Buyer questioning oil tank compliance

frozenbanana

Hi all, hoping somebody can offer guidance on this.

We have accepted an offer on our house and are going through the various processes. The most recent boiler service report (from 2025) included a brief comment that the oil tank was not compliant as it was too close to a boundary. This was flagged by the buyers who stated firstly that as the tank was not compliant their buildings insurance provider was unwilling to provide insurance, and then that the lender would not provide a mortgage if the tank was not compliant (presumably because of not being able to get insurance).

The tank was installed in 2015 by an OFTEC-registered installer - the only paperwork we have relating to this is a quote from the installer detailing the work, and an invoice for the payment after it had been completed. OFTEC have confirmed that the installer was registered at the time of the installation however a certificate for the work was never logged. There also appears to be no record of the installation with the council Buildings Control dept. Unfortunately the old contact details for the installer are no longer in use and I've been unable to track them down any other way. This leaves us assuming that the tank was judged as compliant when installed, but without any solid evidence in the form of a certificate etc.

We bought the house several years after the tank was installed. Nothing was flagged to us about the tank during this purchase and we were completely unaware it might be non-compliant until this issue arose.

In the last week an OFTEC technician has confirmed that the tank itself is safe and in good condition, but confirmed that it doesn't meet current compliance rules (due to being too close to a boundary and non-fire rated roof). He has provided a quote for remedial works that would bring it up to modern standards.

Various sources have confirmed that there is no legal requirement to upgrade the existing tank to meet current regulations, though in an effort to keep the process moving we offered the buyer a reduction in the sale price of the full amount quoted for the remedial works, with the view that this would ensure they have funds to complete the work after they have moved in.

The buyer rejected this and stated that it would need to be completed before they moved in due to their issues with insurance and mortgages etc. (but offered to pay for half the work after completion). They also suggested that the works are done before the mortgage valuation takes place in under 3 weeks in case it was flagged as an issue then, which seems entirely unreasonable (and unrealistic).

Given that we have been able to buy buildings insurance for the house without problem for the last 5 years we (and our solicitor) are unsure how this has become such an issue. I have checked multiple insurer websites since this was raised and none of them have asked about oil tank positioning (or whether anything else is compliant). Given that multiple other parts of the house will presumably not be compliant with current regs, and that nobody can be expected to have certificates for every bit of work that took place before a house was purchased, we are unsure how to proceed. 

Other contextual bits that may/may not be important:

- The buyer opted not to have a survey done on the house so this issue has only become apparent because of the comment on the boiler service report.

- The buyer had previously offered (and had accepted) full asking price on the house which was conditional on them selling for their asking price. This didn't happen and they then reduced their offer, which was again accepted.

Any thoughts on any of the above would be helpful, as we are unsure what our position should be here.

Thanks

Myci85

Would an indemnity policy help in this scenario? I feel like our vendor bought one in relation to our oil tank when we bought...

Bigphil1474

Sounds like they are trying it on. I don't remember even mentioning any details about our new house when we advised our insurer we were moving. Think we just gave them the address and basic details. As you say, if it was compliant at the time it was installed, seems a bit odd that any insurer would refuse to insure the house.

In reality, you might have this issue come up again if you remarketed, but I'd either be offering to get the work done and split the cost 50/50 via purchase price, or cover via purchase price and they get work done once they have completed. 3 weeks would likely be very difficult to get it sorted. Are they first time buyers by any chance?

For me, do the above, or advise them that you will go back onto the market - depends who is most desperate so a risk though.

theartfullodger

Go electric 

ComicGeek

I don't believe the distance requirements for oil storage have changed for a long time, at least not since 2001 when the regs were updated. So it wasn't compliant at the time it was installed, no doubt why your installer disappeared and didn't self certify the works...

stuart45

There's new regs for oil tanks been introduced this year, but I haven't read through them all, so I don't know if there's been any distance change.

