Bulk LPG - Cheapest suppliers / supply route?

A lot of mention of the CC Orders - here is a link to the latest edition [October 2016] of the FAQs re these orders. I'll just quote the first bit of the 17 pages:

Frequently asked questions on the Orders made after the
domestic bulk liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
market investigation

This document is intended as a guide for customers to the main changes resulting from the Competition Commission’s (CC) investigation of the domestic bulk LPG industry. This investigation resulted in the CC making the Domestic Bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas Market Investigation Order and the Domestic Bulk Liquefied Petroleum Gas Market Investigation (Metered Estates) Order (the Orders). This document does not form part of either Order and does not have any legal force or effect. This document replaces a similar one that was published by the CC in May 2009 by the Office of Fair Trading in March 2012 and June 2013 and by the CMA in January 2015.

These FAQs are available for all bulk LPG users (and anyone else!) to read. There is also a link to a large government archive containing the actual Orders (which do have legal force) ...and to all the evidence gathering and consultation docs and the responses: these are also public documents but there is some redaction (particularly of the suppliers' names).

mcmullank wrote: »

My car may be owned by a leasing company but they don't tell me where to get my petrol from. If you are out of contract but continue to rent your tank, there is no contractual nor legal requirement for you to purchase the LPG from the tank owner. The rental that you pay should include for the UKLPG mandated inspection (which is (from memory) visual every year and tested every 10 years)

I think the leased car analogy is incorrect. Most (not all) LPG contracts are for provision of the supply of LPG which involves the supplier owning the tank. So it is more like you want a chauffeur who supplies his own car. You couldn't just use his car when he wasn't driving you around.

If anyone about to buy a house with an LPG tank is reading this then I would recommend you ask the current occupier to have the tank filled just before they leave and then pay them for the gas. This should give you at least several months to investigate alternatives without having to worry about running out of gas and being forced into a 2 year contract of the first offer that comes along.

If anyone reading this with a LPG tank is selling their house then why don't you make this offer to the buyer.

R

richbeth wrote: »

I think the leased car analogy is incorrect. Most (not all) LPG contracts are for provision of the supply of LPG which involves the supplier owning the tank. So it is more like you want a chauffeur who supplies his own car. You couldn't just use his car when he wasn't driving you around.

If anyone about to buy a house with an LPG tank is reading this then I would recommend you ask the current occupier to have the tank filled just before they leave and then pay them for the gas. This should give you at least several months to investigate alternatives without having to worry about running out of gas and being forced into a 2 year contract of the first offer that comes along.

If anyone reading this with a LPG tank is selling their house then why don't you make this offer to the buyer.

R

The leased car analogy is not incorrect. A leased vehicle is owned by the leasing company at all times.

However, there is no contract in place when someone purchases a property. Whatever contract existed between the previous occupant and the tank owner is not binding on the purchaser of the property (unless it is a metered estate).

Hi, sorry to jump in here but I have a couple of thoughts to share on this subject.
Firstly I think the car lease analogy works only as far as the lease company perhaps restricting who drives the car, they would need the relevant license, age conditions etc, it is up to them who drives "their" car not the leaser. With something as complicated as a bulk tank they should only be filled by the company that own them, they can vouch that the installation is correct and the servicing etc is up to date, otherwise upon filling there could be a problem and if it's a random filler who cannot ensure personally that all tests etc are up to date then there could be a problem if a pipe split or prv failed. In today's society who would you sue? the owner of the tank or the filler?
Similarly, you cannot take a "Calor " cylinder to a filler and get this filled by them, same issue, different scale.
One further point I would add is that it's not just the raw cost of the LPG that should be considered, there are many other factors, some unique to the dangerous goods carried that also add considerably to the overall cost of distributing LPG.

Apologies for the delay in replying.

In every LPG contact I have ever seen (and I have probably seen 95% of all LPG supplier's contracts), the supplier expressly forbids the filling of their tank by anyone else, so as a starter, you are suggesting that people breach their contract, which could lead them to financial penalty or court (civil). Furthermore, LPG contracts continue to run after the exclusivity period, until the customer switches supplier or the tank is uplifted.

People have later quoted an analogy surrounding lease cars - if the contract you have with a lease car company does not stipulate which garage to use, then you can use whichever one you wish, but if it was contractual then they could enforce it in court if you were to breach. My question would be - if you don't want to be bound by the terms of a contract, why would you sign it? You could reasonably use an "uncontracted" product like LPG cylinders. As an aside, people COULD have their own tanks installed and then call around for prices.It is just the upfront costs that seem to put people off doing that.

You are correct about the words in PSSR, but the regulation goes beyond that phrase. A supplier must have a written scheme of examination, must test the vessel and keep certificates on both the testing and the tank itself. Anyone else filling it would have no documentation whatsoever (apart from the data plate), so would be to assuming that these things had been done, as they would never know for sure. So unless the current supplier provides this data to the new supplier before the transfer process takes place (which they don't), if something goes wrong then HSE will take a dim view. Prosecutions have occurred.

Quote: "but quite simply you are wrong to state that it is illegal to fill an LPG tank that is owned by a third party." 1. It is illegal to exploit the assets of another company. 2. It is illegal to induce a breach of contract. As analogies are popular, it is just like me deciding to run a train on Network Rail's line without their consent.

On another note, existing vessels have "grandfather rights", so no, the customer could not force the re-siting. If the codes of practice change then the existing supplier can keep the tank where it is. Some suppliers will move tanks FOC if the customer does the civil work though. On this one, I do agree with you - if it is unsafe then the tank should be moved. The fact that the safety standards have changed/tightened should not put the consumer at risk.

I completely understand that people are frustrated with some aspects of the LPG industry - it is not as transparent as some others. The problem in my opinion is the lack of competition and also the size of the "heavyweights" in the industry. Between the three of them they have over 85% of the UK market (last stats I saw). If you look at the number of oil distributors compared to LPG, the difference is vast. LPG is a hugely expensive business to be in, but I really do hope that in the not too distant future the market will become more accessible to entrants.

I really recommend that people act on the "wake up" letter that is sent at the end of their exclusivity period and actually take the time to investigate what all is available to them. Resources such as this forum are great to understand if they are getting a good deal or not.