UKLPG comments

[luke123]

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

And this i assume is something that you and some others would like to have it stopped?

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

But the current MOT scheme has nothing to do with LPG?, So are the MOT testers going to look at pipe work security, leaks and other problems encountered?

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

This will probably be happening shortly as everything is going on broadband and not a dial up connection so the system will probably end up being revamped at the same time.

Luke

[scottyf]

Okay can some one tell me this.

What am I legally bound to disclose when adding a dual fuel conversion for LPG?

In my head its update V5.
Update Insurance

If insurance wants UKLPG then I have to get is certified. But some might not.


Some people will just take a card payment over the phone and put it on the register. But from what I gather its hardly difficult to obtain.
Which is bad.

What happens if I put the muti valve in the wrong way.
Maybe I put the multi valve in the right way but I've placed the tan upside down or on its side.
Maybe I glued it in using a corrosive glue

Who knows.

Maybe an MOT check for newly converted vehicles is the right way of going about it.
Or an independent check at an MOT center could be checked once its completed and that's it for 3 years maybe...?

Then again like I said as no one is really being injured by the conversions and its all pretty safe generally its just not that much of an issue to warrant anyone really chasing down those doing it and not updating details.

[LPGC]

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

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

I know what you meant, mate... My post above addresses how we might prevent government going OTT.. If we are ready with an answer for them in case they already have ideas of their own and decide to at least approach the trade asking our opinion. As said, we didn't know Mike was already suggesting a modified MOT scheme did we? Who else might be suggesting things and what might those suggestions be? I too would rather have what we currently have than compulsory IVA testing but we don't know what is in the pipeline and cannot agree between ourselves what would be cheap, uneventful and suitable as a replacement to suggest in case we are asked.

Tell me, what do you think it would do to your business if you have to either a) add half a grand to your prices to cover the inspection, or b) tell your customers that when you've finished, they'll then have to hand over another half a grand to HMG ?

That would all but kill the industry, we'd only be converting 4 year old RangeRovers and the like. My answer to your point above in this post further addresses your question.

Further, do you think such a charge on officially registered conversions would a) increase, or b) decrease, the incidence of conversions being done as part of a black economy with no oversight whatsoever ?
Easily done if you aren't too fussed about telling the insurance co. And MoTs are no problem - just present it running on petrol and pull a wire off the reducer solenoid in case the tester tries it out on gas.

We already have a black market of UKLPG database registrations (phone a friend), we already have a situation where most of the installs that are most likely to have unsafe features have no check whatsoever (DIY / done in a day). If the owner presented the vehicle for MOT with an LPG system fitted, MOT man would see the vehicle doesn't have LPG as a fuel type and would assume this test was for checking the LPG system. If the owner had disabled the LPG system then MOT man wouldn't do the test on LPG and wouldn't change vehicle fuel type to LPG if the test was passed. If the owner told insurers the vehicle had an LPG system they might question why it didn't have LPG as a fuel type on DVSA records and refuse insurance on grounds the LPG system hadn't passed the check - they might advise him to take the vehicle for an MOT to facilitate the fuel type change. If the owner failed to inform insurers that an LPG system was fitted then the policy would have been given with false info supplied by the owner, would be void, and the owner would be driving un-insured.. This would be a driving force that would have most vehicle owners playing by the book but not all owners... Until recent years, police didn't have ability to check that vehicles on the road were insured, MOTd, taxed, yet most drivers did insure, MOT, tax their vehicles - not only because of the implications in event of an accident, even for those that were prepared to take chances etc a spot check by police could show they were driving illegally. Easy enough to wire a switch to quickly disable the LPG system in the event of a police stop check - when we were younger it was always easy enough for my mates to hide nitrous oxide bottles, switches and engine bay piping in the event of police spot checks, it is easy enough to run turbo cars with aftermarket chips and components that greatly increase power output... not all tell insurers, not much can be done about some of these minorities yet some, even in these minorities, play by the rules. The driving force which made some reluctant to play by the rules was increased insurance cost - that doesn't apply regards LPG conversion because we are not making performance upgrades we are making economy upgrades and insurers know LPG vehicles are safe. If the MOT scheme were introduced, most customers would question why their install wasn't fit to pass an MOT when it wouldn't be difficult for it to pass the MOT... A DIYer would want their vehicle to pass an MOT too, or customers and DIYers would equally have to worry about those spot checks.

Simon

[LPGC]

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

And this i assume is something that you and some others would like to have it stopped?

Current situation Luke - Nobody, including myself, is going to 'bite their nose off to spite their face' by reporting UKLPG members that will register vehicles for us on UKLPGs database... Reporting one would be a drop in the ocean, it would merely mean that we had disadvantaged ourselves without doing anything to increase industry safety - Mike Chapman from uKLPg agrees not much can be done to prevent the phone a friend method. Most people that realise the phone a friend method is possible realise that this completely undermines UKLPGs scheme anyway - why support or play by the rules of a scheme which you know cannot be effective?

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

But the current MOT scheme has nothing to do with LPG?, So are the MOT testers going to look at pipe work security, leaks and other problems encountered?

The current MOT checks security of components fitted, will fail a vehicle on an LPG leak so yes the current MOT does apply to common LPG related problems. What 'other problems encountered' are you suggesting? I suggest that if a vehicle comes to MOT man with an LPG system fitted, MOT man can see the vehicle does not have LPG as a fuel type on DVSA records (or customer tells him) that MOT man assumes this test is for purpose of checking the vehicle running on LPG and therefore turns on the LPG system and therefore will see any LPG leaks...

