a minority of installers.
UKLPG letter that you linked to. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ir/m21.htm. Since posting the link you haven't seemed very willing to accept that the 70% of installs figure is in reality any lower.

Gilbert and I have repeatedly said that nobody can have the actual figures. But then we have people's experiences to go on too. The majority of people seem to believe that most installs are not registered on UKLPGs database and most insurers don't look to UKLPGs database. You will not be in as good a position as a none UKLPG member to know how many of your customers would find getting insurance difficult without a UKLPG database - You have always registered your installs on the database so how could you know customers would struggle to get insurance had you not registered installs on the database?

rossko wrote:LPGC wrote:
Sometimes it is easier and more sensible to pull down and rebuild than it is to repair the existing house.

Okeydoke, motives and methods clarified; destruction of only existing safety scheme, then we can think about what's next. Brilliant for the trade, fantastic for the consumers.

Again out of context, out of balance. In the same thread I said I wouldn't be concerned about UKLPG or installers being members of UKLPG if there were no false or misleading claims implied due to UKLPG involvement. I said I might become a member if I believed the claims to be true. While false claims exist I would not want to be a member of the organisation, while I think UKLPGs scheme does not 'ensure safety' I will not want to be a member. Instead I have suggested an alternative scheme and as yet there has been little discussion on my suggestion. I wouldn't be concerned if UKLPG's house was left standing if right beside it there was a new house (safety scheme) that was fit for purpose and endorsed in legislation to ensure 100% of vehicles were inspected. Nobody would take much notice of the old house then, you could use UKLPGs logo on your letterheads and nobody would care because there would be far fewer pretenses of any advantages due to UKLPGs involvement.

rossko wrote:More spoon feeding for anyone genuinely interested
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ ... regulation
Understand the system you seek to change.

Another link that does as much for my points as it does yours.
Quotes from this link: We see conventional regulation as a last resort. We will use regulation when: we cannot achieve our goals by self-regulation or other methods / analysis of the costs and benefits shows regulation is preferable to self-regulation or other methods. Self-regulation. An industry or profession might adopt its own code of practice promoting ethical conduct, such as: unilateral codes of conduct such as retailers adopting a returns policy that is more generous than the statutory minimum / unilateral sector codes, such as the Portman Group code of practice which promotes the responsible marketing of alcohol amongst producers of alcoholic drinks. When to use regulation
We see conventional regulation as a last resort. We will use regulation when: we cannot achieve our goals by self-regulation or other methods / analysis of the costs and benefits shows regulation is preferable to self-regulation or other methods

So it seems the government prefer to allow industries to be self regulating and will only bring in government regulations when it makes sense to do so - I've already said that. The government seem to think it sensible to bring in government regulations when: The costs versus benefits make sense / when the government's aims cannot be met by self regulation. Seems UKLPG might have misled the government with letters like the one you linked to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ir/m21.htm. You and I don't believe those numbers are relevant to the LPG conversion industry but if they are believed it will give the impression UKPLG has safety in this industry under good control. I would imagine safety for LPG converted vehicles would be an aim of government. If government were aware of the true industry penetration of UKLPG they would realise UKLPG cannot be effecting LPG converted vehicle safety and that the only reason we have few incidents with LPG converted vehicles is because LPG conversions are inherently safe. Given that they already have Vosa's MOT scheme for checking vehicles and this scheme now covers LPG installations it wouldn't cost much to make it compulsory that a vehicle has an MOT following an LPG conversion and the benefits of a 100% inspection rate are clear to us all... If safety really is a point of concern regarding LPG converted vehicles then a move to the MOT scheme would seem to meet the aims of government and the costs versus benefits criteria. If safety really isn't a point of concern for LPG converted vehicles then UKLPG and their members are misleading the public, limiting the insurers that the public can use without reason, and profiting in the process.

SimonHobson wrote:So even those that say they require UKLPG certification often don't when it comes down to it. Of course, most people will never find this out as they'll take the initial requirements at face value.

