We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor has
asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak". Those
are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a tank is
"too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to get it
refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost the
plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled about
once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does not need
to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even if it did,
that would not make it more likely to leak.

On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor
has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak".
Those are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a
tank is "too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to
get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost the
plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does
not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even
if it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

Simple answer is that your buyer needs to get their own heating engineer
to comment on that.

NY wrote:

We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor has
asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on

Tell them they're welcome to arrange any inspection they like at their
own expense, or walk away ...

Sounds like rubbish to me. Maybe they mean it needs filling more often and
the wear and tear on the filler will thus wear it out faster. After all if
they were unhappy about its mountings then they should say so. a bigger tank
will need more substantial mountings in any case and I'd have thought be
more likely to leak due to stresses and when it did, there would be more oil
to clear up too.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor has
asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak".
Those are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a
tank is "too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to
get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost the
plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does
not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even if
it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

How old is it? I can't see any reason why a small tank should be more
likely to leak. It might spray fuel out of the vent if it is filled too
quickly by a powerful tanker and brutal operator but that isn't leaking.

FWIW my oil tank is only slightly larger than yours. Its predecessor did
leak but that was because it was mild steel, old and with water in the
bottom rotting it from the inside. It was held together by Hammerite!

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be
filled about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for
purpose and does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything
like that. And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to
leak.

Are there any signs of damage to it or incorrect foundations?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

How old is it? I can't see any reason why a small tank should be more
likely to leak. It might spray fuel out of the vent if it is filled too
quickly by a powerful tanker and brutal operator but that isn't leaking.

FWIW my oil tank is only slightly larger than yours. Its predecessor did
leak but that was because it was mild steel, old and with water in the
bottom rotting it from the inside. It was held together by Hammerite!

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be
filled about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for
purpose and does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything
like that. And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to
leak.

Are there any signs of damage to it or incorrect foundations?

No signs of damage. The tank (bunded double-skinned steel) is about 4 years
old, replacing a single-skinned tank that was very close to rusting through.
It is resting on the same breezeblock piers as the previous one, which seem
sturdy enough. The supply, sizing and installation was done by a certified
heating installation company. But the question is (or appears to be) about
the size of the tank and the likelihood that the smaller it is, the more
likely it is to leak. That is the question I will ask our engineer to
comment on when he comes to service the boiler.

Cloud cuckoo land!

On 08/12/2017 17:15, NY wrote:

No signs of damage. The tank (bunded double-skinned steel) is about 4
years old, replacing a single-skinned tank that was very close to
rusting through. It is resting on the same breezeblock piers as the
previous one, which seem sturdy enough. The supply, sizing and
installation was done by a certified heating installation company.


But
the question is (or appears to be) about the size of the tank and the
likelihood that the smaller it is, the more likely it is to leak. That
is the question I will ask our engineer to comment on when he comes to
service the boiler.



The question might arise through a misinterpretation of the surveyor's
report. Or there could be a misprint, or just a standard butt-protection
phrase in there about tanks leaking. There's nothing at all that you can
do about it. If you ask your engineer and he says this is nonsense,
that's not going to help your buyers when you tell them.

The correct response is that the buyers need to sort out with their
surveyor exactly what he means, and then get their own advice, as they
can't rely on yours. They are welcome to inspect the tank. Plus tell
them all the stuff in the first paragraph above that I have quoted.

With a typical 900 litre delivery and once a year refill there's no reason to consider the tank is too small. As a retired oil boiler installer and service professional I'd consider the report to be the creation of an pianist.

On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

My guess is that one of the paper pushing parasites involved in the
house purchase process added the word "therefore" thinking more
words and longer sentences makes him/her look clever. Without the word
"therefore" the sentence makes sense as the tank *could* leak at some
time in the future (though probably not for a few decades).

On 08/12/2017 17:48, GB wrote:

Plus tell
them all the stuff in the first paragraph above that I have quoted.

Apart from the bit that says metal tanks rust.