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

This will probably be happening shortly as everything is going on broadband and not a dial up connection so the system will probably end up being revamped at the same time.

We agree on this concept at least... Not sure about your 'broadband' reasoning but if MOT man can currently see registration versus vin number versus number of seats versus vehicle colour.. then it wouldn't be a big deal for him to be able to see fuel type either surely (I can find out fuel type on Ebay / Eurocarparts sites anyway)... This would be a sensible update for anyone who currently has to be emissions tests and send results of those tests to DVSA wouldn't it? Not too difficult for MOT man to enter fuel type vehicle was tested on and even to have the DVSA computer automatically update logbook fuel type records on MOT mans 'say so'...

Okay can some one tell me this.

What am I legally bound to disclose when adding a dual fuel conversion for LPG?

In my head its update V5.
Update Insurance

If insurance wants UKLPG then I have to get is certified. But some might not.

Correct on who you disclose the conversion to.
Most insurers don't take any notice of UKLPG's scheme - nothing legal or mandatory about it. If every vehicle converted to LPG was supposed to be subject to an MOT following the new LPG install then I suggest more insurers would take notice and question why they were being asked to inure a vehicle that runs on LPG but doesn't have LPG as a fuel type on the logbook... Especially since this would be a DOT endorsed scheme.

Some people will just take a card payment over the phone and put it on the register. But from what I gather its hardly difficult to obtain.
Which is bad.

In which undermines UKLPGs scheme from the outset doesn't it? Hardly difficult to obtain - either take your vehicle to a UKLPG member and pay £100 knowing they might fail it, OR don't take your vehicle anywhere, sit at home, pick up the phone, pay less than £100, know it is a sure fire entry on UKLPGs database...

What happens if I put the muti valve in the wrong way.
Maybe I put the multi valve in the right way but I've placed the tan upside down or on its side.
Maybe I glued it in using a corrosive glue

Who knows

Scotty, I'll say again for your and others benefit mate... UKLPG say they check 33% of converted vehicles in total. Of these, they say 70% are converted by members, so 23/33 UKLPG checks are done by members checking their own work.. We should expect all these to be safe, I doubt would get any argument from members there! Which leaves 10/33 remaining, these are the ones which UKLPG say are UKLPG members checking others work, so some of this number include the phone a friend registrations, but let's forget about the phone a friend registrations for the moment. If half of these are pro installers (not UKLPG members) sending vehicles to UKLPG members for checks we are left with 5% of DIY installs being checked by members, which leaves 95% of DIY installs not checked by anyone at all. These are the installs I suggest are most likely to have issues.. An MOT wouldn't catch all the issues you list but would catch other basic mistakes... Due to the numbers involved I suggest it would catch a lot more basic mistakes than UKLPGs current system, what do you reckon?

Then again like I said as no one is really being injured by the conversions and its all pretty safe generally its just not that much of an issue to warrant anyone really chasing down those doing it and not updating details.

Correct, LPG installs do seem to be intrinsically safe... If installs are intrinsically safe then this surely implies that a less thorough scheme but one which sees all vehicles checking for the most basic errors should be better than a very thorough check scheme which only sees a fraction of vehicles?

Regards the intrinsic safety and debate about whether or not any sort of safety scheme is necessary anyway.... You and I didn't start this safety ball rolling, UKLPG and their members did, they keep it rolling to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of competitors and all the while this ball is having negligible effect on safety, less effect than the MOT scheme would have. If the messages put out by this ball rolling are to be believed, then by it's own reasoning UKLPG and it's members should want this scheme replaced by the MOT scheme. The boss of UKLPG, for other reasons, does indeed want this scheme to be replaced with the MOT scheme. It seems members, those whom might lose out if this scheme is ended, are those most against a change to the MOT scheme.

Simon

[scottyf]

I'd just opt as you say for some basic checks at MOT time rather than a through UKLPG one that is if they do check it all over thoroughly.
As most kits by the looks of it are pretty safe. If I can install one and not kill myself I'd imagine lots of people could do it.

Most people however are scared of working on a car.


Its a difficult one because at the moment I imagine numbers are so small. Accidents are so small or contributed to LPG systems alone that its very difficult to quantify the unsafe things.

I bet some that are deemed unsafe. Would only need a little bit of tweaking to make them 100% safe.

I'd gladly pay a professional an hour of his time to review my work and give me hints or tips to rectify issues rather than pay for a certificate that could bypass safety.

[Gilbertd]

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

OK, unlike some people I am busy so having just stopped for the first time today (don't you have cars to convert Simon?) and had a chance to catch up, I'll add my view.

It appears that, depending on who's guesswork and estimation we use, that somewhere between 5 and 10% of installs get an actual UKLPG inspection so up to 95% of converted vehicles don't. Now one argument says that they aren't going around bursting into flames so the inspection on the others is unnecessary, but putting this to one side, what are the alternatives? You, and it seems UKLPG, are in favour of an enhanced MoT test or a commissioning test carried out by an MoT testing station. DoT have been approached about this and are not interested. A standard MoT test as it stands is not appropriate. It does not allow a tester to check some things that are mandatory under the BSEN Standard that the UK Government has adopted so the test would be worthless. Not only that, if there was an incident where something that couldn't be checked failed and was subsequently found to not comply with the BSEN, then the Government could be held liable for implementing a scheme that isn't fit for purpose. Think about it, Joe Public has his car converted, it is checked by an MoT station and passes the test. Subsequently his tank drops off and bursts into flames from the sparks generated as he drags it along the road. Insurance assessor looks at it and finds it wasn't bolted in place in accordance with the BSEN. The test station that did the test are able to show that they couldn't check tank security as it was hidden behind the plastic undertray even if that was the only thing holding it in place. The installer isn't liable as he has done an install which will pass the mandatory test, the testing station isn't liable as he has tested it within the restrictions that are placed on him when carrying out the test. The only party at fault here is the person that said the test carried out on the vehicle was adequate and fit for purpose, the Government.

