LPG Discussion Forum

indyjukebox wrote:I am all for regulation. But it needs to be robust, transparent and accountable to both the customer as well as the installer.

My thoughts entirely. Admittedly, a leak test is now included in the MoT and the security of fuel lines always has been in the MoT, but it isn't a full inspection. A system such as, dare I say it, Turkey, where an inspection is carried out by an independent Government body, which in the UK would be VOSA, would be far preferable. VOSA already carry out SVA/IVA inspections on personal imports and home built vehicles, as well as VIC tests on rebuilt write-offs, so would be ideally placed to do it. It would be virtually impossible to cheat the system either. While the MoT system is pretty good, I would think most of us that play with cars on here know of the local MoT tester that will give a 'cursory' test (I even know of one that will issue an MoT certificate without even seeing the car if the correct amount of folding changes hands). I seriously doubt that would be the case if the tests were done by VOSA.

linsdav8284 wrote:Do you think it would be better if there was a regulatory process along the lines of an installation inspection operated by the Dept of Transport ...

Personally, I do not. That's more along the lines of "it ain't gonna happen" than it being a better idea

Government generally prefers to let industries self-regulate, only stepping in if that is demonstrated as a failure. No-one has demonstrated that yet (cue wailing and gnashing of teeth, which doesn't count) but the important point is that rambling on here changes nothing.

I've said before, what this forum could be useful for is assembling a credible bunch of interested parties to marshal their evidence and case, and realistic alternative, for presenting to DfT/HSE/VOSA et al. No-one has the gumption, we just get hot air.

indyjukebox wrote:So how much does annual membership cost?

It's no secret, published at
http://www.uklpg.org/about-uklpg/uklpg- ... nstallers/
Around £700 to setup and £150 thereafter.
That's a significant amount for the typical one man band. But less than a workshop lift or public liability insurance.
Frankly I can't see the cats getting very fat on that either, 200 installers should cover the cost of one administrator and her desk ...

indyjukebox wrote:Also is it truly the customers that demand registration?

No-one else goes to unapproved installers and makes them do it. If you mean why they ask for it, we can mindread a bit ... a few perhaps look for a comforting rubber stamp, most because their insurers want it, is my guess.

indyjukebox wrote: I would think it is a false sense of security (primarily driven by agencies like the UKLPG)

Its hardly a secret conspiracy that UKLPG promote their own scheme and members to the public and bodies like insurers ... its their damn job after all.

indyjukebox wrote: plus demands made by insurance companies (now I wonder who drives them to make such demands, could it be alliances between insurance companies and the UKLPG).

Are we now suggesting that UKLPG is bribing insurance companies? For heavens sake! These are million pound outfits, quite capable of making their own business decisions.
Of course UKLPG has lobbied them, promoting the scheme. Most insurers like it for ease of use.
Insurers aren't obliged to accept any conversion at all, ever. The easier and less scary it is made for them, the better the results for the consumer.

Naturally unapproved installers dislike that and don't have the lobbying power or better scheme to do anything about it, except try to discredit the existing scheme. I feel they are shooting themselves and their customers in the foot (see "Insurers aren't obliged to accept any conversion at all")

indyjukebox wrote:Presumably a central, non profit inspection or inspectorate would serve customers and decent legitimate installers better than the current version of the UKLPG.

Why presume that? MoT setup is definitely not non-profit. We've just heard how MoT can be subverted. Most saloon bars can provide the other stories, where MoT testers find imaginary faults to generate rectification work. I see no automatic "better" so far.

indyjukebox wrote:... it needs to be robust, transparent and accountable to both the customer as well as the installer.

Entirely laudable aims, of course. Now, please can someone cut through the guff and show me what's missing in the UKLPG scheme? Get to the real issue(s) without the sour grapes?

If we agree there needs to be a system for checking newly converted vehicles then we should agree that the checking system needs to be comprehensive and independent.

There are many ways to get around UKLPG's scheme. And let's remind ourselves that UKLPG is a profit making company that is not endorsed by government... Let's drop all pretence that 'approved' has great meaning, it simply means that an installer has chosen to be a member of that particular profit making trade body. An 'approved' installation can simply mean someone has paid a member of the trade body a fee over the telephone for the 'approval'. The trade body must be aware of the shortcomings in it's system but doesn't admit to them or introduce changes to the system to prevent the shortcomings. Many people, including myself, believe the trade body couldn't prevent the shortcomings in the system even if it wanted to.

I agree with Rosko that the government are unlikely to set up a separate entity to comprehensively and independently check new installs. We all agree there is already a government check for vehicles over a few years old and that this check now covers LPG system leaks and safety issues... the MOT system. I agree with Rosko that many of us know MOT testers that are a little 'forgiving' when it comes to testing vehicle presented by mechanics that they know. I don't do MOTs but I can take my car to several garages and they will pass a vehicle I present on the basis that I will promptly fix any issues they find. But, if we did away with the current 'approval' scheme and had a mandatory check at an MOT station after an LPG installation, the customer could present the vehicle at any MOT station of their choosing for the check. If we have concerns that the MOT system might be circumvented then surely we must have some very serious concerns about the current 'approval' situation with UKLPG?