Keep it simple by saying that it is an approved tank installed by a
certified company around 4 years ago.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
Gareth wrote:
On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

My guess is that one of the paper pushing parasites involved in the
house purchase process added the word "therefore" thinking more
words and longer sentences makes him/her look clever. Without the word
"therefore" the sentence makes sense as the tank *could* leak at some
time in the future (though probably not for a few decades).

I once* had an altercation with an advertiser in Radio Times who wanted to
say "Because there is a 10 watt amplifier, there is no disptortion".

* in the days when BBC Engineering had some influence.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 08/12/2017 17:48, GB wrote:
On 08/12/2017 17:15, NY wrote:

No signs of damage. The tank (bunded double-skinned steel) is about 4
years old, replacing a single-skinned tank that was very close to
rusting through. It is resting on the same breezeblock piers as the
previous one, which seem sturdy enough. The supply, sizing and
installation was done by a certified heating installation company.


*But
the question is (or appears to be) about the size of the tank and the
likelihood that the smaller it is, the more likely it is to leak. That
is the question I will ask our engineer to comment on when he comes to
service the boiler.



The question might arise through a misinterpretation of the surveyor's
report. Or there could be a misprint, or just a standard butt-protection
phrase in there about tanks leaking.

I wonder if there has been a miscommunication - could they be
questioning the size of the bund rather than the tank?

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 08/12/2017 17:48, GB wrote:
On 08/12/2017 17:15, NY wrote:

No signs of damage. The tank (bunded double-skinned steel) is about 4
years old, replacing a single-skinned tank that was very close to
rusting through. It is resting on the same breezeblock piers as the
previous one, which seem sturdy enough. The supply, sizing and
installation was done by a certified heating installation company.


But
the question is (or appears to be) about the size of the tank and the
likelihood that the smaller it is, the more likely it is to leak. That
is the question I will ask our engineer to comment on when he comes to
service the boiler.



The question might arise through a misinterpretation of the surveyor's
report. Or there could be a misprint, or just a standard butt-protection
phrase in there about tanks leaking.

I wonder if there has been a miscommunication - could they be questioning
the size of the bund rather than the tank?

I've always wondered why people talk about the size of the bund. As long as
it is as high as the inner part of the tank, no oil can leak out of the bund
because the oil level in the bund will never go higher than the level in the
inner tank, no matter how thick or thin the gap between the inner and outer
skins.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:37:14 -0000
"NY" wrote:

We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be
filled about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for
purpose and does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything
like that. And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to
leak.

Does he perhaps think that the bunding is insufficient to contain the
whole contents of the tank?

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20171208221012.43c06aa3@Mars...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:37:14 -0000
"NY" wrote:

We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be
filled about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for
purpose and does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything
like that. And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to
leak.

Does he perhaps think that the bunding is insufficient to contain the
whole contents of the tank?

Why should it have to? If the inner skin perforates or rusts, the inner tank
will not vent all its contents into the bund, just a little bit which will
fill up the bund to the same (lower than before) level of the inner tank.
The oil isn't magically going to defy gravity and flow from a lower level
within the inner tank upwards to overflow the top of the bund. Or is it
really intended that a 1400 litre tank will be surrounded by a 1400 litre
bund?

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 21:30:18 -0000
"NY" wrote:

I've always wondered why people talk about the size of the bund. As
long as it is as high as the inner part of the tank, no oil can leak
out of the bund because the oil level in the bund will never go
higher than the level in the inner tank, no matter how thick or thin
the gap between the inner and outer skins.

Because if the bottom of the tank is raised off the ground and the
bottom of the bund is level with the ground the bunding doesn't need to
be as high as the tank?

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20171208231055.0400a4fa@Mars...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 21:30:18 -0000
"NY" wrote:

I've always wondered why people talk about the size of the bund. As
long as it is as high as the inner part of the tank, no oil can leak
out of the bund because the oil level in the bund will never go
higher than the level in the inner tank, no matter how thick or thin
the gap between the inner and outer skins.

Because if the bottom of the tank is raised off the ground and the
bottom of the bund is level with the ground the bunding doesn't need to
be as high as the tank?