The MoT test wouldn't find fault with things that the BSEN stipulate as mandatory. In addition to the, admittedly few, installations where tank security couldn't be checked, how secure is secure? A car with a battery just sitting in the engine bay held in place by a combination of gravity and friction is a fail, that same battery held in place with a bungee strap is a pass. Is that what you want to achieve? A lowering of standards to the bare minimum that it will scrape through an MoT test?

If you consider that some form of inspection is required then you need to look elsewhere than the MoT scheme. The problem with this is that unless a viable (meaning practical and cost effective, or at least at no cost to Government) alternative is presented then the obvious choice would be the IVA test as that already exists. The cost of which would kill the industry overnight or, as already said, lead to an even larger number of unsafe, untested, unregistered installations.

[scottyf]

How many vehicles are actually converted on the roads then?

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

How many LPG related accidents are reported?

[Gilbertd]

How many vehicles are actually converted on the roads then?

Someone checked DVLA records some time ago and that showed a figure of around 150k. Some that have the V5 changed aren't on the UKLPG Register, some still have old paper certificates and weren't transferred over, some have been changed on the basis of an invoice from a kit supplier or non-UKLPG installer. Equally there are others that are on the Register but haven't had the V5 changed so the figure could be anything but it is safe to assume that it is probably around 1-2% of vehicles on the road. As you say, there are very few, if any, LPG related incidents and LPG installations are intrinsically safe anyway.

Simon has chosen to concentrate on the inspection side of the UKLPG argument but his motive has nothing to do with safety. His motive is to discredit UKLPG as worthless and unnecessary. He is offended that UKLPG members will tell people that an installation done by a non-UKLPG member may not be safe which he takes as a slur on his business as it implies that his installs are unsafe. It may imply it but doesn't say it, it is simply stating a fact, an install done by anyone may be unsafe, equally it may be perfectly safe. The fact is that there are good installers and bad installers and it doesn't always follow that UKLPG members are the good ones. As in any trade there are going to be good and bad and it may be that some of the not-so-good will have joined UKLPG to make them appear better than they actually are. It is, in his eyes, removing the level playing field and giving members an unfair commercial advantage. This is no different to any other trade association who will always try to say that their members will do a better job than a non-member. That's why people join, because it gives them a commercial advantage. You only have to look at the Rated People website to see that for a mere £15 a month you can be listed on their website (https://www.ratedpeople.com/new-signup/d/0f05541d86b4). No mention at all of any sort of check on the quality of your workmanship at all, something that UKLPG do at least carry out on their prospective members.

[scottyf]

And how do you. Ecome uklpg registered?
Do you need to take a course etc?

[LPGC]

I'd just opt as you say for some basic checks at MOT time rather than a through UKLPG one that is if they do check it all over thoroughly.

I think we would all prefer that, rather than any test that is expensive, an expensive test would be bad for the industry...You have mentioned the word 'thoroughly', to fully put into context what I say next on the term 'thorough enough' people will need to read my above posts. On the face of it, given that 19/20 installs are not checked and yet we still (as Gilbert put it) 'Don't see LPG vehicles spontaneously combusting', any check or even no check would be good enough. Doubts concerning especially these 19/20 DIY installs and chuck it on in a day pro installs are understandable and justifiable, though... We might expect to see an incident in future if no scheme is in place to check these DIY and done in a day installs. On this point I will again remind people that UKLPGs scheme is in place but it doesn't even see these 19/20 DIY installs, the MOT scheme I suggest would see these and every other install within, say, a couple of weeks of conversion.

How many vehicles are actually converted on the roads then?

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

In truth, nobody knows how many LPG converted vehicles are on the roads, as Gilbert goes on to imply... UKLPG, DVLA (DVSA), installers and Joe Public don't have much of a clue. The best way to come up with a figure might be to approach gas supply companies such as Shell and add up how many litres of Autogas are used annually, then do some maths based on expected average mpg of converted vehicles (mpg guestimated by looking at what vehicles are being converted- UKLPG could be useful here both in obtaining annual litres used figures and frequency of different models of vehicles converted).

OK, unlike some people I am busy so having just stopped for the first time today (don't you have cars to convert Simon?) and had a chance to catch up, I'll add my view.

Thanks for pointing that out mate, all in the name of being friendly I take it? The reason I spent too much time on forum today - No I'm not converting any cars this week, I converted two last week, worked Sunday too, this week I have set aside for diagnostics and repairs... except piles have returned after a long absence and I stupidly ragged my finger with a hole cutter.. Numerous types of Pita's to deal with at the moment! Still, I haven't had a day off sick for 15 years and still got a bit done today despite spending too much time on the forum! Annoyed with myself really, had to go online to get ECU pinouts for the Jeep that was dropped off that won't run at all, and replied to quite a few emails at the same time too, so me thinks a quick check on the forum won't hurt.. but then every time I posted a reply someone immediately answered and I got carried away replying, bah! I've only got 4 vehicles to fix this week so far though (including those that main dealers have failed to fix), fancied a steady week from the outset for this week after the pains of recent pile weeks! Will be calling a few more vehicles in as I get others out of the way - that's why I started on this Jeep rather than the V12 Daimler that's here until the weekend regardless of when I get it sorted (you know the Daimler that was discussed on this forum... I'm sure I'll sort it mate).