I don't think anyone suggested UKLPG bribe insurance companies but considering the way they try to come over all authoritarian in every other respect I believe it is highly likely they will over quote their position to insurance companies. Does anyone imagine they present themselves to insurance companies by saying 'we're not actually endorsed by the government, it is not a legal requirement for a conversion to have our approval, we don't actually check many vehicles the people who install systems check their own work and sometimes register vehicles for others on the back of a phone call' or do we think it is more likely they present themselves to insurance companies by saying 'we are the only scheme concerned with LPG conversion safety in the UK, we lobby the government on LPG related matters'? Lobbying the government isn't a big deal - anyone can do it, it amounts to writing a letter to the government. In UKLPG's case they can say 'we have x number of members whom we are representing' but does that imply they're doing work on behalf of those members or steering the situation in order to make more profit themselves?

UKLPG's scheme isn't working for installers. UKLPG member installers are becoming increasingly aware that their 'approval' is meaningless while-ever other installs are approved on the back of a phone call. None members are disadvantaged because customers are still misled into believing approval means a safe or good install and they can't offer approval without paying a member to approve their work.
UKLPG's scheme isn't working for customers. They are led to believe that an 'approved' install implies a certain standard of safety and often quality is implied too. Customers are being misled.

Compare the above to a scheme where EVERY new install had to be independently checked at an MOT garage. Then the customer could be much more certain that the install was safe and installers would all be on a level playing field. UKLPG would be left by the wayside and well deserved in my opinion.

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:I believe it is highly likely they will over quote their position to insurance companies

You can see how BIBA briefed their members here
http://www.biba.org.uk/PDFfiles/UKLPGOct2010.pdf
I would imagine that more accurately reflects what they were told by UKLPG than some guess by us that weren't there.

LPGC wrote:And let's remind ourselves that UKLPG is a profit making company that is not endorsed by government...

You keep saying that;

Government advice to prospective converters at
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... ician.aspx
"The UK trade association for LPG - UKLPG - runs the Approved Autogas Installer Scheme. Major LPG companies, the government and insurers prefer this scheme for showing an installer's competence to do conversions."

Governement HSE safety advice to people working on or scrapping LPG cars
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg387.pdf
" ... a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer ... " crops up a few times

Perhaps most tellingly, VOSA's guide to IVA
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... scheme.pdf
says on p.24 "you should use an installer approved by the UKLPG association. LPG systems retro-fitted by other parties will not be accepted."

yawn !

rossko wrote:

LPGC wrote:I believe it is highly likely they will over quote their position to insurance companies

You can see how BIBA briefed their members here
http://www.biba.org.uk/PDFfiles/UKLPGOct2010.pdf
I would imagine that more accurately reflects what they were told by UKLPG than some guess by us that weren't there.

LPGC wrote:And let's remind ourselves that UKLPG is a profit making company that is not endorsed by government...

You keep saying that;

Government advice to prospective converters at
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... ician.aspx
"The UK trade association for LPG - UKLPG - runs the Approved Autogas Installer Scheme. Major LPG companies, the government and insurers prefer this scheme for showing an installer's competence to do conversions."

Governement HSE safety advice to people working on or scrapping LPG cars
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg387.pdf
" ... a UKLPG Approved Autogas Installer ... " crops up a few times

Perhaps most tellingly, VOSA's guide to IVA
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... scheme.pdf
says on p.24 "you should use an installer approved by the UKLPG association. LPG systems retro-fitted by other parties will not be accepted."

Rosko- that is all very well but surely there has been enough indications to date on this thread to suggest that the "faith" shown in the UKLPGA is misplaced. The current set up needs to be quality assured and it is not. By that I mean that systems have to be in place to assure that the flaws identified are not allowed or able to continue.
My most recent system is a top of the range Prins installed by an UKLPGA approved installer. I have had a recurrent problem which I am told by 2 other installers that the problem is related to flaws in the initial installation. The system is now just out of guarantee therefore all repair costs have had to be met by myself .
10 years ago I had my first installation again by a UKLPGA approved business. As stated earlier it was a real botch of a job. The UKLPGA proved to be incapable of securing a satisfactory remedy for me other than to give names of other approved installers in my area. The mess was subsequently sorted by a local LPG installer - who is not on the approved list. 9 years later - there has been no further problems with this car.
Yes - the UK has preferred self regulation . However as we have seen in other services self regulation has proved to be unsatisfactory.

