Butane gas inspection in Spain: €120 for new hoses and clamps

The official butane inspection costs around €61, according to a distributor employee, but bills of €120, €200 and even €390 have been reported just for replacing hoses and clamps.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

Butane gas inspection in Spain: €120 for new hoses and clamps
€120 for a butane inspection that takes five minutes

Two uniformed workers from an official Repsol Butano dealership turn up at the home of an elderly couple in their eighties. They say the butane gas installation must undergo the mandatory five-year inspection. They replace the hoses and clamps and check the regulator. The materials cost less than €10. The time spent, less than five minutes. The bill: almost €120. The household only uses butane for its water heater. The question that has swept the country for years is always the same: is this normal?

The short answer is no. The long answer is that the official price of the inspection is around €61, according to the testimony of an employee at a Repsol Butano distributor who takes part in the conversation. In Madrid and Barcelona, he adds, a call-out charge is added. Another user from Asturias shares a bill of €69 including VAT for the full inspection of an installation with a catalytic heater, carried out by Enastur, the official distributor in the region. The difference between €61 and €120 is not a regional variation: it is an overcharge repeated in hundreds of homes.

The modus operandi: hoses that break on their own

The pattern repeats itself with textbook precision. The technicians arrive unannounced, in uniform and with documentation that looks official. They claim the installation has expired. If the customer hesitates, they threaten to cut off the supply or to report them. Once inside, they always find something to replace: the hose, the valve head, the regulator. In one case described, the hose and valve head had been replaced three months earlier. In another, it is claimed the technician cut or burned the hose himself to justify the replacement. The materials, several insist, cost less than two euros at any hardware store. The labour, five minutes.

The final bill varies. Some paid €120. Some paid €200. A 75-year-old woman paid €390 to have the pipe running from the bottle to the water heater inspected: one metre of hose and one metre of metal tubing. Her son recounts it in the tone of someone reporting a robbery: "Tomorrow I'm going to the police station." Another case: €6,000 for an explosion insurance policy that, according to the account, was offered during the inspection. The policy was signed at the very moment of the inspection.

Is the inspection mandatory every five years?

The regulation exists. The periodic inspection of gas installations not fed from the distribution network is mandatory every five years. But there are nuances most users are unaware of. The homeowner can hire any authorised company to carry out the inspection, not just the distributor. The company is required to give at least two months' notice. And the user can choose the cheapest company from the official list of their autonomous community. That list can be requested from the regional Industry office.

The problem is that most of those affected are elderly people who do not know they have a choice. When they call Repsol, the distributor sends them its own inspection company. There is no prior quote. No price comparison. The inspection becomes a blank cheque. One participant sums it up bitterly: "It wasn't a scam, it was real, it was a scam... and so on to infinity."

The inspection business: legal companies, dubious practices

Not all technicians are fake. Some work for legal companies, with certificates and insurance. But the business model, according to several participants, is based on opacity and pressure. A company racks up complaints, changes its name and keeps operating. Technicians get paid for what they replace, not for what they inspect. If the installation is fine, there is no commission. If they find something, there is. The conclusion drawn from these accounts is that they always find something.

The victims are not only the elderly. There are also young homeowners facing the same pressure. One user recounts how a technician demanded he prove his installation was three years old. He had to show him the paperwork to make him leave. Another locked the door and called the police. The most repeated piece of advice is simple: do not let in anyone the customer has not previously arranged to visit. Don't even open the door.

The alternative: replacing the hoses yourself

The hose and clamps do not require an authorised installer. They cost less than two euros and can be replaced in five minutes. What does require a certified technician is the inspection certificate. But that piece of paper does not justify paying €120. Several participants estimate that the real cost of the inspection, materials included, should not exceed €60. The difference is the margin pocketed by the inspection company.

The solution is to ask for the list of authorised companies in your autonomous community and call several to compare prices. Also to demand a detailed quote before the technician sets foot in the house. And to know that if the installation is new, no inspection is due. If there is only one bottle connected to a portable appliance, the mandatory inspection does not apply. Misinformation is the overcharge's best ally.

The shocking thing is not the price. It is that the system is designed so the customer cannot defend themselves. The inspection is mandatory, but the company is chosen by the distributor. The price is not regulated. The typical customer is 80 years old and is not going to look up the Industry office list. The €120 bill is not an anomaly: it is the predictable outcome of a market with no real competition and captive customers. And as long as nobody fixes it, there will always be someone ready to knock on the door.

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (55 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

-
Back