It appears that, depending on who's guesswork and estimation we use, that somewhere between 5 and 10% of installs get an actual UKLPG inspection so up to 95% of converted vehicles don't

No mate, in defense of UKLPG they see more that 5% of converted vehicles... I sill go along with UKLPG's figures of 33% but, maybe like you, I would suspect the real figure is lower. I only have to say that only 5% of DIY converted vehicles are seen by UKLPG for my arguments to be rather convincing? UKLPG and members will be happy to go along with the 5% because they will realise the real figure is probably lower... By calculation implications, you would accept a lower figure for DIY converted vehicles?

Now one argument says that they aren't going around bursting into flames

You also made that argument, I can go along with that.

so the inspection on the others is unnecessary

Hmm, Rosko has said similar before, I can go along with that too...

but putting this to one side, what are the alternatives? You, and it seems UKLPG, are in favour of an enhanced MoT test or a commissioning test carried out by an MoT testing station. DoT have been approached about this and are not interested. A standard MoT test as it stands is not appropriate.

Not appropriate for what? Checking things that you think don't need to be checked? I say an MOT as it stands does at least check things (like I've said above) like component security, fuel pipes getting trapped in suspension, emissions.. basic stuff even to the MOT as it stands without it being updated...

It does not allow a tester to check some things that are mandatory under the BSEN Standard that the UK Government has adopted so the test would be worthless

Not having a test at all tests things that are mandatory under BSEN does it? Gilbert mate, I can see your point but you can see mine too... You claim government will not be prepared to 'put their name on' a test that doesn't check a vehicle fully against BSEN right? I claim government has BSEN but currently doesn't make anyone test against it... I go on to say that - none of us want government to introduce expensive BSEN testing, or compulsory COP11 testing (not even members of UKLPG now we know that UKLPG don't want to be involved in testing - so it looks like they wouldn't be the guys doing the testing / couldn't be the guys doing compulsory testing on 100% of installs). If any safety scheme is to make sense - it cannot be open to fraudulent tests, it cannot not address the vehicles that are most likely to fail the test.

Mate, I might have a slightly different attitude to the one you might expect.. my great grandad was 'Tiffy' Andrew, a barrister and leader of Yorkshire NUM, but my grandad hated the bickering that went on in his dads house and joined the Navy at 16 to escape the arguments and the pit (sadly for him WW2 broke out within a couple of years and he was taken prisoner of war by the Japs ). When grandad returned and went back to the mines, he still refused to join the union which his dad was the boss of - he had the attitude, take it or leave it, nobody makes you work down the mines, you can walk away but you can say what you think, decide what's best for you and walk way to do something else if you want - I have the same attitude. Shortly after that, he started in business - all my family have been self employed ever since. I'm not trying to get things nationalised or red tape involved - I am just saying what I think and I think my arguments argue on the side of common sense.

Not only that, if there was an incident where something that couldn't be checked failed and was subsequently found to not comply with the BSEN, then the Government could be held liable for implementing a scheme that isn't fit for purpose

Their current ignoring safety isn't fit for purpose either... You currently mentioned Nissan Micras and the fact MOT man cannogt check for corrosion on the front crosmember - they have a vehicle safety scheme which is not fit for purpose, yet they could never be sued in the event Nissan Micar owner drives out the MOT station, going down a country road his crossmember snaps, he hits an arctic head on....

In addition to the, admittedly few, installations where tank security couldn't be checked, how secure is secure?

And on the majority of vehicles which are not among the 'admittedly few' it is a meaningful check. With the addition / in conjunction of the fact that the same vehicles that are in the admittedly few will still have a meaningful check on other aspects, this brings the numbers of vehicles with meaningful checks up with MOT checks.

The test station that did the test are able to show that they couldn't check tank security as it was hidden behind the plastic undertray even if that was the only thing holding it in place.

Correct.. 'admittedly few'? Nissan Micra scenario?

The installer isn't liable as he has done an install which will pass the mandatory test

Maybe correct - what if it was proven he didn't install to BSEN?

The only party at fault here is the person that said the test carried out on the vehicle was adequate and fit for purpose, the Government

Try and sue the government? Could be argued they are compromising safety already by not allowing MOT man to check Nissan Micra crossmembers......? They ever been sued for that?

If you consider that some form of inspection is required then you need to look elsewhere than the MoT scheme

None of us would like that to happen, I know you wouldn't... But I know you are a responsible person, so maybe you would if you thought safety checks were so critical? If UKLPG decided not to be involved with vehicle conversions tomorrow, and government consulted this industry on what should happen next with the proviso we needed a scheme - what would you advise?

A lowering of standards to the bare minimum that it will scrape through an MoT test?

A lowering of standards compared to no test at all eh?

On your later post, all fair comments except perhaps 'Simon's comments have nothing to do with safety'. You can see that some test on all installs, especially including the DIY and done in a day installs, though not perfect, is far better than no test. Sir.

Simon

[SimonHobson]

And how do you. Ecome uklpg registered?
Do you need to take a course etc?

