LPG Discussion Forum

classicswede wrote:

linsdav8284 wrote:
Simon- We have 3 vehicles currently running on LPG. All three insurance companies wanted to see a UKLPG registration certificate before they would insure me.

How did you manage to get a certificate as UKLPG don't do a paper certificate any longer and it is just an electronic database.
I register my conversions on the database and issue a installers certificate to cover both angles.

first 2 were done in 2003 and 2004 and I got green certificate for each one. Last one was done over 2 years ago and the installer registered it for me on the UKLPG database but he also gave me a green certificate

linsdav8284 wrote:Simon- We have 3 vehicles currently running on LPG. All three insurance companies wanted to see a UKLPG registration certificate before they would insure me.

When I converted my 110 my insurer accepted my own certificate along with a copy of my training certificate. They've also accepted a certificate I wrote (along with another copy of my training certificate) after inspecting a Range Rover a friend had bought but which came with no paperwork.
If they don't accept the same when I extract digit and finish converting my 90, then I'll be taking my business elsewhere - and I'll make very certain that it's not just the front line people in the local office that know why they'll have lost my business after many years.

SimonHobson wrote:When I converted my 110 my insurer accepted my own certificate along with a copy of my training certificate. They've also accepted a certificate I wrote (along with another copy of my training certificate) after inspecting a Range Rover a friend had bought but which came with no paperwork.
If they don't accept the same when I extract digit and finish converting my 90, then I'll be taking my business elsewhere - and I'll make very certain that it's not just the front line people in the local office that know why they'll have lost my business after many years.

It's a pity that more people don't do the same Simon.

If an insurance company refuses to insure a vehicle unless the vehicle is on UKLPG's database this could also be explained to them: I am taking my business elsewhere because you have refused to insure me. I will be taking my business to one of the majority of insurers who haven't believed the untruths that UKLPG would like them to believe. There is no law that says my vehicle must be on any particular trade body (UKLPG) database, you have chosen to discriminate against me or my vehicle and I believe the reason you have done that is because you are under some incorrect impressions. You imply that UKLPG database registration means that an LPG installation is safe or more likely to be safe but this has been shown to be false. You may be under the impression that all vehicles on the UKLPG database have been independently checked but this is not true. It has been shown how many UKLPG registered installs are registered on the basis of a phone call without any member of UKLPG (and not any UKLPG staff themselves) ever having see the vehicle'.

You could go on to say 'Since having my LPG conversion installed, my vehicle has passed an MOT check. I propose that the MOT check my vehicle has passed is a better indicator of the safety of my vehicle and it's LPG system installation than an entry on UKLPG's database. It is becoming apparent in the LPG industry that UKLPG registered and none UKLPG registered installations in equal measure breach European vehicle LPG system installation standards, a vehicle registered on UKLPG's database is no more likely to have a safe LPG system installation than a vehicle that is not on the UKLPG database. It has become apparent in the industry that converted vehicles are finding their way onto UKLPG's database without any check by an installer member of UKLPG having even having set eyes on the vehicle and it is very unlikely that any UKLPG staff would set eyes on the vehicle either. It may be argued that an MOT tester won't be as familiar with LPG systems as full time LPG installers but there are very few LPG specific issues an MOT tester could not be aware of. It can at least be shown that my vehicle has been checked by an independent vehicle tester (the MOTer) whom is very familiar with checking many aspects of vehicle safety on a daily basis and who is licensed to do so by a strict government body (Vosa)'.

You could also add 'I chose an LPG installer, had the conversion done, then chose the MOT tester myself. The installer had no say in where I took my vehicle for the MOT. The MOT tester I went to had no reason, no ulterior motive and no financial incentive in passing my vehicle. I had no chance of phoning the MOT tester and asking him to register an MOT pass without inspecting my vehicle. If the MOT tester had found something obviously unsafe with my LPG installation but passed it when actually he should have failed it, then the MOT tester risked losing his license to do MOT checks and a major source of his income. In contrast, if a UKLPG installer passed a vehicle that should have failed the test, then there is little chance of that UKLPG member being found out, little chance of that member being kicked out of the trade body and little loss to that installer if he is kicked out of UKLPG - He can simply take converted vehicles elsewhere for registration on UKLPG's database, or better still he might be able to call his friend who is still a member of UKLPG and have them register the vehicle on the database without even seeing the vehicle'.