I've brought up the same point before mate. Sometimes an insurer will ask for proof of install, meaning they want to see a receipt or something that shows the system was fitted by a competent person. UKLPG / LPGA do not have a comprehensive list of competent people, they only have a list of their members. Some UKLPG members take such a request and pretend the insurer is asking for database registration or a green LPGA cert when all that is asked for is a receipt from the installer.

Tubbs wrote:UKLPGA haven't given certificates for a long time (+5 years, maybe longer) it's all on line. Even when you do register all your vehicles you still get the odd insurer ask for a certificate because that's what they have been told to ask for.

Maybe the insurance company staff are confused and ask for a certificate when really they should be looking at a database. I would argue a bit of paper and a computer database are very different things and not so easy to confuse. Or maybe some insurance company staff and some owners of LPG vehicles confuse asking for a certificate from a competent person with asking for a certificate from the long since ended LPGA. I would argue that a bit of paper and a bit of paper are similar things and much more likely to be confused. Raises another point - Bosses of insurance companies and the public are not very sure about what exactly is required regarding LPG converted vehicles.

Tubbs wrote:Point being though. Why get your customers to fight your battles for you ? Surely they just want a gas conversion that works. Attracts no hassle from insurance companies when they go compare for a cheaper quote 3 years down the line because their no claims has been maxed out and capped by the previous company ?

This is the customers convenience point which persuaded you to join UKLPG? I can see that point but would say that in 3 years time if the customer wants to use one of the minority of insurers that take note of UKLPGs database they could easily then get the vehicle on UKLPGs database. I don't see why you've mentioned 'surely they just want a gas conversion that works' because UKLPGs scheme makes no claims of good performance on LPG or quality of install. By paying for the database registration today they are supporting UKLPG today and it is UKLPG whom have gone out of their way to restrict customer insurance options without justifying that with a viable safety scheme in the first place. You haven't said much about your thoughts on UKLPGs impact of safety in this industry, how your customers went about insurance before you recently became a UKLPG member or your thoughts on UKLPG in general but I know UKLPG don't provide the scheme that you would want or maybe even expect - UKLPG's scheme not turned out as you would have liked mate?

Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk

Blimey, a post from Simon that doesn't take a week to read!!!

What's up? Running out of arguments?

Just a change of plan I think. I was reading one and it went away ... I thought this forum used to display when posts were edited.

Gilbertd wrote:Blimey, a post from Simon that doesn't take a week to read!!!
What's up? Running out of arguments?

Well, if you'd had zoomed right in on the dot you'd have seen it was a James Bond style micro-dot and contained a full length post!
Sarcasm mode: Yes completely lost for words Richard mate!

Proof read my post, as I generally do, this time whilst eating dinner and realised I'd made, let's just say, '''quite a mistake'''... There were no replies any time I clicked on edit or I wouldn't have edited any points that others referred to.. and I'm sure I would now be eating humble pie for afters! Glad I bet you to the edit before you quoted...

rossko wrote: I thought this forum used to display when posts were edited.

Oooerrr I hope not - Thought I had destroyed the evidence! Wouldn't be too surprised if you have a copy of the old post mate - You don't, do you?

I'm starting to wonder if it is possible to set up mobile phone alerts to tell you when mates are online on the forum or if particular members post replies.... Probably reading too much into it, the old fashioned phone call method would allow you to get the wolfpack organised!

Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk

LPGC wrote:Instead I have suggested an alternative scheme and as yet there has been little discussion on my suggestion.

There's been lots of discussion on it but unfortunately you are suggesting your alternative scheme in the wrong place. Nobody on here is in a position to change the current system, so why bother keep repeating it? You've suggested it, there's been a few comments about being careful as someone may decide that it becomes a full blown IVA test instead but, as far as I am aware, nobody has been totally against it. So suggest it to someone that is in a position to change things.

LPGC wrote:So it seems the government prefer to allow industries to be self regulating and will only bring in government regulations when it makes sense to do so

Yup, that's right, they call it 'light touch' regulation. Current and recent past Governments have been against regulation, it would mean they would have to employ more people to ensure the regulations are being adhered to, not something they want to do. They prefer to let trade associations come up with their own codes of practice and enforce them. The view is taken that a trade association knows more about their own specialism that they do and it means they don't have to employ consultants at a huge sum per day to investigate an industry for them. In the case of LPG conversions, there hasn't been a huge increase in the number of vehicles spontaneously combusting while they are driving down the road and nothing has burst into flames following a 5 mph hour impact (that only happens in films in the States), so the safety regime operated by the existing trade association is obviously working.