Our tank is an outer metal skin, totally enclosed on all sides, raised off
the ground. Within that is an inner metal skin, presumably resting on
spacers that keep it away from the bottom of the outer skin, and it is the
inner skin that normally contains the oil.

The volume of the void between inner and outer skins (the bund) does not
need to be anywhere near as large as that of the inner skin. Some people
make it sound as if it does.

On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor
has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak".
Those are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a
tank is "too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to
get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost the
plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does
not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even
if it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

You could ask for a copy of the report, or at least that part of it.

A full small tank has less oil to leak than a full large tank.


--
Michael Chare

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor has
asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak".
Those are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a
tank is "too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to
get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing,

Likely he's decided that because of the size its single walled
and so can leak, as opposed to double walled so it can't leak.

or have they lost the plot?

Unlikely.

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does
not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even if
it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's
solicitor has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is
that the buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it
could therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to
us. How do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the
frequency with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller
tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

How old is it? I can't see any reason why a small tank should be more
likely to leak. It might spray fuel out of the vent if it is filled too
quickly by a powerful tanker and brutal operator but that isn't leaking.

FWIW my oil tank is only slightly larger than yours. Its predecessor did
leak but that was because it was mild steel, old and with water in the
bottom rotting it from the inside. It was held together by Hammerite!

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be
filled about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for
purpose and does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything
like that. And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to
leak.

Are there any signs of damage to it or incorrect foundations?

No signs of damage. The tank (bunded double-skinned steel) is about 4
years old, replacing a single-skinned tank that was very close to rusting
through. It is resting on the same breezeblock piers as the previous one,
which seem sturdy enough. The supply, sizing and installation was done by
a certified heating installation company. But the question is (or appears
to be) about the size of the tank and the likelihood that the smaller it
is, the more likely it is to leak. That is the question I will ask our
engineer to comment on when he comes to service the boiler.

Cloud cuckoo land!

More likely he's decided its single skinned when it isnt.

On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor
has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the buyer's
surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could therefore leak".
Those are the precise words as presented to us. How do you define when a
tank is "too small", other than by the frequency with which you need to
get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank "therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost the
plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and does
not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that. And even
if it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

I think you might call it 'fake logic'.

On 10/12/2017 12:25, Ash Burton wrote:
On 08/12/2017 16:37, NY wrote:
We're selling our house and one of the questions our buyer's solicitor
has asked us to get a heating engineer to comment on is that the
buyer's surveyor said "the oil tank is too small and it could
therefore leak". Those are the precise words as presented to us. How
do you define when a tank is "too small", other than by the frequency
with which you need to get it refilled. Why is a smaller tank
"therefore" more likely to leak?

Is there something very obvious that I am missing, or have they lost
the plot?

For the record, it's a 1400 litre bunded tank which needs to be filled
about once a year, so the tank is plenty big enough for purpose and
does not need to be refilled every few weeks or anything like that.
And even if it did, that would not make it more likely to leak.

I think you might call it 'fake logic'.

Or ********:-)

--
Adam

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20171208231055.0400a4fa@Mars...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 21:30:18 -0000
"NY" wrote:

I've always wondered why people talk about the size of the bund. As
long as it is as high as the inner part of the tank, no oil can leak
out of the bund because the oil level in the bund will never go
higher than the level in the inner tank, no matter how thick or thin
the gap between the inner and outer skins.

Because if the bottom of the tank is raised off the ground and the
bottom of the bund is level with the ground the bunding doesn't need to
be as high as the tank?

Our tank is an outer metal skin, totally enclosed on all sides, raised off
the ground. Within that is an inner metal skin, presumably resting on
spacers that keep it away from the bottom of the outer skin, and it is the
inner skin that normally contains the oil.

The volume of the void between inner and outer skins (the bund) does not
need to be anywhere near as large as that of the inner skin.

Yes.

Some people make it sound as if it does.

Havent seen anyone say that.

If what he said is reported accurately, IMO its possible he has
decided that its only single skinned based on what it looks like,
the overall size of it.