Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
359 comments
It is always nice being vigilant for all and every possible scam and fraud out there coming our ways, being ready and prepared for whatever comes from whatever direction and for whatever target of ours, going after every suspicious matters we encounter or believe we encounter, being suspitious against as much as possible preparing ourselves for all kinds that could happen out there, but shouldn't be required. If it is required then the sytem does not work, need to be fixed! Not the victims.
I have to agree with this. A little O/T, but reminds me a bit of how US patents are handled. If you're able to constantly monitor patent publications (the stage where patents are disclosed but still in review), it is cheap and easy to challenge applications. But good luck trying to get any work done while trying to to keep up with the deluge of patent publications!
If you miss your chance to challenge the patent before it issues, the cost to protest goes way up, even if your arguments would have been just as valid during the publication phase.
I get that the system is trying to reward vigilance, but it punishes people who put more time into sharing ideas than protecting them, especially considering the PTO does not search most modern repositories of open source for prior art.
If you miss your chance to challenge the patent before it issues, the cost to protest goes way up, even if your arguments would have been just as valid during the publication phase.
I get that the system is trying to reward vigilance, but it punishes people who put more time into sharing ideas than protecting them, especially considering the PTO does not search most modern repositories of open source for prior art.
> It is always nice being vigilant for all and every possible scam and fraud out there coming our ways, being ready and prepared for whatever comes from whatever direction and for whatever target of ours, going after every suspicious matters we encounter or believe we encounter, being suspitious against as much as possible preparing ourselves for all kinds that could happen out there, but shouldn't be required.
Yes, and anybody convicted of fraudulently conveying a house should be convicted, and surely you will agree, be given a run-on sentence!
seriously though, you're absolutely right, the burden of this type of thing should not fall on the individual. So called "identity theft" shouldn't be on the victim at all.
Yes, and anybody convicted of fraudulently conveying a house should be convicted, and surely you will agree, be given a run-on sentence!
seriously though, you're absolutely right, the burden of this type of thing should not fall on the individual. So called "identity theft" shouldn't be on the victim at all.
I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with the ideal of not burdening the victim but I would suggest it's much healthier for society to praise a victim for doing the extra work to punish antisocial behavior.
The reality is we desperately need victims help to expose offenders for many types of antisocial behaviors and while we all want victims suffering to end, maybe as a society we could turn victimhood into an opportunity to be a hero? Of course this wouldn't/shouldn't shoulder the burden on victims but should they choose to take on the task, society would reward them with praise instead of sympathy.
I don't know that this is entirely viable, but wouldn't it be nice for the violated to get cheers instead of sympathy cards?
The reality is we desperately need victims help to expose offenders for many types of antisocial behaviors and while we all want victims suffering to end, maybe as a society we could turn victimhood into an opportunity to be a hero? Of course this wouldn't/shouldn't shoulder the burden on victims but should they choose to take on the task, society would reward them with praise instead of sympathy.
I don't know that this is entirely viable, but wouldn't it be nice for the violated to get cheers instead of sympathy cards?
we don't require murder victims to help out the prosecution of the offender, the state takes that role.
the point is, it should be the same here.
the point is, it should be the same here.
No one is suggesting a requirement. Are you making a tangential point or did you interpret me as suggesting we should require victims to participate in helping the prosecution?
This is how I feel. I'm all for encouraging potential victims to take reasonable precautions, but especially when the system could be fixed if a few people tried, it eventually gets tiresome. I've been given free "credit monitoring" a few times because of data breaches at places that should have done a better job of protecting my data. But there is so much noise impacting my credit score that I just don't even bother looking at it anymore. I would hope this property system does better, at least. The annual "no activity" email would at least be nice occasional dose of peace-of-mind.
That's messed up — it pushes the blame onto the victims for not monitoring.
Please don't throw around accusations of victim-blaming like this.
No one is claiming that the victim is at fault. But I do think it's useful information to pass along that it's possible to get notified of things like this before they become big problems.
It's like... it's not my fault if I get mugged at 3am in a part of the city known for being full of violent crime, but I also should have known better than to be walking around in a part of the city known for violent crime at 3 in the morning. Just because I am the victim, it doesn't mean I couldn't have avoided an incident if I'd used common sense.
It's about outcomes and reality: sometimes we have to take on a little extra responsibility in order to make it less likely a bad thing will happen. That's not fair or just, but it's the way the world works.
No one is claiming that the victim is at fault. But I do think it's useful information to pass along that it's possible to get notified of things like this before they become big problems.
It's like... it's not my fault if I get mugged at 3am in a part of the city known for being full of violent crime, but I also should have known better than to be walking around in a part of the city known for violent crime at 3 in the morning. Just because I am the victim, it doesn't mean I couldn't have avoided an incident if I'd used common sense.
It's about outcomes and reality: sometimes we have to take on a little extra responsibility in order to make it less likely a bad thing will happen. That's not fair or just, but it's the way the world works.
The problem is the absurdly unjust system that needs monitoring. It's not "just the way the world works", because it doesn't have to be the way that it is, and it should not be the way that it is.
A system that requires constant, complicated intervention to function properly ensures that those with the resources and background to know that they have to exercise constant vigilance against malfeasance will come out ahead over the long run.
A system that requires constant, complicated intervention to function properly ensures that those with the resources and background to know that they have to exercise constant vigilance against malfeasance will come out ahead over the long run.
In general that's true, but in this particular case I'm not sure it follows. This is a very infrequent occurrence, which is why it made the news. From a societal perspective, further investment in security here is probably a net drag since all those security measures will also apply to every valid sale and there are vastly more of those. The pot of money that pays out to victims of fraud doesn't make those people whole, but it's enough to solve the problem well enough that it's probably reasonably close to a global minimum in terms of total cost across everyone in society. For those that are concerned about the personal risk, being able to do your own monitoring is a nice enhancement.