LPGC wrote: I can see that point but would say that in 3 years time if the customer wants to use one of the minority of insurers that take note of UKLPGs database they could easily then get the vehicle on UKLPGs database.

at which point the owner of the car goes, "Eek, so all these years I've been driving around in a car that may not be safe?" Why should an owner be forced to shell out more money to confirm that his conversion is safe 3 or 4 years down the line? He wants an assurance when he picks it up. Before you chime in with, Ah yes but the fact that a conversion is on the Register is no guarantee that the conversion is safe because it could have been registered on the strength of a phone call, that is beside the point. Your customer wants to know that all bases have been covered and his conversion isn't going to cause him grief. Having to get it inspected at some point in the future because he wants to save a few quid on his insurance, is going to be a cause of grief.

LPGC wrote:Proof read my post, as I generally do

Could've fooled me......

I just had a look at the accredited distributors as when I first saw it only BRC and Prins were and look to yet again a bit of back handers going on and some of the distributors I spoke to were not aware of the changes.

Anyway I had a look at the site just now to remind myself what it looked like but surprised to find inconsistent information

LPGC wrote:But then later you went on along with Dai's / Tubbs / Gilberts figures

Did I, when was that?
When did Richard G produce installer figures?
You'll understand that when you make stuff up about what I said or did, I need a bit of a pinch of salt for the rest as well.

LPGC wrote:Since posting the link you haven't seemed very willing to accept that the 70% of installs figure is in reality any lower.

Which 70% figure - you said "70% of installs are on UKLPG's database" but the document you point at doesn't even mention database or register. You don't read things properly, crikey its three words and you misinterpret it.
You need to see outside our little workshop doors. You do realise Millbrook are UKLPG, their output won't be on the register (type approval)? Nor HGV and PSV?

LPGC wrote:Another link that does as much for my points as it does yours.

Oh Simon, you can be such a burk.
You say you want to change legislators minds. Here is a toolkit for the job. A window into those minds - what they think, why they think it, how they can be changed, what will motivate them.

Point scoring, pah - another insight into your mindset though. No interest in change and how to go about it.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:But then later you went on along with Dai's / Tubbs / Gilberts figures

Did I, when was that?
When did Richard G produce installer figures?
You'll understand that when you make stuff up about what I said or did, I need a bit of a pinch of salt for the rest as well.

Quite right Ross, all I did was use Simon's figures which were his interpretation of the UKLPG figures. This is what I actually said which boils down to saying that I think the UKLPG figures are probably about right. But of course it all depends on who you class as an installer......

Gilbertd wrote:

LPGC wrote:So if UKLPG had 150 members in 2010 (when the letter seems to have been written), and UKLPG members do around the same number of conversions each that none member installers do (and I think this is a generous assumption) then according to UKLPGs letter to the government there were only 64 installers in the UK that were not UKLPG members? That must have been 63 not including me then?

Blimey, like buses tonight. Just finish writing a reply to one of Simon's small novels and another one comes along.......

But here goes. So that would give around 260 installers in the country. How many are there in your area? How many in mine? Within a 30 mile radius of me I know of 3 (one being one of the recently set up Polish ones). How often do we get people on here asking for an installer in a certain area. Do we give them a list of 20 or 30 possibles to try all within spitting distance? No, there might be one or two and they might still be some way off. I would say that 260, if anything, was more than there really are.

There's going to be the odd garage here and there that do the odd conversion now and then but it isn't their main area of work. Would you even class them as installers? Because if you did then you'd also have to include the DIYer who did his own car and has then done a couple more for mates.

I can understand why Rosko might want to portray UKLPG as relevant / necessary / important / regulators / generally a good thing for the vehicle LPG conversion industry - He gains a marketing advantage from doing so and makes it look like he hasn't been benefiting from making claims that stretch the truth for a long time by doing so.