No course.
You apply, having over a chunk of cash - last figure I saw was something in the order of £700.
They inspect your workshop to see that you have the mandated facilities, and look over an example vehicle you've already converted. Can't remember if there's a test of any sort. If you pass, you then get admitted - for 5 years. After that, you have to hand over a fresh chunk of cash.

[Gilbertd]

But I know you are a responsible person, so maybe you would if you thought safety checks were so critical? If UKLPG decided not to be involved with vehicle conversions tomorrow, and government consulted this industry on what should happen next with the proviso we needed a scheme - what would you advise?

While I personally would not like to see a compulsory test on an LPG install, just the same as I would not want to have to take my car to anyone else to check any other work I've done on it (says a man who has spent all day outside fitting the recon engine into his Range Rover), some may see it as a good idea. The downside to it is that as far as the Government is concerned there is an inspection scheme in place so they have left it alone. As you have pointed out, it has its faults, but the Government are happy, as far as they are concerned it is checking that installations are done to ensure that they comply with the BSEN Standard. Discredit the existing scheme and they would look for an alternative. An alternative has been suggested but it would involve alterations to the MoT scheme that they aren't interested. So they would look for something else. There is already an existing scheme in place that examines vehicles to ensure they meet C&U Regs , the IVA, and none of us would want that but that would be the most logical step. The alternative is to leave things as they are, it is far from perfect but isn't compulsory, it is up to the DIYer if he wants to take his car in to get it checked (as probably 90% of DIY installers would if they were in any way concerned with the work they had done) and, it keeps the Government happy so they don't start poking their noses in.

[scottyf]

And how do you. Ecome uklpg registered?
Do you need to take a course etc?

No course.
You apply, having over a chunk of cash - last figure I saw was something in the order of £700.
They inspect your workshop to see that you have the mandated facilities, and look over an example vehicle you've already converted. Can't remember if there's a test of any sort. If you pass, you then get admitted - for 5 years. After that, you have to hand over a fresh chunk of cash.

Jeez that sounds like I could get registered using my car and my garage
Interesting though.

As a DIY installer its quite nice not to have too much red tape.
Obviously I don't want to danger myself and more importantly anyone else.

Heck I wouldn't drive my 13 year old Alfa if I thought it was dangerous. Okay its made from tin and probably wouldn't do much if I hit a tree but its generally pretty safe.

UK is know for being very safety conscious. We have lots of cars and drivers and lots of fail safes.
Saying that some other European countries are far far more lenient.

[rossko]

Reminder: Simon has an axe to grind about UKLPG. Requirements for 'Approved Installer' status are completely public, they are not especially onerous. You would usually have some training, that wouldn't come from UKLPG but from a manufacturer/distributor. You are required to have public liability insurance.
http://www.uklpg.org/about-uklpg/uklpg- ... nstallers/
Joining cost are around £600, £150 each subsequent year.

UK governments attitude to LPG conversion (and vehicle fitness in general) is much less intrusive than most others.

Simon, a caution: linking vehicle registration details to a technical inspection is the province of DVSA's existing IVA and SVO schemes. Careful what you wish for.

[scottyf]

Well if it means I get half price fuel (Well 40% off given the drop in mpg) then I am still all for the current plan.
Also has the government decided to keep LPG down for the next ten years.

Surely this is all good news for fitters right?

Even if not UKLPG registered that's still good business isn't it?
If there are less rules to get round then surely that's a good thing so long as someone doesn't make a right balls up of it.

The more red tape. The more things cost. The more things cost the less attractive lpg is as a viable source of fuel.
I noticed there is a bigger push on factory fitted LPG cars being advertised in car dealers these days.

[LPGC]

So much for an easy week... I'm now up to doing 5 diagnostic/repairs this week plus doing all the electrics for one of my DIY customers - sequential system on a muddy and modded RR Classic

While I personally would not like to see a compulsory test on an LPG install, just the same as I would not want to have to take my car to anyone else to check any other work I've done on it (says a man who has spent all day outside fitting the recon engine into his Range Rover), some may see it as a good idea. The downside to it is that as far as the Government is concerned there is an inspection scheme in place so they have left it alone. As you have pointed out, it has its faults, but the Government are happy, as far as they are concerned it is checking that installations are done to ensure that they comply with the BSEN Standard. Discredit the existing scheme and they would look for an alternative. An alternative has been suggested but it would involve alterations to the MoT scheme that they aren't interested. So they would look for something else. There is already an existing scheme in place that examines vehicles to ensure they meet C&U Regs , the IVA, and none of us would want that but that would be the most logical step. The alternative is to leave things as they are, it is far from perfect but isn't compulsory, it is up to the DIYer if he wants to take his car in to get it checked (as probably 90% of DIY installers would if they were in any way concerned with the work they had done) and, it keeps the Government happy so they don't start poking their noses in.

You, Rosko, I and most others reading this thread might not think taking our own vehicles for an MOT a necessity because we keep our vehicles in good order.. Hear a bit of a noise / notice a bit of play / find the vehicle pulls to one side and we will know what components to suspect/inspect and will replace where necessary without needing anyone else to inform and ensure (since it is a legal requirement to have a current MOT) we put things right.. We're likely to do checks even if our vehicles seem to be in good order - I'll be changing a drop link and a track rod end on my car soon even though the MOT isn't due until next year... I know these parts need changing due to how it drives without even needing to inspect But not everyone could do this, not everyone would know to do this, not everyone that knew it should be done would get it done... without the MOT some would run their vehicle, even if they knew it were unsafe, until it stopped working altogether. We accept the MOT as a good thing and we accept that it needs to be mandatory even if it's application in our cases won't affect much, we accept this because we know that for DOT to allow an exception in our cases they would need to keep a list of people who could be excepted from MOTs and such a list of exceptions would be unworkable.