It is a infrequent yet catastrophic risk however for everyone that owns any land or property in the UK - and it would definitely keep me up at night if I had any property there!
> it would definitely keep me up at night if I had any property there
If that would keep you up at night, then given all the actual dangers in the world you have never slept.
If that would keep you up at night, then given all the actual dangers in the world you have never slept.
What is unjust? There's (claimed) fraud committed, and it's under investigation. 'Justice has not yet been served', sure, but maybe let 'the system' work before decrying it as 'unjust'?
What would you have be done differently, immediately turf out the new 'owner', who in his eyes paid for it fair and square?
Assuming it's all true, presumably it will be returned to the true owner, the transaction reversed, and the cheated non-owner will have a solid civil case against the defrauder for the inconvenience and expense.
What would you have be done differently, immediately turf out the new 'owner', who in his eyes paid for it fair and square?
Assuming it's all true, presumably it will be returned to the true owner, the transaction reversed, and the cheated non-owner will have a solid civil case against the defrauder for the inconvenience and expense.
[deleted]
> Please don't throw around accusations of victim-blaming like this.
You're pissing into a hurricane. Complaining of victim blaming at the slightest opportunity will persist so long as it is rewarded with up-votes.
You get what you incentivize.
You're pissing into a hurricane. Complaining of victim blaming at the slightest opportunity will persist so long as it is rewarded with up-votes.
You get what you incentivize.
Truth. A much better system would be for the titles office to proactively get in touch with owners through a second channel to inform them of any activity/changes, including change of communication details.
Rather similar to "identity theft", the strange name for a particular form of (usually bank) fraud.
It’s called identity theft to make it more the victims problem. If it was bank fraud, the bank would definitely have to deal with all aspects. As it is, consumers get a big chunk of the burden.
[deleted]
Security and freedom are both active pursuits. Anything unattended will be repurposed and recycled by law of nature, in one way or another.
We humans can and do try to fight against nature. But that's exactly what it is, a fight! And I doubt the Art of War said "Pay no attention to your enemies. They will leave you be."
We humans can and do try to fight against nature. But that's exactly what it is, a fight! And I doubt the Art of War said "Pay no attention to your enemies. They will leave you be."
This is a pathetic and harmful attitude. You should not encourage victims (or would be victims) to be helpless.
I immediately parsed 'rectang's post as not implicating the failure-prone system that allows this and necessitates having the victims of such fraud be vigilant in such a manner.
And they are correct.
And they are correct.
In the US I’ve always been told it’s in the best interest of a home owner to always have some type of bank loan on the property. Mortgage, even a zero balance HELOC. Supposedly, this allows the bank to ensure there’s no title fraud because they maintain a claim to it.
if you're really paranoid you could put a charge on it too (like a bank or a building society would have)
makes it a much less tempting target
makes it a much less tempting target
[deleted]
> Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it.
That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the person who failed to properly vet the seller is out of £131,000 and the house? So I can "buy" a local mansion and then say "oops, I didn't know this random guy didn't own it. Oh well."
That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the person who failed to properly vet the seller is out of £131,000 and the house? So I can "buy" a local mansion and then say "oops, I didn't know this random guy didn't own it. Oh well."
It depends on how Title law works in the jurisdiction.
I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property.
It's one reason in the US that most property sales include a purchase of title insurance.
I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property.
It's one reason in the US that most property sales include a purchase of title insurance.
> I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property
Different ways of dealing with the problem of fraudulent transfer and property records. In the U.S., the risk is the buyer's. If the property was fraudulently transferred, the transaction is mutable. This makes the sureness of ownership, as well as the record, less reliable, while making ownership per se more.
The U.K. flips that assessment. If the Land Registry says you own the property, you can rest assured you own it. No re-litigating whether that transfer two sales back was done correctly. In exchange, this shit.
If you consider each country's history with respect to property and power, it makes sense.
Different ways of dealing with the problem of fraudulent transfer and property records. In the U.S., the risk is the buyer's. If the property was fraudulently transferred, the transaction is mutable. This makes the sureness of ownership, as well as the record, less reliable, while making ownership per se more.
The U.K. flips that assessment. If the Land Registry says you own the property, you can rest assured you own it. No re-litigating whether that transfer two sales back was done correctly. In exchange, this shit.
If you consider each country's history with respect to property and power, it makes sense.
If the Land Registry says you own the property, you can rest assured you own it.
Sounds to me like you can only rest assured at the moment the Land Registry tells you. After that, it’s only a matter of time before some scammer sells your house out from under you. Not a great system.
Sounds to me like you can only rest assured at the moment the Land Registry tells you. After that, it’s only a matter of time before some scammer sells your house out from under you. Not a great system.
Seems like you should be able to lock your title just like domain names.
Could you use a very small mortgage as a proxy for that function? In my country a mortgage will prevent any transaction if the bank don't agree. This will add a non trivial step for the scammer.
It isn't about property and power, though. It's about knowledge and power. The buyer knows there's a transaction being contemplated. The buyer knows how to contact the seller and/or their agents. The owner does not. The predominant U.S. system requires buyers to guard against known unknowns. The U.K. system requires owners to guard against unknown unknowns. It's a least-cost-avoider problem, and it has a clear answer.
> In the U.S., the risk is the buyer's. If the property was fraudulently transferred, the transaction is mutable.
Ironically you're describing the original English legal system centered around deeds.
But a few US States, some of the UK Commonwealth, and England, as it sounds from this article, use the Torrens system[1].
The difference is whether the deeds are primary and the registry a mere copy (or even optional); or the registry primary and any papers reflecting registration a mere copy.
But generally with a Torrens system there is some statutory compensation for fraud cases.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
(IANAL so this may be incorrect)
Ironically you're describing the original English legal system centered around deeds.
But a few US States, some of the UK Commonwealth, and England, as it sounds from this article, use the Torrens system[1].
