Case Study: Public access to conditions for the sale of bottled LPG

Case Study: Public access to conditions for the sale of bottled LPG

Published July 01, 2026

The complaint

Complainant lives in the vicinity of a ground floor retail establishment which is also in the business of selling bottled LPG.  Given the hazardous and volatile nature of LPG, complainant had significant health and safety concerns over this retail activity.  As the activity is regulated by REWS, he wrote to the Regulator and:

1. requested that he be given a copy of the permit granted to the retail establishment including the outcome of any case study; and
2. requested an explanation as to why residents who are directly impacted by this activity were not informed that an application was submitted for the purposes of the issuance of a permit to sell bottled LPG.

As his email to REWS remained without a reply he proceeded to file a complaint with this Office wherein he requested that the Regulator provide a substantive reply. 

Facts and findings

Following the intervention of this Office, complainant was provided with an official reply from REWS, where amongst other things he was informed that the business owner had an official Authorisation issued by the Regulator to sell LPG cylinders from a fixed point of retail. The Regulator elaborated that in order to obtain said Authorisation the applicant had to satisfy a number of conditions including filing technical reports, obtaining a planning permit, providing a bank guarantee, have insurance cover and submit a yearly report. Complainant was also provided with a copy of the Specimen General Authorisation Conditions for the Activity of Retailing Cylinders Filled with LPG From a Fixed Point of Sale. Complainant was, however, dissatisfied with the reply and requested this Office to investigate the issues brought to light in the complaint.

The two most pressing areas of concern for complainant were that: a) there is no accessibility to the Authorisation conditions by the public; and b) the general public was not given the opportunity to make representations prior to an Authorisation being granted or renewed.

Authorisation

The retail of cylinders filled with LPG from a fixed point of sale requires an Authorisation. The provider in whose favour an Authorisation is granted must satisfy any conditions that are specified in the Authorisation itself as well as those found in the Liquified Petroleum Gas Market Regulations and any other laws. The law further requires the Regulator to impose further conditions on the provider including those relative to “Suitability of the facility with regard to the safety, health, security, hazardous substances, environment, land use and planning requirements” [1].

The Regulator informed this Office that the law did not require that Authorisation Conditions tied to a specific provider be made public – as such these were not accessible. It was further informed that should a member of the public wish to have access to the said conditions, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request would need to be made which would in turn be subject to GDPR considerations. This Office observes that whilst FOI requests are a means through which information may be obtained, they are hampered with significant limitations. The effectiveness of this tool may be compromised if subject to misuse.

This Office further notes, that whilst the authorised provider is accountable to the Regulator, the latter should, at least in theory be accountable to the public.  It is imperative in the interest of transparency and peace of mind of the community and the public at large that the full Authorisation Conditions be made accessible to the public. One must also bear in mind the necessity of said accessibility if third parties,  are to be in a position to report breaches and complaints.  As things stand, any interested party, is left completely in the dark as regards the specific conditions (which are binding on authorised providers) governing the retail of this highly hazardous product.

As regards the issue of representations, in its replies to this Office, REWS referred to the planning permit procedures which allow for representations from persons or organisation at the time said permits are being processed. This Office notes that while there is some overlap between a planning permit and an Authorisation to sell LPG, the former is limited in scope with its primary purpose being to regulate the development.  Due to the significant long-term impact of this event on the neighbourhood, the general public is given the opportunity to make representations. An Authorisation, on the other hand, seeks to regulate a continuous and hazardous activity which could also have a significant impact on the neighbourhood.  The possibility by the general public to make representations both on the initial granting of the Authorisation and any subsequent renewal is equally, if not more pressing, for the community.

As part of its investigations this Office also noted that REWS had no dedicated complaint procedures for interested third parties who are not consumers - compounding the transparency and accountability issues. The Regulator’s website catered for disputes between consumers and authorised providers but failed to consider the possibility of problems arising affecting third parties (such as complainant). The lack of proper complaint channels, results in the heightened risk of said complaints falling through the cracks - which is what happened in this instance.

Conclusions and recommendations

The retail of a highly volatile and hazardous substance such as LPG, albeit in a bottled format, brings with it heightened safety concerns especially where said retail activity is being carried out in a residential area.  As such, transparency and accountability on how Authorisations are ‘managed’ (through their entire lifecycle) by the Regulator are of heightened importance especially to the immediate community.  Unfortunately, this Office found the said management to be rather opaque, breaching not only the principles of good administration but also creating repercussions on the wellbeing of the said community.  This Office also found that that REWS’s approach to safety practices would benefit from a review. This Office, therefore, recommended that:

1. necessary legislative measures be taken to ensure that Authorisation Conditions be made accessible to the public;
2. the necessary legislative measures be taken to ensure that the public be given the opportunity to make representations every time an Authorisation is being assessed to be granted or renewed;
3. a clear and user-friendly complaints procedure be put in place for third parties not being ‘consumers’; and
4. the Regulator carry out a comprehensive regulatory review of its practices and procedures, with the input of the Civil Protection Department, bearing in mind the obligations as set out in the Liquified Petroleum Market Regulations and any other applicable law.

Outcome

Accessibility: this Office was informed that the REWS’s Authorisation Application Form was modified to include a provision empowering REWS to disclose to third parties’ information and/or documents submitted as part of the application.

Representations: this Office was informed that there was agreement on this recommendation and that consultations with other entities were being conducted.

Complaint procedures: a complaint procedure for third parties not being customers was implemented.

Regulatory review: steps were being taken to implement said recommendation. In the meantime, the frequency of inspections implementing a more rigorous inspection regime was increased.

[1] Regulations 10(2)(g) of the Liquified Petroleum Gas Market Regulations (S.L. 545.20).