That 'uk lpg certified' install pic with the gas line over the exhaust manifold proves what i already feel.
However, i think the current arrangement with lpg and the law is the best arrangement. More regulation will kill the lpg industry here. Why? Because we are not a low wage developing economy. Unlike turkey or Poland. More regulation in the uk means a lot more cost. Bye bye lpg as a viable alternative.
However, i still think that lightly pointing out to the believers that the uklpg association aren't carrying tablets of stone down from the mountain should still be regularly done. This is part of everyone's responsibility in living in a free and democratic society.
I will put my soap box away now.

Sent from my RM-914_eu_euro1_327 using Tapatalk

Runner1234 wrote:That 'uk lpg certified' install pic with the gas line over the exhaust manifold proves what i already feel.
However, i think the current arrangement with lpg and the law is the best arrangement. More regulation will kill the lpg industry here. Why? Because we are not a low wage developing economy. Unlike turkey or Poland. More regulation in the uk means a lot more cost. Bye bye lpg as a viable alternative.
However, i still think that lightly pointing out to the believers that the uklpg association aren't carrying tablets of stone down from the mountain should still be regularly done. This is part of everyone's responsibility in living in a free and democratic society.
I will put my soap box away now.

Sent from my RM-914_eu_euro1_327 using Tapatalk

I agree with this, I'm against red tape in business but to me it seems UKLPG are generating more red tape and putting out mis-informtaion.

What I suggested was that following an LPG conversion an MOT type check could be done on the vehicle at a garage of the vehicle owner's choosing.

Rosko has rightfully pointed out that there are failings in the MOT system too (we all know the lenient garages / garages out to invent 'issues' to get rectification work). BUT.. if the pre-MOT check is failed due to an issue with the newly fitted LPG system the installer would have the right to a second opinion (like an MOT appeal). The vehicle owner wouldn't have a good reason to want the MOT tester to pass the install, the owner would be more concerned with making sure their new conversion was safe.

No extra legislation. No red tape, mis-information or costs from UKLPG. Every new install independently inspected. A level playing field for installers... Everyone happy?

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:What I suggested was that following an LPG conversion an MOT type check could be done on the vehicle at a garage of the vehicle owner's choosing.

I'm sure I don't have this right ... the plan is for any old garage to onceover anyones LPG job? Why would that be cost free? Why would anyone take any notice of it, or contemplate having it done, if there were no legislation behind it? Why wouldn't owners have a good reason to see their DIY, mate's, or Kazahkstani job pass it? How would anyone even know it has been carried out?

As you mention MoT tester later - you mean a formal VOSA based inspection? There is simply no way that will happen without legislation to make it happen. Then there's a mountain of work to do - manufacturers and converters to consult, standards to draft, thousands of testers to train and equip, an IT system to create, publicity campaign, securing wider industry support (e.g. insurers). Finally the entire UK conversion fleet to inspect, cos the rules have changed.
That certainly isn't a Bad Thing, but if we're just sitting around waiting for it to happen it could take a while I'll get on with the next-best thing in the meantime, and you'll continue to say how horrible it all is.

UKLPGA have been lobbying parlament, insurance underwrighters and written an accepted code of practice in our industry.
This has taken well over a decade. So how are we ever going to undo all the work they have done overnight ?
Simple answer is why would we ? And how could we anyway. It would just throw the entire industry into turmoil.
I would start by not having motor insurance, indemnify your own risk. And write a certificate of roadworthy ness for your car. Go and argue the toss with dvla and get some road tax. Because all of this is perfectly legal.
You may need a million or so quid to indemnify the insurance risk. Re-register your motor as r&d plant or machinery. It's all possible.
Or just have motor insurance/ £40 mot test every year. I honestly don't see the point of it.

All that would need to happen would be the vehicle MOT'd within a set time period of the LPG conversion being fitted.

The installers receipt would serve as proof of when the system was fitted.

The MOT cert would of course serve as proof of when the MOT was done.

If a vehicle owner is stopped by Mr Policeman and found to have an LPG conversion fitted but the logbook doesn't say petrol/LPG the owner gets in trouble for having the wrong fuel type on the logbook (unless they could prove it was only fitted a day or so ago). The way to get the logbook to say petrol/LPG is (the same as currently) to send the logbook off with the change of fuel type section filled in. If the owner doesn't have an MOT passed since the logbook was sent to the DVLA for updating to the new fuel type they could get into trouble for that. DVLA already receives information straight from the MOT tester on MOT status. If the owner gets stopped by Mr Policeman while the logbook is away for change of fuel type, the same thing happens that currently happens - the owner tells Mr Policeman their documents are away at the DVLA and Mr Policeman allows a grace period for the documents to be returned before presentation (or checking by computer with DVLA). No cost to implement. No big changes to any current vehicle / driver registration system.

With the above system any vehicle with petrol/LPG fuel type on the logbook would be insurable by any insurer. Every vehicle with petrol/LPG on the logbook would have had an independent inspection.