A minority of insurance companies (those that do require UKLPG database registration such as UKI group companies) must have decided on this policy because they believe this makes for safer vehicles. We in the trade are becoming increasingly aware that the safety point isn't true, so why do insurers still believe this is true? You will note (that above) I mentioned European LPG installation standards not UKLPG standards, both standards are basically the same but UKLPG likes to pretend they invented this standard. We have a standard whether UKLPG exists or not but with UKLPG's system those standards are regularly not adhered to.

Most installers agree that UKLPG's scheme is sadly lacking in many respects and doesn't mean a safe install but then continue to use UKLPG registration as a selling point nonetheless. Some of these installers are not even members of UKLPG but advertise UKLPG registered installs (a selling point) and get their installs registered on UKLPGs database, some go through the proper channels, some simply get vehicles on the database by the remote phone a friend method.

Some installers tell me that in the absence of any other 'system' I should follow the minority of installers who have joined UKLPG, use UKLPG registration as a selling point and stop mentioning the problems with the system because 'it is bad for the industry to bring this up'. I think this is a bit rich - The same people talk about unsafe installs, with comments like 'wow that's an unsafe install, is it on the UKLPG register', then when the answer is 'yes' they get all defensive for UKLPG and try to pretend the unsafe UKLPG registered install must be a one-off I wonder who is really doing their bit for the industry - Do we want a system that doesn't work so we can continue to see unsafe installs and come across as safer ourselves by expressing shock and quoting bits of the installation standards OR do we admit that the standards are basically common sense and try to steer towards a system which covers ALL installations, pro and DIY, done by trade body members and none trade body members, with independent checks? From an installers point of view and from the public's point of view, which type of system is better? I believe that from the public point of view the latter option is better and from a good installer point of view (those not UKLPG members) the latter option is also better. The people whom wouldn't benefit from the latter system would be UKLPG the trade body itself (no more revenue for database registrations) and dodgy / unsafe installers in general (both dodgy and good installers may or may not be UKLPG members). Unfortunately with the latter system, UKLPG member installers both dodgy and good, wouldn't have use for echoing UKLPG's incorrect safety message or be able to scaremonger people into incorrectly believing they cannot get insurance unless they have their conversion done by a UKLPG member. It is these last points, I believe, that are the biggest points in UKLPG members reluctance to a change in the 'system'.

Simon
Lpgc

I wonder if any one can tell me how many fatalities or even vehicle accidents there are per year in the UK with poorly fitted lpg equipment being identified as the root cause ?

Bear in mind that there are associated risks that an insurer would need to cover against - you only have to see the amount of snapped off hoses on filling station pumps to see there are some careless people about who make stupid mistakes (although I've seen the results of what someone who left a diesel nozzle in their filler and tried to drive away ended up doing to the pump and its probably worse!). And if the regulations (the bits that make sense/have been worked out etc) work correctly then they should make lpg fueled vehicles almost as safe as their unconverted petrol equivalents (theres always going to be slightly more risk by adding more fuel but the idea being to ensure its carried in a safe manner to negate the risks involved).

Have a look though the gallery for examples of why some regulation is needed. Note though that the most important bits aren't generally the components, but the manner in which they are installed that causes a lot of the risks to be present.

Brian_H wrote:Bear in mind that there are associated risks that an insurer would need to cover against - you only have to see the amount of snapped off hoses on filling station pumps to see there are some careless people about who make stupid mistakes (although I've seen the results of what someone who left a diesel nozzle in their filler and tried to drive away ended up doing to the pump and its probably worse!). And if the regulations (the bits that make sense/have been worked out etc) work correctly then they should make lpg fueled vehicles almost as safe as their unconverted petrol equivalents (theres always going to be slightly more risk by adding more fuel but the idea being to ensure its carried in a safe manner to negate the risks involved).

Have a look though the gallery for examples of why some regulation is needed. Note though that the most important bits aren't generally the components, but the manner in which they are installed that causes a lot of the risks to be present.

granted but you could say the same about crappy puncture repairs, badly welded accident damage repairs, poorly serviced vehicles in general... all present a risk and quite often result in injury or even death. What I want are the figures that show the death and injury rates for vehicles with badly installed lpg systems which have been shown to have caused said death and injury.
Statements like ' all most as safe " seem to suggest that the figures for lpg converted vehicles are to high but I've yet to find any such figures.