Hope Tubbs doesn't mind me mentioning him as an example of a fairly new UKLPG member to make this point... Tubbs has said that he joined UKLPG 'for customers convenience'. I.e. it is more convenient for customers if they can use any insurer to insure their vehicle. This is an understandable point, but it is one that is irrelevant if none UKLPG installers like myself can offer customers the same convenience of a UKLPG database entry. Many none UKLPG members (myself included) do offer customers this exact same thing. Where none UKLPG member installers offer the same, the 'UKLPG advantage' obviously becomes a none issue regards customer convenience.

Tubbs converted vehicles to LPG for many years before becoming a member of UKLPG. Before becoming a member of UKLPG he (like myself and many other none UKLPG members) also offered UKLPG database registration. Before becoming a member of UKLPG Tubbs did quality workmanship and he usually installed the same model LPG system (which was not supplied by a UKLPG member supplier) on all the vehicles he converted. Except for usually fitting the same model LPG system on all vehicles, Tubbs was in the exact same position before he became a UKLPG member that I and many other installers are currently in.

Since becoming a member of UKLPG, Tubbs does not claim that his LPG conversions have suddenly become any safer, that his LPG installs are now of higher quality or that he has changed to fitting an LPG system that has been supplied by a UKLPG member supplier. Since becoming a member of UKLPG, Tubbs still fits the same LPG system supplied by the same none UKLPG member (none UKLPG approved / none UKLPG endorsed / none UKLPG registered) supplier that he fitted before he became a member of UKLPG.

I' not criticising Tubbs here but surely if there is a reason for a customer to prefer a UKPLG member installer than a none UKLPG member installer then the customer could equally expect the UKLPG member installer to prefer to use UKLPG member suppliers? Would expect UKLPG supporters to put their money where their mouth is. What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

If Tubbs were to make any claims of being in someway / any way better since becoming a UKLPG member, e.g. If he were to claim that since becoming a member of UKLPG his installs are now safer / that since becoming a member of UKLPG his installs are now better quality / that since becoming a member of UKLPG his installs now meet some standard (or Standard or regulation or Regulation) that they did not meet before, if he were to imply that his installs were now any different in absolutely any way whatsoever, then that might raise a few eyebrows among the customers that he had before he became a UKLPG member. If Tubbs were to make any such claim the claim would be untrue, Tubbs does not make such a claim.

If Tubbs previous customers eyebrows were raised by such a claim then UKLPG members, including Tubbs, might then 'assure' those customers of there being no need to worry because he previously had all his work checked by a UKLPG member because previously he installed an LPG system and then took it to a UKLPG member to be checked. Since joining UKLPG Tubbs now checks all his own work for the purpose of registering his work on UKLPGs database.

We could ask anyone the following common sense question:- Which LPG system is more likely to be safe, one that has been fitted by an unqualified installer and it's safety checked only by the same unqualified installer who actually fitted it (if actually any check was done at all), or an LPG system that has been fitted by an unqualified installer and then it's safety checked independently by someone who is 'qualified' to do so? The common sense answer and the answer that most people will give is that the LPG system that has had a safety check done by the 'qualified' independent person is more likely to be safe. We will all agree on this.

We could ask anyone this question:- Which LPG system is more likely to be safe, one that has been fitted by a 'qualified' installer who does not have his work independently checked by another 'qualified' installer (because like all other 'qualified' installers he has been granted the right to self 'approve' / 'register' his own work), or an LPG system that has been fitted by one 'qualified' installer and has then had an independent check by another 'qualified' installer? I suspect most people will agree with me that the vehicle that has had the independent check is more likely to be safe than the vehicle that has been passed as safe only by the same person that fitted the LPG system. UKLPG members do not seem to agree.