WIAWSNB

An absurd, and all too typical, situation.
As you say, provided it's inherently safe and complied with the regs at the time, then there should be no requirement to retrospectively bring such issues up to current standards.
This is a regular complaint on house sale with wiring standards, which are revised on a very regular basis, but with obviously no requirement for folk to catch up. Still, the surveyor will point out "it doesn't meet latest regs", and they 'recommend'...
I guess there's two scenarios here - either your buyer is misinformed, or is trying it on.
As you say, I've never seen an insurance policy that asks such Qs either. These situations will come down to, if there's a leak or fire, was the insured negligent or liable? In this case, it's clearly 'no'. (Unless it was never conforming, and the service guy pointed this out.)
That the buyer has not had a survey carried out suggests they are a bit cost-averse rather than 'risk'!
What to do? Not sure - call their bluff? Suggest they get an Oftecy guy out to confirm it met regs at the time? 
What is the suggested fix? And cost?

frozenbanana

Thanks all for your input - I too don't believe the regulations have changed much if at all around distance since it was installed in 2015, and so it seems the buyers are getting at the fact that if it's not compliant now then it probably wasn't compliant at the time of installation (which would also be news to us since it was installed before we purchased). There does seem to be some grey areas around eaves of the house and foliage etc. though (both factors in the current situation) so it may be that the installer judged it as compliant in good faith, though there doesn't appear to be much way to prove this aside from the fact he was OFTEC registered and the quote/invoice paperwork we have.

But then again, if certificates don't always exist for electrical work etc. then how can anyone ever be sure that things were compliant at the point of installation? It surely can't be the case that just because a certificate doesn't exist a seller is required to bring everything up to current regs before selling the house?

More generally, I'm also still not sure why this would impact insurance - if the tank is non-compliant now (or electrics etc.) then from an insurance/risk point of view what does it matter if these things were compliant when it was installed? I'd get that it would be different if a house owner knowingly installs things that are non-compliant with current regs but that's not the case for us and wouldn't be for them. 

Thanks

chrisw

frozenbanana said:

More generally, I'm also still not sure why this would impact insurance - if the tank is non-compliant now (or electrics etc.) then from an insurance/risk point of view what does it matter if these things were compliant when it was installed? I'd get that it would be different if a house owner knowingly installs things that are non-compliant with current regs but that's not the case for us and wouldn't be for them. 

Thanks

The difference is that now you, and the insurance company, are aware of the increased risk.

user1977

chrisw said:

frozenbanana said:

More generally, I'm also still not sure why this would impact insurance - if the tank is non-compliant now (or electrics etc.) then from an insurance/risk point of view what does it matter if these things were compliant when it was installed? I'd get that it would be different if a house owner knowingly installs things that are non-compliant with current regs but that's not the case for us and wouldn't be for them. 

Thanks

The difference is that now you, and the insurance company, are aware of the increased risk.

But there’s no obligation to chat to the insurers about it unless they’ve asked a relevant question.

WIAWSNB

frozenbanana said:

Thanks all for your input - I too don't believe the regulations have changed much if at all around distance since it was installed in 2015, and so it seems the buyers are getting at the fact that if it's not compliant now then it probably wasn't compliant at the time of installation (which would also be news to us since it was installed before we purchased). There does seem to be some grey areas around eaves of the house and foliage etc. though (both factors in the current situation) so it may be that the installer judged it as compliant in good faith, though there doesn't appear to be much way to prove this aside from the fact he was OFTEC registered and the quote/invoice paperwork we have. 
But then again, if certificates don't always exist for electrical work etc. then how can anyone ever be sure that things were compliant at the point of installation? It surely can't be the case that just because a certificate doesn't exist a seller is required to bring everything up to current regs before selling the house?
More generally, I'm also still not sure why this would impact insurance - if the tank is non-compliant now (or electrics etc.) then from an insurance/risk point of view what does it matter if these things were compliant when it was installed? I'd get that it would be different if a house owner knowingly installs things that are non-compliant with current regs but that's not the case for us and wouldn't be for them. Thanks

It should be quite possible to look up the regs relevant to the date of install. 

What I would then suggest is, unless the physical infrastructure surrounding that tank has changed since then, then it remains 'compliant'. And the buyer can f-f-f-f-find a different resolution.

But, if the physical environment has changed - say the original installation specified no foliage encroachment or shrubbery, whereas you now cannot locate the tank due to an abundance of fuchsias - then clearly you have 'breached' the requirements of that reg, so it is now non-compliant. 

Or, prob more realistically, if someone built an extension just over the boundary, which breaches the 'distance' rule at the time of that build, then the ext-builder should have taken the presence of your bom... er tank into account, and paid to have it moved. 

So - please tell us - what ARE the recommended requirements in order to make the tank 'compliant'? The answer will likely lead to - how much do you want to sell your house and move on from this oily hell?