Dave K wrote:granted but you could say the same about crappy puncture repairs, badly welded accident damage repairs, poorly serviced vehicles in general... all present a risk and quite often result in injury or even death. What I want are the figures that show the death and injury rates for vehicles with badly installed lpg systems which have been shown to have caused said death and injury.
Statements like ' all most as safe " seem to suggest that the figures for lpg converted vehicles are to high but I've yet to find any such figures.

I've never seen a figure for it which suggests the problem is fairly uncommon. Though there was a couple of incidents though tbh some of them you'd have to put down to a large amount of stupidity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/332 ... rette.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... m=storyrhs

Not sure if this link will work properly
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UIte ... ar&f=false

Theres 14 known incidents in the above link worldwide for alternative fuel vehicles - 2 of them are lpg and in the uk. One is the first link i posted above. other than that there is very little data i've seen though maybe others can provide more if there is any. And note those are incidents - not all accidents either a fair bit of the list is arson related incidents or fires started by other vehicles nearby.


And yes the other things you mention (crappy repairs of whatever type) can be just as risky if not more so (tyres and steering/brakes in the event of failure particularly)

Blimey Dave, 5 years since your last post where I think you had gone over to the dark (oily) side and had bought a diesel. Don't say you've seen the error of your ways and finally come back to LPG?

Dabbled with a Derv Merc but saw the light again. Had a Lexus on lpg bu now in Range Rover L322 4.4 ( BMW engine ) with a cracking conversion carried out by Northwest Gases, St Helens. Ultra neat, ultra efficient and doing big miles around the UK.

Brian_H wrote:

Dave K wrote:granted but you could say the same about crappy puncture repairs, badly welded accident damage repairs, poorly serviced vehicles in general... all present a risk and quite often result in injury or even death. What I want are the figures that show the death and injury rates for vehicles with badly installed lpg systems which have been shown to have caused said death and injury.
Statements like ' all most as safe " seem to suggest that the figures for lpg converted vehicles are to high but I've yet to find any such figures.

I've never seen a figure for it which suggests the problem is fairly uncommon. Though there was a couple of incidents though tbh some of them you'd have to put down to a large amount of stupidity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/332 ... rette.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... m=storyrhs

Not sure if this link will work properly
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UIte ... ar&f=false

Theres 14 known incidents in the above link worldwide for alternative fuel vehicles - 2 of them are lpg and in the uk. One is the first link i posted above. other than that there is very little data i've seen though maybe others can provide more if there is any. And note those are incidents - not all accidents either a fair bit of the list is arson related incidents or fires started by other vehicles nearby.


And yes the other things you mention (crappy repairs of whatever type) can be just as risky if not more so (tyres and steering/brakes in the event of failure particularly)

Thanks for finding that info. As I thought, lpg vehicle related accidents are not quite the epidemic proportions that some would have us believe, especially when you consider how many non professional installations must be knocking about !

i know that in lithuania for las 10 years ...have been recorded 2 accidents regarding lpg system was faulty etc....
rest of accidents when car was involved in accident after car catch fire in engine bay,lpg tank explodes,but its rare thing ,cars get on fire no mater what type of fuel they have...looks like ferrari catch fire often ...maybe was converted by dodgy non uklpg installer

Dave K wrote:

Brian_H wrote:

Dave K wrote:granted but you could say the same about crappy puncture repairs, badly welded accident damage repairs, poorly serviced vehicles in general... all present a risk and quite often result in injury or even death. What I want are the figures that show the death and injury rates for vehicles with badly installed lpg systems which have been shown to have caused said death and injury.
Statements like ' all most as safe " seem to suggest that the figures for lpg converted vehicles are to high but I've yet to find any such figures.