We could ask anyone this question:- Which LPG system is more likely to be safe, one that has been fitted by an unqualified installer and then had an independent check by a 'qualified' installer or one that has been fitted by a 'qualified' installer, had no independent check, has been passed as safe by the very same 'qualified' installer that fitted it? I suspect that most people would say the system that has been fitted by the unqualified installer and passed as safe by a qualified installer is more likely to be safe but there will also be many people that wouldn't agree. UKLPG member installers are perhaps particularly more likely to disagree than to agree. Out of those many people in the general public that wouldn't agree, many may interpret the word 'qualified' as having much more meaning in this context than it actually does. I have placed the word 'qualified' in inverted commas because 'qualified' in this context only means that UKLPG installers have been vetted by the trade body UKLPG. No academic or government recognised qualifications are implied by the word 'qualified' used in this context. UKLPG and their members sometimes substitute the word 'qualified' for words like 'accredited', 'regulated', 'endorsed', 'recognised', 'approved' but regardless of which word is used in this context, the meaning only boils down to membership of a trade body called UKLPG. A UKLPG 'qualified' installer is no more likely to qualified / good at their job / safety conscious than an installer who has nothing to do with UKLPG whatsoever.

Let's take Tubbs again as an example, since becoming 'UKLPG approved' he does not make the claim to be a better installer and does not hold any more actual qualifications than he did when he was not a member of UKLPG. In the vehicle LPG conversion industry, there is little to differentiate between UKLPG members and none UKLPG members except for the fact that none UKLPG installers must go through a UKLPG channel to have vehicles that they have converted placed on UKLPGs database. The method that UKLPG would like none UKLPG members to use for registering their work on UKLPG's database is for the none UKLPG installer to visit a UKLPG member and pay for the UKLPG member to do a physical safety check on the vehicle. Just as often, though, noone UKLPG installers simply telephone a UKLPG member and pay them a smaller fee to register the vehicle on UKLPGs database without any actual check being done.

My suggestion would involved 100% independent vehicle checks, by qualified persons, on every newly converted to LPG vehicle. Here I use the word qualified in it's broadest sense, the independent checks would be done by people that hold government recognised qualifications for checking vehicle safety and those people will have had to have studied and gained practical experience to earn those qualifications. The people that I have suggested do these independent checks are also licensed to do independent vehicle checks. Again I use the word 'licence' in it's broadest sense. These people are licensed by an arm of government to do these independent checks. These people's core work involves doing these independent checks. The government arm scrutinises the results of independent checks done by these people and will investigate results that do not seem to reflect what the government considers to be results outside of the national average and may revoke these people's licenses if they are found to be doing independent checks wrongly. If these people lose their licenses they will lose the ability to do these independent vehicle checks and would need to look for alternative work.

In contrast to my suggested scheme, UKLPG checks are arguably performed on only a minority of newly LPG converted vehicles. Many UKLPG checks are done by people whose only relevant 'qualification' is membership of the trade body, these people may not hold government recognised qualifications for doing vehicle safety or LPG system safety checks, these people may not hold licenses issued by the government to do vehicle checks, if these people lose their trade body membership they can still continue to work in the exact same field (converting vehicles to LPG) that they did before almost completely unaffected by the loss of trade body membership status.

We are all aware that UKLPG make claims like 'You may not get insurance if your vehicle is not converted by a UKLPG installer', this is one of the 'selling points' used by UKLPG, the other UKLPG selling point is safety. Some UKLPG members invent their own selling points such as 'quality' when even UKLPG don't make such claims. Any claim of quality made simply because an installer is a member of UKLPG is untrue. Any claim of customer convenience made simply because an installer is a member of UKLPG is untrue. Any claim of safety simply because an in installer is a member of UKLPG is untrue. UKLPG and their members don't make any further claims, so there are no advantages for a customer to use a UKLPG member installer.

Most installers in the vehicle LPG conversion industry are very aware that such claims are untrue. UKLPG member vehicle LPG conversion installers are not as likely to be aware of the extent of the situation because they register every conversion that they install with UKLPG... How could they know that the customer could not get insurance had they not registered the install with UKLPG if they always do register converted vehicles with UKLPG? How can they claim that their installs are safer when there are no reports of any LPG converted vehicles going up in flames regardless of whether vehicles have been converted by UKLPG member or none member installers?