As far as 'letting any old garage certify an LPG installation' they already pass LPG installs as safe on every MOT - it wouldn't be 'any old garage' it would just be MOT garages. MOT garages already certify vehicles as safe for the road. How much do UKLPG members pay to register a vehicle on UKLPG's database? How much do UKLPG members pay to become members and stay members of UKLPG? If an MOT costs £40, how does that compare on cost, per vehicle, to UKLPG's 'system'?

Seriously, what would an MOT tester need to know that they don't already know? LPG pipes can be considered the same as petrol pipes. Going back to that pic that Dai posted of the LPG install with gas pipes hanging over the exhaust, what MOT tester would think a vehicle safe with petrol pipes draping over the exhaust? The vehicle may have passed an MOT before LPG installs were checked in the test, but LPG installs are now checked in the test and should fail it's next MOT for those fuel pipes. The only thing MOT garages might need to know (that isn't common sense) is which way around multivalves on tanks should be fitted - But since MOT requirements are changed regularly already - the information could be passed to MOT testers in the usual MOT tester update method, no big deal and not something that will cost a £million. However, judging by the number of cylinder tanks I see installed by UKLPG members upside down and back to front (so the valve end of the tank is on the right instead of the left and the boss is at the wrong angle for example) multivalve installation isn't something I see UKLPG members stick to religiously anyway - The valve isn't upside down but is often mounted at the wrong angle.

Like I've said before, UKLPG standards are the same as the European install standard and they are just common sense. Which part of COP11 is not common sense? Tanks and other items installed on the vehicle need to be securely mounted? So do car batteries.... Fuel pipes cannot run close to exhausts and should be securely mounted? Is that a difficult thing to understand for an MOT tester or do they pass vehicles with petrol pipes running close to exhausts? Here's a good one though... Filling adaptors are not allowed - But I've seen plenty UKLPG 'approved' vehicles that need to use adapters and how many UKLPG installers would refuse to run on LPG abroad because they didn't want to use an 'unsafe' adaptor? That's one of those COP11 amendments that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me either... Then there are the contradictions in COP11 that mean common sense is always the best policy. One interpretation of COP11 would mean we shouldn't run tank to engine pipes above plastic undertrays because the pipes can't be seen for inspection, but above the tray is certainly the best and safest place to route them...

European standards apply with or without UKLPG. There is no legislation that says any LPG conversion needs to involve UKLPG at any stage but there is legislation that says vehicles need to be MOT tested. Still think it would cost more to make the MOT test system come into practice than UKLPG's scheme? If you were the minister for transport, which system do you think would seem to make more sense? If there is legislation it might as well be for a system that actually works eh? Lobbying parliament may read like a big deal but doesn't necessarily boil down to anything more than writing a letter to an MP, that is something anyone can do. You can bet any lobbying of parliament UKLPG have done will leave them in a better financial position should the changes they suggest come into practice - What is good for UKLPG isn't necessarily good for the industry, installers or customers. If UKLPG's scheme were to become mandatory then this trade body would have a monopoly and could (would) increase prices for every registration on their database. Now it's looking even more likely the government will never endorse UKLPG isn't it?

Back to that analogy! There are installers on here who have invested in a VHS video recorder full in the knowledge it isn't as good (safe) as a Betamax... but they are happy to show off their VHS and be more popular with their mates (customers) nevertheless (come to my hoise I've got a video). They are happy to put up with the dubious picture quality and clunky tapes (UKLPG's scheme doesn't work well) and happy that some video shops only stock VHS titles not Betamax (a minority of insurers require vehicles to be on UKLPG's database). They are just about starting to bring themselves to admit the dubious picture quality (admissions to UKLPG's scheme's issues) and some are starting to feel that their mates, who are just as much film critics as they are (it is also admitted that none UKLPG installs are just as good and safe as UKLPG installers), are excluded from having a VHS (UKLPG membership). But now somebody is suggesting a way in which everybody can have a free Betamax recorder (far superior system) and VHS owners seem to resent that. If this scheme takes off their inferior VHS machines (UKLPG's scheme) are going to be left by the wayside and all the video shops are going to be stocking the superior Betamax format (insurance companies will want to see an MOT since the install).

In the above analogy VHS won the video format war because VHS ownership reached a critical mass and this was a big negative for consumers. In the UKLPG situation, UKLPG membership hasn't reached a critical mass and there is yet time for a superior system to be introduced and at no cost to consumers or (in the analogy) to video manufacturers or (in the analogy) video shop owners. The main difference given the analogy is that we're not talking about a fuzzy video picture, we're talking about vehicle safety. Supporters / subscribers to UKLPG may be doing themeselves a short term favour but they are not doing consumers any favours. In the long run they are probably not doing themselves any favours either because UKLPG's system isn't working and this may mean the government will introduce much more imposing legislation than the scheme I propose. I propose that every vehicle needs to be MOT'd following an install - Maybe if that doesn't happen and UKLPG keep failing the government will come up with another Corgi?