Mostly applying to DIYers: At one extreme, some installers are knowledgeable, skilled, safety conscious and have the attitude of putting the work in to do things properly. At the other extreme, some are mechanically ignorant, unskilled, reckless, lazy and couldn't care less as long as they can get their vehicle running in a fashion on LPG. Between the extremes people will have different combinations of the points listed... There will be people whom mean well, are very confident they have done a good job and therefore consider it unnecessary to produce their vehicle for a check. I therefore don't agree with your point 'it is up to the DIYer if he wants to take his car in to get it checked (as probably 90% of DIY installers would if they were in any way concerned with the work they had done'. It isn't just un-knowledgeable or reckless DIYers we need to be concerned about, maybe we should be more concerned for the person who buys the vehicle from him...

If I agree that government have left well alone so far because there have been no LPG incidents, and if I agree that we shouldn't stir things by reminding government about the numbers of DIY installs that are done and not checked by anyone, then what is to be said about UKLPG approaching DOT, informing DOT they don't want to be running a safety scheme, suggesting a very much enhanced MOT that DOT is not willing to implement? How about the fact that nobody seemed aware of this until Mike told me during our meeting - What if others are suggesting things to government and/or people in government are discussing this without us knowing?

If UKLPG don't want to be running their scheme, if we don't want compulsory IVA testing (or anything else costing £500 a go), if Mike is going to suggest anything to government wouldn't you rather have him suggest a standard MOT is the way to go (again baring in mind your Nissan Micra point)? You seem to have discounted this idea already (you say DOT have already turned down the MOT suggestion) but it seems to me you have discounted it too early - I agree DOT have said no to UKLPG's suggestion of a heavily modified MOT (we don't know what exactly was said but we can guess it includes many COP11 checkpoints) but we really don't know what DOT would say to a very much unchanged MOT? A kid might ask his mum for £10 and a lift to the sweet shop, she might say no, she might think £10 would buy a lot of sweets he must be hungry, then make him eat his IVA sprouts the next time they have dinner If kid asks for 10p and says he'll walk to the sweet shop she is probably not going to think he is hungry, probably won't make him eat his IVA sprouts at dinner, is probably more likely to say yes?

Reminder: Simon has an axe to grind about UKLPG

Let's examine my axe.... If a business makes claim(s) that make their business proposals look, in the eyes of customers, superior to my business offerings then if those claims are not true it is going to unfairly disadvantage me and therefore I am going to feel aggrieved and I am going to want to set the record straight. Claims like 'you might not get insurance' / 'the only way to ensure your install is safe is to use our members' are untrue. In the wider context, further half-truths might give customers the impression the trade body that makes these claims is a government setup and customers wouldn't expect a government setup to be out to deceive for reasons of self promotion... The wider context includes implied claims like 'If you buy an already converted vehicle, then if it is registered with UKLPG it will be safe'... Need I point out again that a vehicle registered on UKLPGs database might not necessarily have been inspected by anyone, it might have been converted by a DIYer and registered on the database via a chat on the phone....So, also in the wider context I go on to point out the trade body isn't a government body and that COP11 is the trade body's own invention, the law would have us checking vehicles to BS EN rather than COP11.
Reminder: I have an axe to grind when untruths are told.. Rosko seems to have an axe to grind when I tell the truth - he is a member of UKLPG and where misinformation and hype is believed, this only helps promote his business.

Simon, a caution: linking vehicle registration details to a technical inspection is the province of DVSA's existing IVA and SVO schemes. Careful what you wish for.

I can see your point - It is something I hadn't fully considered. I wonder what admin procedures UKLPGs replacement MOT proposal included.... The admin procedures I suggested go hand in hand with the MOT scheme suggestion seemed easy/simple to implement and very obvious.

As a DIY installer its quite nice not to have too much red tape.
Obviously I don't want to danger myself and more importantly anyone else.

If there are less rules to get round then surely that's a good thing so long as someone doesn't make a right balls up of it.
The more red tape. The more things cost. The more things cost the less attractive lpg is as a viable source of fuel.

Would think for anyone, DIYer or pro, it is nicer not to have red tape... Not surprising that exceptions are when red tape works in people's favour or where people consider red tape necessary from a safety point of view, though.
Would you consider taking your car to your local MOT place for an MOT 'too much red tape' now you have converted it? You might think it pointless - but what about the guy who does a DIY conversion yet has no mechanical common sense whatsoever and is a bit reckless?... You might be happier that this guy has to take his DIY job for an MOT. Or maybe you'd consider it less red tape to perhaps have to drive further to a UKLPG member and pay him twice as much?