The difference is whether the deeds are primary and the registry a mere copy (or even optional); or the registry primary and any papers reflecting registration a mere copy.
But generally with a Torrens system there is some statutory compensation for fraud cases.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title
(IANAL so this may be incorrect)
> If you consider each country's history with respect to property and power, it makes sense.
Could you elaborate on that, please? I don't know which historical aspects you're referring to.
Could you elaborate on that, please? I don't know which historical aspects you're referring to.
My interpretation - the UK was about having a few gentry owning all the land and a lot of peasants that just work on the land. The US was about giving each settler a Homestead of previously unowned land (Natives not being considered capable of owning land, because racism). So, a registry would be easy to operate in the UK, but the US was too big and poorly connected and had too many land owners to make that viable.
One example is Ayn Rand who said that Natives weren't using land productively and therefore weren't really owners of it.
One example is Ayn Rand who said that Natives weren't using land productively and therefore weren't really owners of it.
Torrens title was invented in South Australia in the mid 19th century. It is named for the Australian politician Sir Robert Torrens, who was briefly Premier of the Colony of South Australia around the same time. It has since spread around the world, including a few American states, but has not seen anywhere near as much adoption in the US as in many other parts of the English-speaking world.
Now, the contemporary English system isn’t strictly speaking Torrens, it actually is somewhat of a hybrid between a pure Torrens system (as used in Australia and many other places), and the original English system (which slowly evolved out of mediaeval English law) and which is still mostly retained in the US. But still, to the extent that the records of the Land Registry take priority over the actual title documents, it is closer to the Torrens system than most US systems.
I think the main reasons for the lesser adoption of Torrens in the US have little to do with the reasons you suggest. Trying to link the US non-adoption of it to the dispossession of indigenous people is dubious given that Australia, where it was invented, has a similar history. It is basically due to the greater number and greater conservatism of US state jurisdictions (here I mean “conservatism” primarily in the “slow-to-embrace-change” sense, rather than conservatism as a political ideology, this is the kind of technocratic legal issue about which neither progressives nor conservatives, in the ideological sense, care much), and also due to the lobbying power of the US title services/insurance industry, which sees the greater simplicity of the Torrens system (most of the time, ignoring occasional problems and frauds like this, which can and have happened under pre-Torrens systems too) as a threat to their established business models
Torrens essentially tries to optimise for the most common case, in which title is clear and no fraud is going on, and make that common case as simple and cheap as possible, even if by doing so the outcome in those rare cases of disputes and frauds may not always be completely optimal
Now, the contemporary English system isn’t strictly speaking Torrens, it actually is somewhat of a hybrid between a pure Torrens system (as used in Australia and many other places), and the original English system (which slowly evolved out of mediaeval English law) and which is still mostly retained in the US. But still, to the extent that the records of the Land Registry take priority over the actual title documents, it is closer to the Torrens system than most US systems.
I think the main reasons for the lesser adoption of Torrens in the US have little to do with the reasons you suggest. Trying to link the US non-adoption of it to the dispossession of indigenous people is dubious given that Australia, where it was invented, has a similar history. It is basically due to the greater number and greater conservatism of US state jurisdictions (here I mean “conservatism” primarily in the “slow-to-embrace-change” sense, rather than conservatism as a political ideology, this is the kind of technocratic legal issue about which neither progressives nor conservatives, in the ideological sense, care much), and also due to the lobbying power of the US title services/insurance industry, which sees the greater simplicity of the Torrens system (most of the time, ignoring occasional problems and frauds like this, which can and have happened under pre-Torrens systems too) as a threat to their established business models
Torrens essentially tries to optimise for the most common case, in which title is clear and no fraud is going on, and make that common case as simple and cheap as possible, even if by doing so the outcome in those rare cases of disputes and frauds may not always be completely optimal
I'm not a lawyer but the article implies that once the title is transferred, the new owner owns it! There might be liability with the Solicitor or the Land Registry, otherwise it would appear to be incredibly unfair!
The Land Registry is the final arbitor of who owns what in England and Wales. So yes, right now the Registry says this New Owner owns this property, there is no way to contest this in a court of law, the official Land Registry paperwork is de jure supreme, it has the same legal effect as if an Officer from the Registry was in Court to say yup, that's who owns this property says the Crown.
But, of course what we've got here is apparently Fraud. Presumably the likely legal outcome is that the actual sale price or, if higher, fair market value, must go to the previous legitimate owner. Unless the new owner is shown to have committed fraud.
The Solicitors are required to be insured. And of course the Government owns the Land Registry and so is quite capable of standing any of its potential liabilities, though it seems most likely the Solicitors screwed up here in accepting bogus "proof" of identity.
But, of course what we've got here is apparently Fraud. Presumably the likely legal outcome is that the actual sale price or, if higher, fair market value, must go to the previous legitimate owner. Unless the new owner is shown to have committed fraud.
The Solicitors are required to be insured. And of course the Government owns the Land Registry and so is quite capable of standing any of its potential liabilities, though it seems most likely the Solicitors screwed up here in accepting bogus "proof" of identity.
Strange that the Land Registry decides on an issue that is basically a matter of contract law: The buyer entered into a fraudulent contract.
Nonetheless, here's how the Land Registry handles matters of fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
Nonetheless, here's how the Land Registry handles matters of fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
Wow:
3.2 Suspected fraud or forgery
If someone suspects that a fraud has taken place or is
about to take place in relation to their property, they
should contact us immediately. In many cases, we will
be able, on application, to enter a standard form
restriction LL in the register, that requires a
certificate to be given by a conveyancer that they are
satisfied that the person who executed a document
lodged for registration as disponor is the same person
as the proprietor.
It will also be advisable to take legal or other
professional advice to try to minimise any loss.> The Land Registry is the final arbitor of who owns what in England and Wales.