I've never seen a figure for it which suggests the problem is fairly uncommon. Though there was a couple of incidents though tbh some of them you'd have to put down to a large amount of stupidity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/332 ... rette.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... m=storyrhs

Not sure if this link will work properly
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UIte ... ar&f=false

Theres 14 known incidents in the above link worldwide for alternative fuel vehicles - 2 of them are lpg and in the uk. One is the first link i posted above. other than that there is very little data i've seen though maybe others can provide more if there is any. And note those are incidents - not all accidents either a fair bit of the list is arson related incidents or fires started by other vehicles nearby.


And yes the other things you mention (crappy repairs of whatever type) can be just as risky if not more so (tyres and steering/brakes in the event of failure particularly)

Thanks for finding that info. As I thought, lpg vehicle related accidents are not quite the epidemic proportions that some would have us believe, especially when you consider how many non professional installations must be knocking about !

I think the major issue with non professional installations is them not working to the best of their potential - it certainly seems to be that that people on here turn up with more often than a potentially unsafe installation, although there has been a few of those. i wasn't happy with the way one of mine had the vapouriser mounted (onto the side of the rocker cover with a bracket that was contacting the ht leads) so redid a bracket onto the battery tray instead for it which seemed a much better option. It had been working for a few years at that point (i didn't get the conversion done i brought the car with it on already) but due to milage etc the original bracket seemed to distort somewhat. It also had a short between the coil pack connectors where the rpm feed had been taken from. Both issues reasonably easy to sort but down to the way the conversion had been done (the solder work left a spike on the end of the connection which over time wore it was into the other side of the connection).

LPGC wrote:It's a pity that more people don't do the same Simon.

What, print their own certficates?

"I am taking my business elsewhere because you have refused to insure me." I think that's one of they oxymoron things.

I really don't think berating insurers about "discrimination" would get anyone very far, its what they do on every quote; cars, buildings, ships, businesses. This car gets charged more, that person gets charged less, this risk is unacceptable, that modification needs verifying etc. etc. Doesn't stop anyone from berating of course, but saying the word won't frighten them, you'd have to expand a bit on how you think it is discriminatory.

LPGC wrote:You imply that UKLPG database registration means that an LPG installation is safe or more likely to be safe but this has been shown to be false.
You may be under the impression that all vehicles on the UKLPG database have been independently checked but this is not true. It has been shown how many UKLPG registered installs are registered on the basis of a phone call without any member of UKLPG (and not any UKLPG staff themselves) ever having see the vehicle'.

Where have those two things been shown?
If you want to get folk firing off, you must give them a least a little ammunition.

LPGC wrote:You could go on to say 'Since having my LPG conversion installed, my vehicle has passed an MOT check.

For most folk telling their insurers about a new conversion, it simply won't be true. The truly wise will be talking to their insurers before conversion, thereby hangs another tale you haven't taken account of

LPGC wrote:It is becoming apparent in the LPG industry that ...

Again, where? Ammunition for your crusade?

Bloomin eck Rosko, do you know of an easier way to quote other people on multiple parapgraphs than I do, sigh, here we go again!

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:It's a pity that more people don't do the same Simon.

What, print their own certficates?

rossko wrote:"I am taking my business elsewhere because you have refused to insure me." I think that's one of they oxymoron things.

I really don't think berating insurers about "discrimination" would get anyone very far, its what they do on every quote; cars, buildings, ships, businesses. This car gets charged more, that person gets charged less, this risk is unacceptable, that modification needs verifying etc. etc. Doesn't stop anyone from berating of course, but saying the word won't frighten them, you'd have to expand a bit on how you think it is discriminatory.

Printing own certs wasn't the exact point of Simon's I was referring to. I was referring to spelling out to insurers why the insurer's policy isn't sensible and why vehicle owners will go to another insurance company. You have taken the 'discrimination' word that I used in the traditional sense and interpreted it in the modern politically correct sense. Insurers do discriminate against young, male, performance car drivers but they can do so if they wish, I know we cannot sue them for this kind of discrimination, it is probably just based on statistical data. Pointing out to insurers that discriminating against none UKLPG registered vehicles doesn't make sense for statistical and common sense reasons might make a difference. From what we see on this forum and in our workshops the policies of a minority of insurers who want a vehicle to be on UKLPG's database don't make sense and they are losing business through it whilst not assuring the safety of LPG conversions on the vehicles they insure.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:You imply that UKLPG database registration means that an LPG installation is safe or more likely to be safe but this has been shown to be false.
You may be under the impression that all vehicles on the UKLPG database have been independently checked but this is not true. It has been shown how many UKLPG registered installs are registered on the basis of a phone call without any member of UKLPG (and not any UKLPG staff themselves) ever having see the vehicle'.