The situation when I started converting vehicles was that suppliers wouldn't supply me direct, I had to buy parts from a staff member at a suppliers who sold me parts at marked up prices, he gave me the tech support in his own time (supposedly all in his own time anyway), was very knowledgeable and was great at explaining things... but even then, following my install, I had to take the vehicle the 300mile round trip (or pay him to come over) for him to inspect my work.. After doing this maybe 10 times, the supplier decided they would supply me directly and issued me with a cert of competence... So now I could buy from the supplier directly at lower prices. For these reasons (under the counter nature, marked up prices etc) and for reasons that SimonHobson has described in more detail, >>>there were very few DIY installs done<<< Relatively recently, DIY installs have become common, suppliers (some whom don't speak English too well, some whom don't give tech support) will sell parts to anyone, they don't insist on checking installs, there is no incentive for people whom wish to become installers to have their work checked (they can buy parts cheaply direct from suppliers, not from a middleman, in any case). When it comes to 'someone making a right b*lls of it', what you're really saying is someone doing an extremely unsafe installation. I have demonstrated how statistical information provided by UKLPG shows that 95% of DIY installs are not checked at all... This is a relatively new situation, this situation might make it likely that sometime soon someone will make a right b*lls of it... Not you Scotty because you are obviously clued up and safety conscious, this will be a reckless or mechanically challenged person I have also made people aware that it is possible to register vehicles 'as safe' on UKLPG's database as easily as making a phone call and handing over a small amount of cash.. I have made people aware that some offering this service are some of the suppliers themselves - in some cases these suppliers are offering the service to DIY installers.

Simon

[Gilbertd]

You, Rosko, I and most others reading this thread might not think taking our own vehicles for an MOT a necessity because we keep our vehicles in good order.. Hear a bit of a noise / notice a bit of play / find the vehicle pulls to one side and we will know what components to suspect/inspect and will replace where necessary without needing anyone else to inform and ensure (since it is a legal requirement to have a current MOT) we put things right.. We're likely to do checks even if our vehicles seem to be in good order - I'll be changing a drop link and a track rod end on my car soon even though the MOT isn't due until next year... I know these parts need changing due to how it drives without even needing to inspect :lol: But not everyone could do this, not everyone would know to do this, not everyone that knew it should be done would get it done... without the MOT some would run their vehicle, even if they knew it were unsafe, until it stopped working altogether.

I don't have a problem with anything you say here but I would suggest that anyone that undertakes a conversion would also fall into the same category. Admittedly, there are the odd ones, the likes of Toolless, who will attempt a conversion but due to their total lack of knowledge will never get it to work anyway so it wouldn't need an inspection. There may be the odd mistake made, or an install that isn't how you would have done it, but how many DIY installs have you looked at the were actually dangerous?

Let's examine my axe.... If a business makes claim(s) that make their business proposals look, in the eyes of customers, superior to my business offerings then if those claims are not true it is going to unfairly disadvantage me and therefore I am going to feel aggrieved and I am going to want to set the record straight.

So why not do something about it? I've already linked to how you can pay your money and have your business listed on Rated People.com so you can promote yourself there. You could pay your money and join the Guild of Master Craftsmen and use that for bragging rights. Or how about this for a radical suggestion, you could join UKLPG.....

[classicswede]

Okay can some one tell me this.

What am I legally bound to disclose when adding a dual fuel conversion for LPG?

In my head its update V5.
Update Insurance

If insurance wants UKLPG then I have to get is certified. But some might not.

At the Moment all you sort of have to do is tell your insurance but that does not mean everyone does.
If you have an any car policy then you do not need to

[scottyf]

I told insurance and it cost me the admin fee.
I've told the DVLA mainly to get the Tax reduced (But secondly because I am legally bound).

As far as hassle goes if I had to take it to an MOT man to be checked I'd be okay with that. Because they are local. Everywhere and can be got for less than £30.
Also you can find dodgy ones of those if you need to.

But I guess it really comes down to your own values.
My drive shaft is making an awful noise at the moment and needs to be fixed. However I know the car is not dangerous. Its just noisy.
But that's because I am mechanically minded. Someone less so would have stopped the car and got towed to the nearest garage,. Been tutted at and paid through the teeth if they have the same values on safety.


I guess we are all after the same thing.

Making sure our vehicles are safe for us and others as much as possible with out a huge cost to the motorist.
Too much red tape we make it un-affordable and unattractive prospect
Too little we risk safety

But that's why laws are moving targets and how things adapt. For now I am happy at the current rules. Its not too much. Kits are safe and MOT's check the car out that its safe to be on the road. Anything glaringly unsafe would be checked.

Its all about balance.

[LPGC]

I don't have a problem with anything you say here but I would suggest that anyone that undertakes a conversion would also fall into the same category. Admittedly, there are the odd ones, the likes of Toolless, who will attempt a conversion but due to their total lack of knowledge will never get it to work anyway so it wouldn't need an inspection. There may be the odd mistake made, or an install that isn't how you would have done it, but how many DIY installs have you looked at the were actually dangerous?

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

There are many, perhaps the majority, of installs by both pros and DIYers that are not how I would have done it, but there are many different ways to do things properly in all respects including - safety / technically correct (function) / neatness... We all do things slightly differently. I note some of the installers that I respect, Andy for instance, certainly covers all those respects very thoroughly yet has a different take on things to me... Andy likes installs to look as though there are no LPG parts fitted.. I address all those respects thoroughly too, but I don't mind certain components being visible / easily accessible - reducers and filters, for instance. Our installs will be different but would be difficult to pick fault with either approach or end result.