I don't think that's true because for instance there are still properties unregistered (as mandatory registration was phased in until 1990). Certainly it seems possible to rectify the Register, not least in case of fraud [1]
Also, in English law, a valid sale of land must meet strict criteria, including being made by Deed. I am not a lawyer but I don't see how the Deed can valid in this case since it did not involve the legal owner at all!
Since solicitors must check identities (how could they have failed that?) and executing a Deed includes signing it in the presence of a witness I suspect a number of people have at the minimum massively screwed up, and the witness is likely an accomplice.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
I don't think that's true because for instance there are still properties unregistered (as mandatory registration was phased in until 1990). Certainly it seems possible to rectify the Register, not least in case of fraud [1]
Also, in English law, a valid sale of land must meet strict criteria, including being made by Deed. I am not a lawyer but I don't see how the Deed can valid in this case since it did not involve the legal owner at all!
Since solicitors must check identities (how could they have failed that?) and executing a Deed includes signing it in the presence of a witness I suspect a number of people have at the minimum massively screwed up, and the witness is likely an accomplice.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
> there are still properties unregistered
But, if the Registry says your property is registered, and that Jim owns it, the fact you say it isn't registered doesn't trump that. You would need to persuade a Court that the Registry is wrong, and then they'd need to tell the Registry to fix that. Until both those things happen, Jim owns it.
> I am not a lawyer but I don't see how the Deed can valid in this case since it did not involve the legal owner at all!
Prima Facie there's a Deed which says the legal owner sold it. Now we've got this chap, says he's the legal owner, says he never signed that paperwork. That's a contradiction, which is true? So that's the sort of problem we have Courts for.
My guess is, this chap is exactly who he says he is, there's a fraudster somewhere with £131000 of somebody else's money who won't show up to court.
But of course it's also possible this is a different fraud in progress. The chap who claims it was "stolen" has £131000 in an account in his friend's name, and now wants both the house and the money.
A judge gets to decide the truth of the matter. Often things are clear cut (e.g. the "driving license" proves to be a badly photocopied Photoshop image, a solicitor's clerk admits a "face to face" transaction actually took place on Zoom, the bank account is traced to a known crook who fled the country last week) but sometimes it's just very hard to decide, which is why we need smart, honest people to do that job and decide what's a fair outcome when it's unclear.
But, if the Registry says your property is registered, and that Jim owns it, the fact you say it isn't registered doesn't trump that. You would need to persuade a Court that the Registry is wrong, and then they'd need to tell the Registry to fix that. Until both those things happen, Jim owns it.
> I am not a lawyer but I don't see how the Deed can valid in this case since it did not involve the legal owner at all!
Prima Facie there's a Deed which says the legal owner sold it. Now we've got this chap, says he's the legal owner, says he never signed that paperwork. That's a contradiction, which is true? So that's the sort of problem we have Courts for.
My guess is, this chap is exactly who he says he is, there's a fraudster somewhere with £131000 of somebody else's money who won't show up to court.
But of course it's also possible this is a different fraud in progress. The chap who claims it was "stolen" has £131000 in an account in his friend's name, and now wants both the house and the money.
A judge gets to decide the truth of the matter. Often things are clear cut (e.g. the "driving license" proves to be a badly photocopied Photoshop image, a solicitor's clerk admits a "face to face" transaction actually took place on Zoom, the bank account is traced to a known crook who fled the country last week) but sometimes it's just very hard to decide, which is why we need smart, honest people to do that job and decide what's a fair outcome when it's unclear.
Doesn't the registry have some level of 'duty of care'?
Seems like the ID was pretty convincing, and the real owner (assuming the paper did their due diligence!) wasn’t there at the property - so everyone involved may have done a decent amount of checking, but it wasn’t enough because the fraudster knew how to play the system to get through the normal hurdles. It does happen.
Sounds like a court needs to dig in and figure out what is going on for sure.
Sounds like a court needs to dig in and figure out what is going on for sure.
It sounds like a sophisticated fraud. They probably target clergy or others who have well known public schedules. I assume there is an equivalent of title insurance in the UK that will pay out though.
The original owner is not going to be the one with title insurance though, that's usually bought by the buyer, not the seller, especially not a seller who isn't even aware that there is a transaction.
"Title insurance" isn't much of a thing in the UK. I think this is because the Land Registry gives you something similar as part of the service. Random quote from the web, from the Law Society Gazette, no less: "We already have a land registry which provides a comprehensive guarantee of title backed by the state."
As for whether fraudulent sales should be reverted or not, I've been pondering the question since I read the story yesterday and come to the conclusion that it would be good to apply some common sense:
* Someone buys a house without looking at it, before or after the sale, as an investment because the price seems really attractive. It is then discovered that the owner, who is living in the house, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously they should revert the transfer of ownership and compensate the purchaser.
* Someone buys a field, gets planning permission, builds a house on it, and moves in. Ten years later it is discovered that the real owner of the field, a company in Dubai, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously the transfer should not be reverted and the involuntary seller should be compensated.
As for whether fraudulent sales should be reverted or not, I've been pondering the question since I read the story yesterday and come to the conclusion that it would be good to apply some common sense:
* Someone buys a house without looking at it, before or after the sale, as an investment because the price seems really attractive. It is then discovered that the owner, who is living in the house, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously they should revert the transfer of ownership and compensate the purchaser.
* Someone buys a field, gets planning permission, builds a house on it, and moves in. Ten years later it is discovered that the real owner of the field, a company in Dubai, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously the transfer should not be reverted and the involuntary seller should be compensated.
Yes I expect that, if pressed, the courts would void the entire transaction and restore the property. The land registry may be the arbiter of who currently owns what, but the courts are the arbiter of what "happened" according to the law.
Otherwise it sets an absurd precedent. If it was not some man's house but a critical piece of infrastructure, the courts are not going to stand idly by and let some random person take possession of Sellafield, or for that matter, Harrods.
But the existing owner will probably settle for compensation instead of fight a lengthy court battle.