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote:All that would need to happen would be the vehicle MOT'd within a set time period of the LPG conversion being fitted.

Like within 12 months? Oh yes, that happens already......

LPGC wrote:If a vehicle owner is stopped by Mr Policeman and found to have an LPG conversion fitted but the logbook doesn't say petrol/LPG the owner gets in trouble for having the wrong fuel type on the logbook (unless they could prove it was only fitted a day or so ago). The way to get the logbook to say petrol/LPG is (the same as currently) to send the logbook off with the change of fuel type section filled in. If the owner doesn't have an MOT passed since the logbook was sent to the DVLA for updating to the new fuel type they could get into trouble for that. DVLA already receives information straight from the MOT tester on MOT status. If the owner gets stopped by Mr Policeman while the logbook is away for change of fuel type, the same thing happens that currently happens - the owner tells Mr Policeman their documents are away at the DVLA and Mr Policeman allows a grace period for the documents to be returned before presentation (or checking by computer with DVLA). No cost to implement. No big changes to any current vehicle / driver registration system.

Doesn't work. When or why would the police ever check and it isn't always possible to change a V5. I tried to get the V5 changed on my Saab because it still said petrol. When I bought the car I was given a safety inspection report from a UKLPG member (not a certificate) that stated that the original installer was unknown. So armed with the car and this report I dropped into my local DVLA office to change the fuel type. They wouldn't accept the certificate wanting to see something issued by the original installer or an invoice from a kit supplier. As the original installer was unknown, they wouldn't change it. The explanation given was that I had told them of the change of fuel type as required by the law and as it was pre-2001 it wouldn't get the reduced rate of RFL so there was no point in changing the V5.

Gilbertd wrote:

LPGC wrote:All that would need to happen would be the vehicle MOT'd within a set time period of the LPG conversion being fitted.

Like within 12 months? Oh yes, that happens already......

LPGC wrote:If a vehicle owner is stopped by Mr Policeman and found to have an LPG conversion fitted but the logbook doesn't say petrol/LPG the owner gets in trouble for having the wrong fuel type on the logbook (unless they could prove it was only fitted a day or so ago). The way to get the logbook to say petrol/LPG is (the same as currently) to send the logbook off with the change of fuel type section filled in. If the owner doesn't have an MOT passed since the logbook was sent to the DVLA for updating to the new fuel type they could get into trouble for that. DVLA already receives information straight from the MOT tester on MOT status. If the owner gets stopped by Mr Policeman while the logbook is away for change of fuel type, the same thing happens that currently happens - the owner tells Mr Policeman their documents are away at the DVLA and Mr Policeman allows a grace period for the documents to be returned before presentation (or checking by computer with DVLA). No cost to implement. No big changes to any current vehicle / driver registration system.

Doesn't work. When or why would the police ever check and it isn't always possible to change a V5. I tried to get the V5 changed on my Saab because it still said petrol. When I bought the car I was given a safety inspection report from a UKLPG member (not a certificate) that stated that the original installer was unknown. So armed with the car and this report I dropped into my local DVLA office to change the fuel type. They wouldn't accept the certificate wanting to see something issued by the original installer or an invoice from a kit supplier. As the original installer was unknown, they wouldn't change it. The explanation given was that I had told them of the change of fuel type as required by the law and as it was pre-2001 it wouldn't get the reduced rate of RFL so there was no point in changing the V5.

I didn't say within 12 months - but you are correct that yes that happens already. And given that MOT's now already check LPG systems for safety this is already a much better system than UKLPG's policy of only checking the odd install. No, I said with a period of the install being done. The period could be a day, couple of days, couple of weeks. So all MOT systems involving MOT checks are going to be better than UKLPG's policy of most installs never being checked eh?

Police never check anything, especially not when it comes to anything except catching motorists. I'm not saying the police would have any reason to stop anybody for not having complied with the law and I'm not saying they would have the means to know (before stopping someone) if they had complied with the law... Let's take the current situation, not all police cars have built in number plate scanners etc, some do. With those that do, the scanners only tell police if the vehicle is taxed or not, they don't tell them if the vehicle is MOTd or not. People could drive around without an MOT without anymore risk of being stopped than anyone else, as long as their vehicle is taxed Yet do people comply with the law and ensure their MOT's are done in time or not? Yes they do, because it makes sense to do so. The consequences of getting caught without an MOT mean that drivers are not willing to take the risk of getting caught without an MOT, and in any case, drivers want to know that their vehicle is safe.