Where have those two things been shown?
If you want to get folk firing off, you must give them a least a little ammunition.

You have been told that installs get registered on UKLPGs database on the basis of phone calls, firstly by myself a long time ago on this thread to which you responded in disbelief like you are now, but then by other installers on the Ecotec Manchester thread at which point you seemed to accept it was true. Do you now disbelieve this again and think the other installers who confirmed this to you were lying too?
There are pictures of unsafe UKLPG registered vehicles on this forum. On a recent thread about unsafe installs someone asked if an unsafe install was on UKLPG's database and you asked the person who listed a pic of an unsafe install to 'put the matter to rest' i.e. to say that it wasn't on the register. You gamble initially paid off because the first unsafe install shown wasn't on the register but your comment did backfire because in the very next post on the same thread the same person listed a pic of an unsafe install that is on UKLPG's register! So I have answered your points on UKLPG installs not being any safer than none UKLPG installs and have shown I have the ammo, there is plenty ammo on this forum.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:You could go on to say 'Since having my LPG conversion installed, my vehicle has passed an MOT check.

For most folk telling their insurers about a new conversion, it simply won't be true. The truly wise will be talking to their insurers before conversion, thereby hangs another tale you haven't taken account of

All folk can make it true that they have an MOT test following a conversion. The slightly wise will be talking to their insurers before conversion. The very wise will realise that a UKLPG registration is meaningless except that a minority of insurers have been misled to believe that all UKLPG installs are safe and if their insurer happens to be one of those they will hope other people join them in conveying a lack of faith in UKLPG's system to that insurer and suggesting a common sense safety scheme like the MOT system. There is an old saying that a little bit of information can be a dangerous thing - Lots of people are in the position of believing their install must be safe because it is registered on UKLPG's database. On this site we see unsafe UKLPG registered installs do you deny that? Slightly wised up people are those people who have been misled by UKLPG and by installers who don't point out the flaws in UKLPG's system. Very wise people see the full picture.

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:It is becoming apparent in the LPG industry that ...

Again, where? Ammunition for your crusade?

It has always been apparent to me and I have always been willing to talk about it publicly. It has also always been apparent to a lot of other installers, both UKLPG registered and none UKLPG registered, but in the past they were only willing to talk about it in private. It is now becoming more apparent because we have since had UKLPG member installers on this forum, particularly on the Ecotec Manchester thread, that have also talked about it publicly and admitted that vehicles are registered on the UKLPG database without a UKLPG installer ever having set eyes on the vehicle and without UKLPG themselves setting eyes on the vehicle. You have had names provided by PM from someone who is still a little reluctant to be totally open about it publicly. So vehicles are going on UKLPG's database completely unchecked except by the none UKLPG installer who fitted the system. It is admitted by UKLPG registered installers and noted by customers all over this forum that there seems to be no correlation between good / safe installs and UKLPG registered installs. Even those UKLPG registered installers that support UKLPG admit to the many shortcomings of the system and misinformation that UKLPG deals out, the only reason many of them support UKLPG is because, as they say, there is nothing else. I am saying we have the same Europeen standards with or without UKLPG and we have the existing government backed MOT system that checks vehicle safety - It could be mandatory to have every new install MOTd, mandatory to change the vehicle logbook fuel type details to petrol/LPG, the vehicle fuel type would only be possible to change to petrol/LPG following an MOT which has noted the LPG system is fitted. The DVLA would know that every vehicle that is fitted with an LPG system is described as such on the logbook. Customers and insurers would know that every LPG system is safe.

What I am doing isn't a crusade, it is a reaction to UKLPG's crusade which for years has misled people. Shall I just stay quiet and allow UKLPG to misinform people and insurers that all vehicles on their database are safe, or that because I am not a member of UKLPG my installs are somehow inferior? UKLPG started throwing the stones a long time ago by misleading customers to believe they may not get insurance if they have their conversion done by any installer who isn't a member and by trying to mislead insurance companies into believing that they are the authoritative body when it comes to LPG installs and any install done by their members will be safe.