Otherwise it sets an absurd precedent. If it was not some man's house but a critical piece of infrastructure, the courts are not going to stand idly by and let some random person take possession of Sellafield, or for that matter, Harrods.
But the existing owner will probably settle for compensation instead of fight a lengthy court battle.
No, the courts wouldn't. A genuine innocent purchaser, properly registered at the Land Registry, has good title. (Note: not the fraudster - their downstream victim). The original victim's options for recompense are the scammer, the solicitors who did the conveyance for the fraudster (if negligent), or the Land Registry itself.
Nobody is going to end up as the accidental innocent purchaser of a stolen Sellafield, so that's not a concern. If the government really needs to reverse a transaction under these circumstances it could use a compulsory purchase order or a private act of Parliament.
Nobody is going to end up as the accidental innocent purchaser of a stolen Sellafield, so that's not a concern. If the government really needs to reverse a transaction under these circumstances it could use a compulsory purchase order or a private act of Parliament.
That’s a bad rule. The purchaser had the ability to thwart the fraud and the true owner did not. The better rule is that an individual cannot pass a better title than he has.
Yeah, maybe. There's a reason different jurisdictions go different ways on this. You could also argue that the true owner could have thwarted the fraud by more careful identity management, and the purchaser (in hiring a solicitor to ensure the bona fides of the seller) has done nothing wrong. And if the true owner was absentee, the fraud might not be uncovered for years, long after the purchaser has moved in and made reliance on ownership.
The bottom line is that there are two innocent victims and one or both are getting screwed. I prefer your rule too, overall, but there are circumstances where one or the other is going to be more unjust in a particular case.
The bottom line is that there are two innocent victims and one or both are getting screwed. I prefer your rule too, overall, but there are circumstances where one or the other is going to be more unjust in a particular case.
Well, if they made the bank take the hit (until they can get money back from the fraudster, and since most residential purchases are financed with a mortgage) I'd wager that suddenly ID/ownership checks would become bulletproof...
It seems to be true: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
The article says "The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year." which tends to imply they have some liability.
I wonder if that means they don't pay all that much compensation on a case by case basis, or if there isn't that much fraud occurring to begin with.
I suspect they'd rather you claimed against the fraudster or a solicitor, with the compensation fund as a backstop. If that is the case, it could be neither: just that most people get recompensed elsewhere.
That's right, I think. The property can be recovered from the fraudster, but not from an innocent subsequent purchaser. There is at least some form of compensation scheme by the Land Registry. And 'selling on behalf of someone who isn't the actual owner' certainly can found a liability claim on the solicitor.
That's wild. Is there any other case where someone gets to keep stolen property as long as they didn't know it was stolen? I have to say if I was in the victim's position, my reaction would probably land me in prison for longer than the fraudster.
I think it’s more ‘if someone goes through an expensive and extensive legal process to purchase at great expense, some real property, starts taking it as their own in good faith, then later what may be the prior legal owner, but who was not who did all the legal paperwork comes back to me and claims fraud - do I have to move?’
The issue is there are scenarios where the person writing the article may not actually be the legit owner - maybe they are delusional, or were squatting, or whatever. Maybe they are in league with the person who took off with the money, etc.
And the person who bought it is out real money on the meantime and is trying to make a home in good faith - it’s a pretty bad situation all around.
The issue is there are scenarios where the person writing the article may not actually be the legit owner - maybe they are delusional, or were squatting, or whatever. Maybe they are in league with the person who took off with the money, etc.
And the person who bought it is out real money on the meantime and is trying to make a home in good faith - it’s a pretty bad situation all around.
I think it's simpler than that, if the claims from the article are true (you still need courts to decide that, and I don't know of a court system where this is suitably fast).
Original proprietor had a furnished house, and the end result should be that they still have the house at no expense and at least trouble: they did not partake in the "sale", so they shouldn't suffer consequences from someone's incompetence or negligence. House is not just a "financial" instrument: it might have large emotional value too (memories, tradition & history, community and neighbourhood...).
Unfortunately, the honest buyer hired a solicitor to act as their agent, and while the solicitor might lose their professional license, buyer should get their damages back from the said solicitor or licensing body, because buyer is a victim of their incompetence/negligence, yet competence and care were guaranteed with the professional license.
Solicitor relies on the Land Registry to be the ultimate arbiter, so they should expect their damages to come from them for the duties they failed to perform.
Regardless of what the law is anywhere, that's how it should work IMHO. Unfortunately, the practicalities of how long it takes courts to (dis)prove a fraud make some of these hard to effectively achieve in a timely manner.
Theoretically, courts could make the process more expedient in cases of inhabiting-properties by "pausing" the transfer and putting the property into government custody, giving temporary use rights to the more likely resulting owner from the preliminary hearing (hey, fake document was involved, sorry, original owner gets to live there for the time being: everyone, please keep all receipts for any work done on the property and about your legal representation so you can be fairly compensated).
Original proprietor had a furnished house, and the end result should be that they still have the house at no expense and at least trouble: they did not partake in the "sale", so they shouldn't suffer consequences from someone's incompetence or negligence. House is not just a "financial" instrument: it might have large emotional value too (memories, tradition & history, community and neighbourhood...).
Unfortunately, the honest buyer hired a solicitor to act as their agent, and while the solicitor might lose their professional license, buyer should get their damages back from the said solicitor or licensing body, because buyer is a victim of their incompetence/negligence, yet competence and care were guaranteed with the professional license.
Solicitor relies on the Land Registry to be the ultimate arbiter, so they should expect their damages to come from them for the duties they failed to perform.
Regardless of what the law is anywhere, that's how it should work IMHO. Unfortunately, the practicalities of how long it takes courts to (dis)prove a fraud make some of these hard to effectively achieve in a timely manner.
