Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cant even remember what ours cost us to remove... I think $500 out of pocket?
my wife thought i was nuts to have it removed but im sure she will be glad later. Why not work this into the sale... this is not a huge deal to have it done. only a deal if theres contaminated soil .
I cant even remember what ours cost us to remove... I think $500 out of pocket?
my wife thought i was nuts to have it removed but im sure she will be glad later. Why not work this into the sale... this is not a huge deal to have it done. only a deal if theres contaminated soil .
I 100% agree. It's a small thing to kill a deal over that can be easily rectified (provided the tank has never leaked).
But I don't think there is any way to know without removing the tank and/or testing the soil.
I'm not saying purchase the home blindly, but they should do their due diligance. A soil sample costs a few hundred bucks. They've easily already spent $350-450 for an inspection, $300-400 for an appraisal, and $200-300 on their attorney for the killed deal (provided they don't get sued). That's $850-1150 already sunk in a home that they obviously love (otherwise they never would have gotten this far) - isn't it worth looking into if there's a great chance it hasn't leaked - which there is as there's paperwork on file with the township.
If there was no paperwork on file that it was abandoned I would be singing a different tune - but for a few hundred dollars and this far into a deal - I'd either have the seller test the soil or even offer to split the cost with the seller.
We recently had a deal fall apart because a decommissioned tank failed a soil test. It may not have been pressure tested for holes. Who knows. In short, best to have it pulled.
I am interested in a house, and almost completed the whole mortgage application process. However, I just found that there was a buried oil tank. The seller provided soem construction permits which stated that the tank was filled with sands in 1998. I also called the town, and the town told me that there was a certificate for the treatement. However there was no soil test proof showing that there was no contamination.
Should I still be concerned about the oil tank issue? Will I incur any trouble to get insurance or to sell house in the future?
Thanks
I would walk from this. It is not something to fool around with at all. If there is no paperwork that shows complete compliance and complete closure and complete NFA (no further action), then I would walk instantly.
In fact, if I were buying a house today, I would probably not want to buy a house that has ever had an oil tank, regardless of paperwork. Not saying that is what everyone should do, just what I would do. The reason being cleanup costs and insurance and ability to resell. Oil tank insurance is worthless, the rules keep getting tougher, the cleanup costs keep getting higher, and the fear factor in the buying public keeps going up.
I would walk from this. It is not something to fool around with at all. If there is no paperwork that shows complete compliance and complete closure and complete NFA (no further action), then I would walk instantly.
In fact, if I were buying a house today, I would probably not want to buy a house that has ever had an oil tank, regardless of paperwork. Not saying that is what everyone should do, just what I would do. The reason being cleanup costs and insurance and ability to resell. Oil tank insurance is worthless, the rules keep getting tougher, the cleanup costs keep getting higher, and the fear factor in the buying public keeps going up.
Honestly, why bother with it?
Marc, with so many homes in your market area being older homes, I'm surprisd you would not consider a home that would have EVER had an oil tank? Do you advise your clients of the same? All the No. Bergen realtor experiences so far tell me that it's quite common place to even buy a home with a burried (but decommissioned) oil tank. I would want it removed. Heck, so many parts of Manhattan and Golden NJ coast alone were probably built on some major contamination sites
I would walk from this. It is not something to fool around with at all. If there is no paperwork that shows complete compliance and complete closure and complete NFA (no further action), then I would walk instantly.
In fact, if I were buying a house today, I would probably not want to buy a house that has ever had an oil tank, regardless of paperwork. Not saying that is what everyone should do, just what I would do. The reason being cleanup costs and insurance and ability to resell. Oil tank insurance is worthless, the rules keep getting tougher, the cleanup costs keep getting higher, and the fear factor in the buying public keeps going up.
Honestly, why bother with it?
One thing to keep in mind though with old abandoned tanks is that the earth and its microbes eat oil and over the years can nullify the state's interest in previous leakage. So the risk of purchasing with an underground oil tank that has been "properly abandoned" (with paperwork) - say 10 or more years ago, is significantly reduced. This may also bring some comfort to a purchaser who worries whether an older tank was completely evacuated and sealed.
However I realize that is small comfort to would be purchasers who negotiate removal and fresh oil seeps out during removal. There are some older homes whose sellers' won't budge but are otherwise very marketable and worth the investment (even with the properly abandoned tank in place)..
Marc, with so many homes in your market area being older homes, I'm surprisd you would not consider a home that would have EVER had an oil tank? Do you advise your clients of the same? All the No. Bergen realtor experiences so far tell me that it's quite common place to even buy a home with a burried (but decommissioned) oil tank. I would want it removed. Heck, so many parts of Manhattan and Golden NJ coast alone were probably built on some major contamination sites
No, I do not advise my clients to be this cautious. Too many homes use oil heat to simply write them all off. But I'm extra careful with securing the proper paperwork to protect my client.
However, if I were in the market personally, I would no longer buy a home that has ever had oil heat. That also goes for septic systems and well water. I want city water, sewers, and natural gas for my own home. It's just less trouble.
But of course if you want to live in Mendham or Chester or Cranbury or Sparta or any number of rural or rustic suburban areas, that's usually not going to work. Oil is often the norm, and so are septics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.