Your situation with the DVLA regarding them being unwilling to change the fuel type on your vehicle seems very unusual to me. The DVLA don't give a dam about UKLPG yet have always accepted conversion receipts from any LPG conversion company. If the DVLA are being a bit silly and won't allow you to change fuel types even though your vehicle runs on LPG, why not simply print off a conversion receipt for yourself and submit that to the DVLA so they will change the fuel type on the V5? Of course, with the current situation, anyone can do that. If the system were changed to the one I propose you would then need to have your vehicle MOTd within the set period (not 12 months, a few days to a few weeks, let the government in their wisdom decide that one eh!) to ensure your conversion meets UK road vehicle standards.

Simon
Lpgc

LPGC wrote: - it wouldn't be 'any old garage' it would just be MOT garages..

Okeydoke, thankyou for the clarification
The grand scheme seems to have forgotten DIY fits, and conversion hosts under 3 years old, but can of course be tweaked for that in some way. If you're going to present your case to anyone that counts, it will help you to make it comprehensive.

LPGC wrote:How much do UKLPG members pay to register a vehicle on UKLPG's database? How much do UKLPG members pay to become members and stay members of UKLPG?

Pay attention, see earlier.

LPGC wrote:Seriously, what would an MOT tester need to know that they don't already know?

I can't believe you are proposing the current MoT inspection as a serious alternative. To employ your tactic and go back to Dai's very same recent example - are you expecting the MoT tester to find that disabled tank valve?
The MoT test is intended as a service condition check. It is not about checking the initial build quality of the car or any conversions of it. You might suggest abandoning Type Approval, since the the MoT covers all? We've done this to death at length before.

Let's take the simplest check of a safety critical item - "has the LPG tank got the right PRV, fitted correctly". That simple task includes
Seeing that the PRV is an E-marked LPG type (not CNG etc).
The tank angle + valve type combination is correct.
(this will involve reading the markings, so may involve some dismantling for access).
Seeing that the PRV is not exposed to road salt, mud etc.
Seeing that there is an exit path for vented gas outside the vehicle, securely sealed from the interior, not impinging on the exhaust, not liable to be blocked by mud.
Seeing that the exit path (vent hoses) are of adequate clear cross section.

It's a bit like checking rollover valves in a petrol system - this is a Type Approval task, not an MoT testers job.

LPGC wrote: LPG pipes can be considered the same as petrol pipes.

But they're not the same. Will our MoT tester pass that orange caravan hose, it is after all marked "suitable for LPG"? That's not a biggie - but carries the implication that every tester will need some specialist guidance or training. I know they're not numpties but there is a host of these little things to bear in mind, which adds up to fair wadge of new knowledge, and time consumed in the test. Who's paying that extra time?

LPGC wrote:However, judging by the number of cylinder tanks I see installed by UKLPG members upside down and back to front (so the valve end of the tank is on the right instead of the left and the boss is at the wrong angle for example)

Go on, I'm baffled ... how can you mount a cylinder upside down ? Or back to front? It's a cylinder with a hole in it.
A cylinder manufacturer describing how valve can be at left or right
http://www.gzwm.com.pl/cms/php/strona.p ... men_szuk=0

LPGC wrote:If you were the minister for transport, which system do you think would seem to make more sense?

If I look around me I can see exactly which system successive ministers have chosen. I don't really follow.

LPGC wrote: Now it's looking even more likely the government will never endorse UKLPG isn't it?

Pay attention. The government has endorsed the scheme.

LPGC wrote:I propose that every vehicle needs to be MOT'd following an install

okeydoke, it's no good proposing to us. (That will require a legislation change of course.) I've offered advice before about how best to go about that, and will not repeat.

How long is page 5 ?
When do we get onto page 6 of inconsequential babble ?
Because let's face it. It's not going to change is it. The system in place is unfortunately. Rightly or wrongly the system we have to work with. Let's all join. Voice our opinions and any concerns and or proof to mike chapman. Infact I'm sure if we all pulled together we could make a change for the better within UKLPGA. I'm sure they are as keen to make a robust system of inspection. To instill confidence in the prospective customer for the longer term good of the industry ?
Or do you not feel that way simon ?

Well everything Tubbs and Rossko are saying makes logical sense, those that can't get over uklpg being the main regulator either need to become uklpg certified and then voice their concerns or risk staying forever on the periphery.

The current government is less likely to bring in new regulatory bodies; they have already disbanded the General Teaching Council and General Social Care Council.

I feel a uklpg inspector is far better placed to enforce the regulations than an MOT inspector whose knowledge of lpg is likely to be approximately equal to zero. Why would LPG pro's want to have their installation inspected by someone who knows significantly less about it than they do - bound to result in conflict.

SnoozyBMW wrote:Why would LPG pro's want to have their installation inspected by someone who knows significantly less about it than they do - bound to result in conflict.

umm, well in normal circumstances every install - approved or not - is already eyeballed by an MoT tester sooner or later . I don't think anyone has any objections to that, just don't believe it has/does catch many issues.