Theoretically, courts could make the process more expedient in cases of inhabiting-properties by "pausing" the transfer and putting the property into government custody, giving temporary use rights to the more likely resulting owner from the preliminary hearing (hey, fake document was involved, sorry, original owner gets to live there for the time being: everyone, please keep all receipts for any work done on the property and about your legal representation so you can be fairly compensated).
There are many European countries where this is the case for movable property. For instance, there was the case of the Fiat factory worker who bought a painting in a railway lost property auction, which turned out to be a stolen Gauguin.
I second that. If I'd end up losing my house to something like this... Let's just say nobody would get it by the end of it.
If you're implying what I think you're implying it would probably end with you in prison.
Losing the singular most expensive item you own, that typically contains the rest of your property, with no warning… that tends to end with you on the street which some may feel worse than prison.
I’m not condoning that choice but recognize the consequences are particularly low when you’re already at the bottom.
I’m not condoning that choice but recognize the consequences are particularly low when you’re already at the bottom.
mate.. it's a matter of perspective. for people that have nothing left... prison doesn't sound that bad.
If I have to choose between ending up on the streets again or prison... I'm pretty sure I'd chose prison this time around. I was young and lucky the first time. Now...
Part of his point is that's not really much of a deterrent if you've already lost everything.
This and un-filed liens are typically why you should always pay for owners policies on title. Otherwise if something comes up, you're royally fucked.
Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess you own it now, on your way".
I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
I believe the 'quirk' here is that the fraud was able to get property ownership updated with the Land Registry, so the new owner is the official owner of record.
Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land if the government can just decide it belongs to someone else.
> cant truly own land if the government can just
This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
In civilized countries, it requires a specific decree or order by some government body, possibly after appeals.
Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
> it requires a specific decree or order by some government body
That person is a random clerk
> possibly after appeals
I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction).
I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
That person is a random clerk
> possibly after appeals
I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction).
I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
Only thing I can think of is eminent domain. Here it using it requires either a specific decree by the national government (as in, the prime minister), zoning plan approved by the elected municipal government, or in some limited cases, apparently involving electric power lines, an agency. The owner is to be informed of the proceedings before they take effect.
The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
Pretty much true everywhere.
It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
Possession is a physical/real property of the universe.
Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
Being allowed to possess something (instead of being drug off kicking and screaming by the cops) is also a societal/legal construct.
It is a societal/legal construct brough up from the historical experience (eg. if a caveman built himself a hammer, they possessed it as long as they took good care of it).
We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession.
But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession.
But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
>Possession is a physical/real property of the universe
This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules").
You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules").
You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
Interesting point,
I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
> Sounds to me like in the UK you cant truly own land
Can you name a country that behaves differently?
Can you name a country that behaves differently?
Yeah, you don't truly own land, you pay property taxes, etc.
It's more like you lease the land :)
It's more like you lease the land :)
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the gov’t likes to
claim possession of all real property in it’s borders in some way or another
So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...
Interesting side note. That's true for property, but not for cash.
Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.
Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.
I'm aware of this, but I do wonder what happens if, rather than using the stolen cash to purchase goods, the thief gave away the money? Either to friends, a random homeless person on the street, or to registered charities. Would that be still considered unreclaimable?
idk. Maybe buy a random thing from them for an absurd amount?
Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.
Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.
No. If you bought it, you own it. The thief now owes the original owner damages. This is true in the United States and I assume England since it's old common law stuff.
It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.
It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.
No, that’s not correct in the US. If you buy stolen property unknowingly, it can be taken away from you.
Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
Yup, that is also why there are laws against Receiving Stolen Property [1] in the US. This is defined as:
>>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion.
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...
>>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion.
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...
Knowingly receiving stolen property is a different thing.
The quirk is that in the UK you’re not a free man but only a subject and in the end the crown owns everything and now fuck off, filthy peasant, before the king sends his men.
This is true in practice pretty much everywhere governments exist though, it's not really a monarchy versus republic thing. The stick is no less painful if it's called "society's stick" rather than "the King's stick" if the government of the day decide to beat you with it.
Is this really different than any other country? Any government (at least in uncontested territories) can come in and tell you to fuck off, and there's really very little you can do about it.
Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed state. The state must maintain the legitimacy of that use to maintain consent of the people, that or it slides into far less prosperous configurations.
Being in a far less prosperous (in a meta sense) configuration is surprisingly not as big a deterrent as one might expect, especially if you are making them angry or the official involved would
get far more prosperous (in a direct, concrete way) along the way.
Kings and queens have been overthrown and replaced too, so I do not see any difference there either.
In France it's the notary's job ( who are the only ones who can validate a sale) to ensure that the seller is who they say they are, and that they do actually own the land/house/apartment. Wonder how that works across the Channel and whose responsibility it was.
It is the same with a Solicitor but if they followed the correct process and the problem was actually with, say, the DVLA who issued a driving licence in the wrong name, I'm not sure who is liable for the error.
Why would you use a driver's license when everyone can have a digital ID card?
In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.
In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.
In the UK there is no official single form of ID. The way these things work is that you need a few letters confirming your address, then that's taken as gospel. A few years ago I was a "victim" of identify theft which happened as follows:
Somebody ordered satellite TV to be installed at my house. A few days later they went to a phone shop and walked out with an iPhone in my name, using (I assume) the invoice from the TV service as proof of identity. They then did the same with a few other phone companies. The only way I found out about these was when they sent me bills demanding payment a month or so later :-)
They also opened a bank account in my name, which I found out via a credit search, but the bank would not confirm or deny it as I was not the person who opened it.
This last bit is more interesting as I believe it had a different address, but was in my name. Technically that is not fraud, as in the UK names are freely changeable without needing any official registration. I could go into a bank tomorrow and ask to open an account, saying my name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" (the Prime Minister's full name) and that would be legal. The bank would probably send me away as I don't have any supporting evidence to prove that's my name, but there's ways around that.