I do find most DIY install customers (I find maybe 85%) want things to be right; Lucky for my customers, then, that I give tech support which includes safety aspects - my tech support doesn't just include how to get it to work.. But there are some DIY customers who, like I said above, would rather just get it working and don't seem concerned about safety aspects, or to whom the safety aspects don't seem to sink in, or to whom the mechanical install process seems to be 'bitten off more than they can chew'. I insist my DIY customers either send me a concise set of pictures of their finished install or bring the vehicle to me for a free check of the install and free calibration / check / adjustment. I provide instructions which (usually in generic terms but sometimes vehicle specific) tell the customer how components, piping, etc should be mounted, I then discuss these points further with the customer.. If they collect parts I spend an hour going over how parts should be fitted on the vehicle / if parts are shipped to customers I ask them to call me when parts arrived so we can have a chat on that same point. But in addition to some with blase attitudes and in addition to some that are 'technically challenged' I have had some customers that were arrogant.. A couple of them particularly stick in mind, example, Landcruiser owner arrives for the check thinking I'm going to give him a bit of paper that says I'm satisfied it is safe which he can produce to his insurer... Chest out and showing off to his equally cocky mate 'There it is pal, all done, even the calibration is done, it's running great, well that was easy... no need for you to even check calibration'... Me 'Might still be a good idea to have me check calibration since you're here? Anyway, we'll start by having a look at what you've done then - Oh dear you haven't even fitted the tank, it is rolling around in the back'.. Him 'No mate, no need to check calibration, it's running great. I haven't decided whether I want the tank in the back or underneath yet'.. Me 'Thought you were going to fit it underneath, you even asked me questions as though you were in the middle of fitting it underneath.. There wasn't much point in you bringing it for a check until the job is finished.. You shouldn't even have put any gas in it or connected pipes up yet!'. Definitely one that didn't get a bit of paper from me, he never returned for a recheck, definitely not one that should pass an MOT even as the MOT stands... But yes, admittedly at the moment many MOT men would regard the tank as luggage and, even though even heavy luggage should be secured and a piped up fuel tank certainly should, many MOT men would pass it.. On this, what I have said is that if MOT man were testing new LPG installs for DOT, then DOTs scheme would steer all these kind of 'overlooking' MOT men to be critical of such things...

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

When it comes to installs that would be outright dangerous, I agree like you say very few.. Faro pipe tie-wrapped to petrol lines might not be dangerous, depends on whether the pipe is dangling where it might snag on something on the road and pull the petrol pipe off at the same time as the gas pipe... Injectors / ECU's not secured probably are probably not dangerous but flopping about gas pipes can develop leaks which would be dangerous, or in a crash injectors might projectile forwards out of an open bonnet (though of course with less momentum than an unsecured car battery).. The tank rolling about in the back will always be unsafe, though.

At the Moment all you sort of have to do is tell your insurance but that does not mean everyone does.

Not an argumentative point but Gilbert has previously said we are supposed to inform DVLA of the change to petrol / LPG fuel type.. But we don't have to make sure DVLA do anything with the info like actually changing the fuel type on the logbook, just as long as we tell them.. I agreed with Gilbert, seems Scottyf does too...

I've told the DVLA mainly to get the Tax reduced (But secondly because I am legally bound).

I told insurance and it cost me the admin fee.

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

As far as hassle goes if I had to take it to an MOT man to be checked I'd be okay with that. Because they are local. Everywhere and can be got for less than £30.
Also you can find dodgy ones of those if you need to.

You can,but every UKLPG member knows who UKLPGs inspectors are... MOT man is much much less likely to know you, you might be a VOSA inspector trying to catch MOT man out? Admittedly, MOT men who know me might 'let me off' with bits and bobs, they know I will immediately correct anything they find wrong - Sometimes rather than fail my car on something minor and know that I would only return in an hour for a free retest, they will just advise me to put it right.. Depends on how there statistics are looking, though. If they are aware they haven't failed many vehicles lately for, say, a sidelight bulb and VOSA might pull them up for it, they would fail my vehicle for a sidelight bulb. There won't be many really dodgy MOT men that you could pay for a test over the phone? I say again - if MOT man loses his license to do MOT's then that is likely their livelihood gone.. A UKLPG member losing that status can carry on converting vehicles to LPG, and likely knows a mate who will register his installs for him.

But I guess it really comes down to your own values.
My drive shaft is making an awful noise at the moment and needs to be fixed. However I know the car is not dangerous. Its just noisy.
But that's because I am mechanically minded. Someone less so would have stopped the car and got towed to the nearest garage,. Been tutted at and paid through the teeth if they have the same values on safety.
I guess we are all after the same thing.

Some values should be common? We all believe in common sense? None of us would task the guy who relieves us of scrap metal and does odd jobs to do the odd job of servicing their heating boiler or check our vehicles over instead of having the MOT scheme? We're probably not all after the same thing, some of us want to be in the fairly unique position of having half reason / justification to advise customers that they are safer etc?

So why not do something about it? I've already linked to how you can pay your money and have your business listed on Rated People.com so you can promote yourself there. You could pay your money and join the Guild of Master Craftsmen and use that for bragging rights. Or how about this for a radical suggestion, you could join UKLPG.....

You have already described Rated People.com and Guild of Master Craftsmen as pointless / laughable. I have pointed out failings in UKLPG scheme but you still differentiate between Guild of master Craftsmen and UKLPG? What bragging rights would you suggest I claim now that I have pointed out big failings in UKLPG scheme? Maybe if the MOT scheme were introduced we could have bragging rights for low numbers of MOT failures, akin to driving instructor pass rates - For a pro installer, given the basic MOT test, all pass rates should be 100%, no skin of installers noses and not putting customers out of their way or out of pocket much for peace of mind and the advantages that come with a universal scheme - such as insurers not asking customers to jump through further hoops?

Simon