It's certainly worth contacting VOSA - they keep records, and all these obviously sub-standard installs will be showing up as a bump in their statistics. Of course they might already be doing that

Quite a few replies so I won't quote for fear of making this an extermelyeemly long post lol.

The first thing I'm going to write here is that I am not a member of UKLPG (no surprise there!) but ANY CONVERSION I DO CAN GO ON UKLPG's DATABASE IF THE CUSTOMER REQUIRES.. I don't like paying into a trade body that persuades people that a UKLPG registered install is safer or better in any way when that isn't true. If it were true then I would think UKLPG membership was meaningful and I would be looking into joining. You don't have to be an MOT tester to have your car MOTd / You don't have to be a UKLPG member to get installs registered on UKLPG's database. Some other installers on this forum are also not members of UKLPG but register all their installs on UKLPGs database by default. I offer UKLPG registration as an option, not as the default, because I don't sing UKLPG's praises.

Might be getting a bit heated here, glad we're all still polite and not intending offence to anyone

Tubbs, heading into page 6 but I don't think this is inconsequential babble! OK maybe a bit of babble but only inconsequential because, like you say, the situation is unlikely to change. But it's only unlikely to change because people don't have the will to push for change... Just goes against my grains to become a member and start singing the same tune as members when it's something I don't believe in. There are installers who don't believe in the system but sing the tune anyway. If UKLPG had a good, working system then my thoughts might be different and I may wish to join, but I can't see how UKLPG can even be in a position to introduce a good working system. The self certification system is wide open to abuse and abused it is. Even if UKLPG intent is there to improve the system (I personally think they might like to, but not at the expense of reduced profit) there is still no way they can improve the situation because they don't have the manpower to inspect enough vehicles. We have seen on this forum and in our workshops UKLPG registered installs that are unsafe, but have those installs been reported to UKLPG? If so what has been done? Let's suppose a UKLPG installer has been kicked, we have heard and had it confirmed how he (and any installer) could simply phone certain other UKLPG members and continue to get his installs UKLPG registered without any sort of check being done on the vehicle.. What can UKLPG do to prevent that? What changes could you suggest to UKLPG that would make the system a viable working system? I think an all inclusive every vehicle inspected situation would be best for the trade, much better than a profit making trade body spelling out half-truths and misinformation whilst some of us are members and some not. We agree the system is poor, some are saying let's settle for it anyway because it's the best we've got and we can suggest changes are made - I'm saying the current system cannot be improved enough!

Rosko, Yes I am proposing the MOT scheme as a serious alternative. A scheme which involves checks on 100% of converted vehicles by someone who is accustomed and usually employed to do independent vehicle safety checks on similar fuel systems is much better UKLPG's scheme. UKLPG's scheme isn't a viable system because it isn't fully inclusive (DIYers and none UKLPG members do what they want), UKLPG installs are not independently checked, often installs are registered on UKLPGs database on the basis of a phone call with no check whatsoever. You didn't believe this happened until one of your friends in the trade told you the same! The system I proposed would be fully inclusive and is viable because the MOT system already exists. You can say 'Ah but an MOT tester won't know this and that' and I agree there will be points that they don't know but you also agree that a safety check isn't rocket science and that an MOT tester is going to find many obvious problems - I did say muti-valve mounting angle is something they wouldn't know about, but let's face it, if a multivalve is on upside down then without being adapted the engine will not run on LPG because the pickup pipe angle is wrong and in the worst case scenario the tank would fill to 100%, become over-pressured and the pressure release valve would vent. Do you agree that we don't see many multivalves at the wrong angle or CNG valves fitted to LPG tanks - but we do see a lot of older BRC valves that don't have electronic shut off solenoids fitted and many of these are on UKLPG registered installs? In which case they are equally as safe as the situation Dai mentioned where the shut off valve wasn't wired up and the valve plunger was obviously removed? Granted the BRC tank should have a remote shut off valve installed, but this hasn't always been the case in my experiences.

Recent MOT changes mean LPG installs are now more-so part of the test so we may now start to see MOT failures for dodgy LPG installs where we haven't before. It is very doubtful VOSA have noted increased accident statistics concerning dodgy installs even though dodgy installs are certainly out there - This only hints at the generic safety of an LPG conversion. On both sides of the argument we think a system needs to be in place and since we're agreed on this the point is irrelevant except to show LPG conversion is a safe concept.