You can easily see how you could use this to have enough evidence to back up the claim that you are the owner of the property - especially if the property was vacant and you broke in so you could get the post (I assume the buyer was shown around before they bought it?).
Somebody ordered satellite TV to be installed at my house. A few days later they went to a phone shop and walked out with an iPhone in my name, using (I assume) the invoice from the TV service as proof of identity. They then did the same with a few other phone companies. The only way I found out about these was when they sent me bills demanding payment a month or so later :-)
They also opened a bank account in my name, which I found out via a credit search, but the bank would not confirm or deny it as I was not the person who opened it.
This last bit is more interesting as I believe it had a different address, but was in my name. Technically that is not fraud, as in the UK names are freely changeable without needing any official registration. I could go into a bank tomorrow and ask to open an account, saying my name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" (the Prime Minister's full name) and that would be legal. The bank would probably send me away as I don't have any supporting evidence to prove that's my name, but there's ways around that.
You can easily see how you could use this to have enough evidence to back up the claim that you are the owner of the property - especially if the property was vacant and you broke in so you could get the post (I assume the buyer was shown around before they bought it?).
Plenty of folks haven’t updated, or don’t like dealing with it, or ‘lost it’ or whatever.
Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.
Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.
In Latvia, nowdays you cant visit restaurant without a covid certificate verified by ID card or passport. Or to receive parcel at post office. Or when dealing with bank or gov. Etc.
However I can do the following: use digital identification, that uses multiple factors along with an app, that requires using digital certificate from id card to setup. Afterwards its just my device and that app PIN that is required to impersonate me (well and semi-public national personal identification number)… this applies to almost all gov services with few exceptions like operations with property…
Drivers license has been invalidated years ago as an identification mechanism. Let alone for dealing with property - notary is mandatory along with proper identification.
However I can do the following: use digital identification, that uses multiple factors along with an app, that requires using digital certificate from id card to setup. Afterwards its just my device and that app PIN that is required to impersonate me (well and semi-public national personal identification number)… this applies to almost all gov services with few exceptions like operations with property…
Drivers license has been invalidated years ago as an identification mechanism. Let alone for dealing with property - notary is mandatory along with proper identification.
In Belgium, it's obligatory to carry your ID card everywhere when you are older than 15. So not having it is not allowed.
I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.
I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.
Doesn't the UK _not_ have ID cards?
We are looking at an example of just how bad a mismanaged central database can be. I don't want an ID card that gives someone the ability to delete my entire official existence; either accidentally - or deliberately.
In normal countries with central ID systems, nobody can delete your official existence. Worst case scenario is you're wrongly declared dead, but I don't see how "chaos and anarchy and just use random pieces of paper to prove who you are" avoids this problem.
Your identity is on the chip and cryptographically signed on the card. Even if they delete your records, you can still prove you are who you say you are because it’s on the card. If they lost the records, that’s not your problem.
The Notary in France doesn’t necessarily fully do this job. They have an obligation of means, ie check the last 30 years of ownership and permits, but there are many cracks in that system:
- Double ownership for 30 years followed by a proof of ownership from the real, hidden one;
- Or simply it is the notary’s understanding that there is no record past 12 years for example, and yet there is. If they have checked “the normal books”, their duty is fulfilled.
- Double ownership for 30 years followed by a proof of ownership from the real, hidden one;
- Or simply it is the notary’s understanding that there is no record past 12 years for example, and yet there is. If they have checked “the normal books”, their duty is fulfilled.
Is there stories of people getting their property stolen this way?
My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.
My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.
I remember to have seen a story in France of someone that had bought a house, but someone else did break in and rented it to a family. The people in the house had a rental contract, so they had the immediate right to stay, even it the contract was invalid. Evicting them was a nightmare.
Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...
Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...
But a notary isn't involved in renting, so there was noone to check.
Absolutely. This is for secondary houses mostly though, it's slightly easier to expel those from your main accomodation.
But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.
But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.
Don’t we have actual, physical, titles, tied to the property?
Could someone actually sell a house without those?
Could someone actually sell a house without those?
Unless the house/land is not yet registered, I believe that the land registry is supposed to be the ultimate authority and deeds are just piece of papers. Ai think you can always argue ownership in a curt of law of course.
See this[1] thread on r/legaladviceUK. User pflurklurk is normally very knowledgeable of the UK legal system and probably a solicitor himself (although he claims to be just a random shitposter).
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_...
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_...
In the US, the buyer is often required to purchase title insurance which would likely cover fraudulent transfer.[0]
[0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp
[0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp
The us doesn't have centralized land registries.
While the counties record titles as a matter of convenience, the true title is determined by the courts.
Other countries have centralized registries so that if the country's database says X piece of land is owned by Y, that's final. In the us it can be litigated and title insurance comes into play for the buyer who purchased it fraudulently.
While the counties record titles as a matter of convenience, the true title is determined by the courts.
Other countries have centralized registries so that if the country's database says X piece of land is owned by Y, that's final. In the us it can be litigated and title insurance comes into play for the buyer who purchased it fraudulently.
> The us doesn't have centralized land registries.
Like any statement about the US, "it's complicated".
For example, in Massachusetts there are two types of real estate: recorded and registered. See https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-... for a quick rundown.
In some cases, the property that goes with a single house will actually be made up of two bits of land, one of which is recorded and one of which is registered. In other cases it's all recorded or all registered.
Now this is not a nationwide centralized registry, it is a state-wide registry within Massachusetts, and my understanding is that the sort of litigation you could get for recorded land does not happen for registered land, because transfer of registered land is already a Land Court decision.
Key quote from the above link's description of registered land:
Like any statement about the US, "it's complicated".
For example, in Massachusetts there are two types of real estate: recorded and registered. See https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-... for a quick rundown.
In some cases, the property that goes with a single house will actually be made up of two bits of land, one of which is recorded and one of which is registered. In other cases it's all recorded or all registered.