UKLPG took existing European standards, made small adjustments, re-packaged them and passed them off as their own standards. They then got installers to agree to the same standards that they should already have been working to, charged installers and suppliers for membership of the trade body which supposedly upholds these standards, managed to convince a minority of insurers that they came up with those standards and to convince a minority of insurers that none members of the trade body won't work to those standards so are therefore unsafe. UKLPG charge member installers to register vehicles on their database so the minority of insurers will consider them as safe, but UKLPG fail to uphold those standards. UKLPG haven't seen the vast majority of vehicles on their database themselves, some of their members are registering vehicles on UKLPG's database on the back of a phone call, we see unsafe UKLPG registered installs regularly in our workshops and some installers have posted pictures of unsafe UKLPG registered installs on this forum.

You have said that MOT testers are less likely to be conversant with all the safety aspects of an LPG installation than an LPG installer and I mostly agree with that. I had already conceded the multivalve mounting angle and vent pipe LPG specific points before your reply and the only point you mentioned was that the MOTer wouldn't fail the LPG pipe above the manifold because some petrol pipes run over manifold - So do you think that if the pipe above the manifold on the unsafe install pic that Dai posted was a petrol pipe instead of a gas pipe it would be safer than it being a gas pipe? The big differences between the systems: With the MOT system EVERY newly converted vehicle would have a mandatory and meaningful independent check, that's every DIY install, every none UKLPG member install, every UKLPG member install, all checked. With the UKLPG system, well, it isn't mandatory for a start so no check has to be done from the outset. Even if it was mandatory there would be only a tiny chance that the vehicle would have an independent check by staff from UKLPG. The person who fits the system is likely to be the person approving it and they are likely to want to pass it off as safe. If the person who is checking it isn't the person who fitted it then there is a good chance that the vehicle will be registered over the phone without any actual check being done whatsoever.

Simon
Lpgc

One of the big problems in this country is that insurers are greedy, bone idle money makers whose only interest is the bottom line. Give them a little bit of ammo, such as suggesting that lpg conversions might carry a bit more risk for what ever reason and bingo, you've made their day as they hike up premiums and demand that lpg vehicle owners jump through hoops, especially if they don't have to do any of the work . Remember how, two winters ago when we had our worst winter for many years and sensible people concerned about their safety , went down the road of fitting special winter tyres. Almost immediately , tales of insurance premium hikes surfaced for people who had tried to improve their safety, all based on the term ' modifications'. Only when national newspapers started reporting on this nonsense of penalising people who where trying to minimise their risk of an accident, did the insurers realise the game was up on this particular sting and slink away.

LPGC wrote:UKLPG took existing European standards, made small adjustments, re-packaged them and passed them off as their own standards.

Dear Simon,
That's not quite right:- different EU countries have different laws. E67 is not "a standard".

If you are referring to E67, then that is a directive which prohibits one to offer items for sale within the EU if they are certain items as defined in E67, unless these items carry the E67 "kitemark", which is obtainable if those items meet certain criteria or defined tests. There is NOTHING in there which stops you making your own bits from scratch - you just can't offer them for sale within the EU. This is a neat way of stopping "sub-standard" items from entering the retail chain and thus protecting the unwary customer as it covers both retailers and wholesalers alike. E67 ISN'T a safety standard and that is not it's scope (because it actually defines what its own purpose is within the first few paragraphs of the document).

Because UKLPG is by definition dealing with the trade, it is axiomatic that if its installers only fit E67 marked parts, they will stay on the correct side of the law as far as the directive is concerned as they will not be peddling unmarked parts. The "safety" aspect is purely coincidental because E67 is not about safety, it is about retail.

Further to that, cop11 doesn't (and can't) apply to non-UKLPG trade members and asking for a safety certificate or a safety inspection is fundamentally different from wanting to be on the database.

Since an installer isn't selling anything when he puts a dodgy installation onto the register, he isn't falling foul of E67 and since he didn't install it, I'm not even sure how cop11 applies. If he's saying "It is safe" then I'm very susrprised he is putting his head into the noose as he can potentially be sued if it all goes horribly wrong.