Snoozy, UKLPG are not the 'main regulator', they have no such powers. Nobody needs to be a member of UKLPG, not being a member doesn't put anyone on the periphery, whether someone is a member or not does not imply a better understanding of safety or quality in terms of installs. Regards LPG pros not wanting their installs to be inspected by someone who knows significantly less about LPG installs than they do - this cuts both ways. Yes some good installers may resent the fact that an MOT tester has the power to fail their work but if an install was failed when the installer feels it should pass then installer has the right to the usual MOT appeals procedure and the MOT tester comes away wiser. Some bad installers may resent the fact because their unsafe installs will not be passed. Some installers will be happy that the unsafe installers now have to do safe installs. Yes we should expect LPG pros to know more than an MOT tester and should be able to expect all LPG pros to do safe installs, but the real world situation doesn't live up to those expectations because unsafe installs are done by UKLPG registered installers and none UKLPG registered installs alike. In my own and other installers experiences we see unsafe installs from both members and none members alike, membership doesn't seem to affect the safety of installs. While UKLPG's system allows installers to register their own work, while there are members accepting payment over the phone for registering vehicles on UKLPG's database and while the trade body UKLPG themselves check so few vehicles this situation is unlikely to change. The MOT system would be mandatory and would include every vehicle from members, none members and DIYers alike. If that UKLPG registered vehicle that Dai posted the pic of was inspected by an MOT garage following it's conversion it should at least fail on the basis of those pipes draping over the manifold. Common sense tells you and me that fuel pipes over the exhaust manifold shouldn't be there, similarly common sense would also tell the MOT tester, particularly if he is inspecting the vehicle specifically to check the safety of the new LPG system.

Rosko again, I think since I proposed the MOT system to check new installs you could've taken it as said that I meant MOT garages would do the checks, not any garage, and have noted that I said an MOT check should be done within a set time period of the install, I didn't say leave it 12months... I think you knew that but there it is clarified! The scheme I propose is all inclusive, it would include DIY installs and conversion hosts under 3 years old. You don't need to take a car for an MOT if under 3 years old but you would have to take new cars once following a conversion. I don't need to be paying much more attention, I was asking you to compare the cost of an MOT to the cost of registering a vehicle on UKLPG's database plus UKLPG initial and continued membership costs - Do the sums and there isn't much of a difference. I have already answered the tank valve angle points you raised in this post above but I'll add that the MOT check could involve checking for E67 mark on the valve.. You mentioned LPG pipes, OK so the MOT checker makes sure the same E67 is on the pipe and any other parts you mention? Regarding orange caravan hose, an MOT tester would also know it was caravan hose. I would consider caravan hose to be a better bet than the vac pipe I have seen used, unsecured, as LPG pressure pipe on both UKLPG registered and none UKLPG registered installs alike between rails and pressure sensor. I've replied to your points on multivalve mounting angle (I mentioned this point myself before your reply but it's hardly a common safety mistake eh), vent pipe and the use of caravan pipe. What other safety issues do you reckon an MOT tester would be incapable of finding?

Simon
Lpgc

Oh God, here we go again. Simon, a few facts for you. Would an MoT tester fail a car with fuel hoses hanging over the exhaust manifold? I very much doubt it or he would have to fail just about every car built before the mid-80's with non-crossflow heads where carbs, and their fuel lines, sit directly above the exhaust manifold. CoP11 is a code of practice based on the EU regulations for the installation of LPG/CNG systems in motor vehicles and it states that fuel pipes should be regularly fixed and in such a position than they can be seen along their length. So why should an MoT tester fail something that doesn't comply when, for example, the petrol pipes on a Classic Range Rover are run along the top of a chassis rail and cannot be seen for a good 5 feet. They are only secured at each end too because there are no similar requirements for petrol lines. You can argue that he should know the difference between petrol pipe and LPG pipe but would he? Would he know which pipe was polypipe full of LPG and which one was virtually identical looking plastic air hose for air suspension? If your idea was adopted then all that would happen would be that VOSA would start to receive far more appeals from disgruntled installers because their installs are being failed by MoT testers who know little about LPG systems and are erring on the cautious side.

As I pointed out in another thread, don't try to change the system as the alternative may be far worse. You have your idea that installations could be checked by MoT testers but, if it was decided that a change was needed, would whoever makes the decision be of the same view? Following flooding in many parts of the country the Environment Agency have just announced redundancies so you can't expect common sense from a Government Department (and I know, I've worked for one for the last 30 years). So just because you have an idea of what could replace the current scheme how do you know that those that make the decisions would come to the same conclusion? An alternative that might be considered would be that every converted vehicle would need to be subjected to an IVA test. After all, the same inspectors that carry out these tests already test imported vehicles, home built cars and rebuilt write-offs. It wouldn't surprise me if this idea wasn't what caused UKLPG, or LPGA as it was at the time, to come up with their scheme in the first place. With the current charge for a Voluntary IVA test for vehicles already UK registered being £471.15 plus VAT, it would kill the industry overnight.

Clearly the years of argument to date have failed to convince me, but it doesn't matter a toss whether I think an MoT will be finding X or Y.

What are you going to do about it Simon ?

P.S. Richard G. ... as our IVA expert, did you see the tidbit I found in
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... scheme.pdf
on p.24 - I was suprised

P.P.S. did anyone decide Ecotec was doing anything wrong at all ? (where we started!)