In defence of UKLPG's standing in the vehicle LPG conversion industry Rosko has linked to a letter that UKLPG wrote to government, this letter having 17 sub-points e.g. 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 etc. Sub-point 2,3 reads 'Member companies cover over 95% of the total LPG sales in the UK, around 80% of autogas equipment sales and the participants in the UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer Scheme account for around 70% of vehicle conversions'. Rosko claims that I misinterpret the 80% equipment sales claim because really I should have understood that this figure is meant to include sales figures for LPG filling pumps and LPG bunkers etc... Rosko reckons that this figure would be much lower if it was only meant to refer to the components that we fit on vehicles as part of converting a vehicle to LPG. Since this claim is apparently not meant to be directly relevant to the vehicle LPG conversion industry, I wonder if any of the 3 claims in the same sub-point are supposedly relevant to the vehicle LPG conversion industry. I imagine the 95% of total LPG sales is a correct figure because I expect the majority of LPG road fuel suppliers will be members of UKLPG, but I wonder if this figure was intended to be understood to be relevant to road fuel suppliers and hence the vehicle LPG conversion industry, or if it was meant to be relevant to the whole LPG supply industry including bottled gas suppliers, because I would also expect 95% to be a correct figure for bottled gas suppliers. I can see that only one interpretation will have been intended by the claim 'UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer Scheme account for around 70% of vehicle conversions' but maybe this is open to interpretation too. Maybe the 'account' word is included in this claim means that in some cases UKLPG members have merely 'checked' none members installs, or maybe some of the equipment on some of these vehicles has supposedly been supplied by a UKLPG member supplier? In any case UKLPG should not have made this claim, because they can have no way of knowing any numbers that could substantiate such a claim. Of course, none of us have numbers to make any claims but there would have been no reason to throw doubt or dispute any such claims if no claims were made in the first place! I have mentioned (above paragraph) why Rosko and UKLPG members in general are less likely to know numbers regarding % of converted vehicles that are on UKLPGs database. These UKLPG members assume their customers would have a problem getting insurance if they had not registered the customer vehicle on UKLPGs database but this is an incorrect assumption because many none UKLPG member installers convert vehicles and do not register vehicles on UKLPGs database yet their customers have no problems getting insurance. In addition, many vehicles that we see in our workshops are not on UKLPGs database, there seem to be many customers on this forum that own LPG converted vehicles that are not on UKLPGs database.

Rosko reckons he needs to take some of my comments with a pinch of salt. I reckon there's at least an equal need to take others comments with a pinch of salt. Let's have another look at some quotes regarding UKLPG / insurance / safety from people that own UKLPG converted vehicles... I started at page 1 on this thread with the intention of listing just a couple...
Page1

Gilbertd wrote:

demonicwillow wrote:its a gvt quietly approved scheme for some clever money making businessmen giving more power to insurance companies to withhold payouts, gvt approves it but dont have the responsibility of setting up, running and paying out for testers but leaving the money makers alone to regulate themselves and do what they want,

Close but not quite. It isn't Government approved, I don't think it's even Government acknowledged (In fact, if you search the Direct Gov website for LPG conversions, you'll find no reference to UKLPG or anyone else for that matter). It's a commercial organisation that have started out the right way by producing CoP11 to make installs safer. It's just that they then seem to have let the power go to their heads and act as though they are a regulatory body, which they aren't.

Page 2

Gilbertd wrote: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......

I was recently slated for confusing the word standard and the word Standard, and for implying the word 'regulations' has anything to do with laws. Here is an example of somebody else using the word 'regulation' as meaning a set of laws...
Page 6

Gilbertd wrote:Correct on all points, but if you were to build your own kit for your own car, then it wouldn't be legal. As the installation does not comply with the BS EN standard then it invalidates Construction and Use Regulations. In theory it shouldn't be possible for it to pass the MoT test but in practice it probably would. If however, it was involved in an accident and inspected by an insurance assessor who found non-E67 marked components in an LPG installation then you can be sure that they wouldn't pay out at the very minimum.

Simon
http://www.Lpgc.co.uk

Lol. !
There is only one small issue with using me as an example ...
I'm not a UKLPGA member

Tubbs wrote:Lol. !
There is only one small issue with using me as an example ...
I'm not a UKLPGA member

You are not? I want my money back!

Where are trading standards?

BTW, my level sender isn't working since you broke it with your tubby fingers.

cack handed bugger me !
Just because all my conversions get entered onto the UKLPG database ?