The fact that E67 is somehow been made synonymous with safety and that UKLPG members have convinced the insurers of that, rather than its true purpose of protecting UKLPG members from (inadvertantly) selling non E67 kitemarked products is a mystery to anyone who hasn't actually read the E67 document.

There are plenty of products out there (e.g. in Australia) which are safe, but not legal to sell within the EU. It's legal to fit them to, or make anything for your car, but not necessarily then to offer it for sale within the EU.

kind regards
Marek

Hi Marek,

I'm not talking about E67 being an install standard, it is indeed an equipment standard. This further enforces my position - MOTers can check for E67 numbers on components and fail an install on the basis of none conforming parts not stamped with E67.

Back to the install standards, other UKLPG members on the Ecotec Manchester tread have already conceded that UKLPG standards are extremely similar to the Eurpoean standards that pre-dated UKLPG and the LPGA.

I'm writing a short reply this time because I'm on my way out to visit my daughter, but I will mention briefly here that you have said a few things that back me up in the face of facts that are now being accepted by most... Some UKLPG member installers do indeed register installs without even seeing them and all the negatives you list if this situation were true are indeed happening. But such installers get away with this for very long periods of time, so there can't be much of a risk of getting caught as you are suggesting.

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:I'm writing a short reply this time because I'm on my way out to visit my daughter,

you should visit her more often

Marek, you are absolutely correct, E67 isn't a standard, it is a type approval marking, just the same as the CE marking that is applied to virtually everything else sold in the EU. There are separate BS EN standards for the installation of LPG systems in motor vehicles (BS EN 12979 and BS EN 13856), just the same as there are BS EN standards for the installation of LPG systems in motorhomes and caravans, another one for the installation in houses, etc. CoP11 is what it's name says, a Code of Practice, not a standard. It breaks down the legalese from the actual standard into plain language and practical advice. We all know it isn't perfect and contains contradictions. For example, it says that a pipeline should be visible along it's length but it also says it has to be protected from impact. So on an install on something with a separate chassis, like a Land Rover, if the pipe needs to get from one side of the chassis rail to the other it can either go between the chassis and the body and not be visible over it's full length, or it can go beneath the chassis where it is not protected from impact. However, in the main it is quite well written. Tanks should be mounted to withstand a certain force. How many people can work out the precise amount of force their bolts and straps can withstand? Not many I would think, so it gives guidelines on the width of straps, how many are needed and what size bolts they should be attached with. It's converting a strict standard into good engineering practice and common sense.

Now, any half reasonable engineer should, without even seeing CoP11 or the standard, be able to do an installation that would meet the requirements by using common sense. Unfortunately, the motor trade is increasingly becoming inhabited not by engineers but by parts fitters. The knock on is that the LPG installation trade appears to be increasingly populated by people that often don't know good practice from bad.

Knocking UKLPG isn't going to change this.

LPGC wrote:

rossko wrote:"I am taking my business elsewhere because you have refused to insure me." I think that's one of they oxymoron things.

Printing own certs wasn't the exact point of Simon's I was referring to. I was referring to spelling out to insurers why the insurer's policy isn't sensible and why vehicle owners will go to another insurance company.

Exactly.
I'd be pointing out to them that (as defined in CoP11) I am a competent person for installing an LPG conversion - and I'm prepared to provide them with copies of my certificate to demonstrate that (if they want to see the original then I can show them that at the local office).

So really it's a simple case of whether they want to put "value" on what is effectively simply an electronic version of a particular bit of paper which as we;ve discussed here does not really mean much at all (if anything) in terms of insurance risk. My experience base if very small (I'm only in this on a DIY basic after all), but I have worked on at least one vehicle which didn't comply with CoP11 but which was converted by an LPGA member. A friend works in franchised dealer and he's seen vehicles (note the plural) in the workshop that weren't safe - but which were done by LPGA members.

So as I've said in the past, I don't consider an LPGA/UKLPG certificate (or present on their register) as any proof whatsoever that a vehicle is safe (or was even safe when it was converted). I can see why insurers might decide to take the easy option, but I'd simply be pointing out to them that it would be losing them business. Of course, if they want to turn away custom based on ignorance then that's their choice - but I think we all know that often there is a disconnect between different parts of the business, so by complaining to a top level, there's a chance of getting the disparate parts communicating.