Now this is not a nationwide centralized registry, it is a state-wide registry within Massachusetts, and my understanding is that the sort of litigation you could get for recorded land does not happen for registered land, because transfer of registered land is already a Land Court decision.
Key quote from the above link's description of registered land:
As the current state of title is sequentially updated
by the registration of future transactions, it embodies
a certificate of title that not only evidences title,
but in fact guarantees title and is subject only to the
exceptions provided by statute and matters of federal law.You are confusing who actually owned it, or who morally owned it, with who legally owned it.
The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it.
They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.
The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it.
They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.
> AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it
Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it.
Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.
Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it.
Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.
If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?
> If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?
The hubris of an internet commenter?
Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1].
This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.)
[1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...
The hubris of an internet commenter?
Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1].
This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.)
[1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...
This is Hacker News. Confidently espousing on subjects we know little about is what we do.
Pretty sure it's not specific to HN. Any social media has this behavior.
> temporarily
I don't understand by what logic this sale is temporary? What mechanism can undo the sale?
I don't understand by what logic this sale is temporary? What mechanism can undo the sale?
Also, how does the seller disappear with that much money without being able to be IDed? That seems like a severe failure of the state.
It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.
It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.
I'm guessing he had a fraudulent bank account opened in the owners name with the address as the house and then stole the bank mail as the bank mail would have apparently worked as verification as the original person for the sale according to this [0]. This story is scant though and needs more details.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29074464
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29074464
Banks offer very little protection for scams like this. Basically "the money seems to be gone".
I mean, it's probably hard for bankers to turn in their distant cousins.
It was 150k, the word house in the title should be in quotation marks not the word stolen
Paid in bitcoin?
Bitcoin is pretty easy to trace.
Could more easily disappear if paid in cash.
Could more easily disappear if paid in cash.
Seems to work well enough for ransomware...
Actually, no it doesn't.
For example, the FBI was able to partially recover the Colonial Pipeline ransom, although that seems to be in part because the perpetrators were stupid by trying to sell it on a US exchange, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_a...
Criminals don't use bitcoin anymore.
They use cash and monero.
For example, the FBI was able to partially recover the Colonial Pipeline ransom, although that seems to be in part because the perpetrators were stupid by trying to sell it on a US exchange, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_a...
Criminals don't use bitcoin anymore.
They use cash and monero.
Yeah, A gets scammed by B and C pays the price.
If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C.
Absolutely insane!
If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C.
Absolutely insane!
Since it was not sold by the owner it is difficult to argue for the legality of the transaction. Whoever claims bought something has nothing in fact, the person they've been in business with had nothing to sell. Selling nothing is nothing. The records are false!
If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)
If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)
This sounds entirely like how you want things to work, or how you feel they "should" work in a just, fair world. It doesn't sound like you have any legal education or training to base this on.
But I greatly prefer your version of events to what happened in the article so please prove me wrong!
But I greatly prefer your version of events to what happened in the article so please prove me wrong!
Someone sold something that this person did not have. Sold nothing. Then what the buyer has? Nothing! There was an error in registering the transactions, it was a false transaction.
How my will has anything to do about this or affecting if selling nothing becomes something or not?
Where exactly a legal education needed for being able to recognise that the real owner did not sell or give away his property? If I am not a solicitor I cannot possibly comprehend what is a theft, fraud, or recognise bodily harm or crimes in general that are condemned by the society? I do not buy into that. The recognition of these kind of crimes are older than institutions dealing with those. If the stealing of the property is not prosecuted then the system is wrong, needs a fix.
How my will has anything to do about this or affecting if selling nothing becomes something or not?
Where exactly a legal education needed for being able to recognise that the real owner did not sell or give away his property? If I am not a solicitor I cannot possibly comprehend what is a theft, fraud, or recognise bodily harm or crimes in general that are condemned by the society? I do not buy into that. The recognition of these kind of crimes are older than institutions dealing with those. If the stealing of the property is not prosecuted then the system is wrong, needs a fix.
In the US, there is title insurance. If the seller didn't have the legal right to sell the house, the house reverts to the legal owner, and the buyer is paid back by the insurance. It's not possible to get a mortgage without title insurance, and a cash buyer would be nuts to not demand it from the seller. In some states (example, California) it can get more complicated, though, because the right to sell a house isn't the same thing as the right to live in it. They buyer may own the house, but not have the right to force the current occupants to leave. That's why it's important to state in the contract that the house must be completely empty before the seller gets paid, and every month that it is not completely empty, a few thousand dollars is subtracted from the purchase price.
This seems backwards. To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. People get prosecuted for e.g. doing an owner-move-in eviction and then selling to a developer. The old owner doesn't have a legal basis to get rid of the tenant, but the new owner does.
From the perspective of the buyer, I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing. If the owner cannot guarantee that, eg. they cannot legally evict a tenant, that’s fine, I simply wont buy the property, it is the owner’s problem, not mine.
> I don’t care how exactly the owner removes the tenant. It is immaterial to me. What I care about is that no tenant occupies the property I am purchasing.
Landlords can't legally evict a leased tenant who hasn't violated their lease.
That there are tenants in the home would be part of the MLS listing, along with bed/bath. If you've gotten as far as inquiring about the property, you would know you're buying tenants (at least until their lease is up or they accept your offer to break it).
Landlords can't legally evict a leased tenant who hasn't violated their lease.
That there are tenants in the home would be part of the MLS listing, along with bed/bath. If you've gotten as far as inquiring about the property, you would know you're buying tenants (at least until their lease is up or they accept your offer to break it).
A lease has a a duration; absent rent control, the landlord can let it expire. It’s specifically under a rent control regime that the landlord is obliged to offer indefinite renewals.
All correct.
> To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself.
Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of.
For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.
Where do you get this from? It's not like any US law I've ever heard of.
For the evictions I've worked on, the homeowner simply wanted the tenants out (non-payment, etc) so they could re-rent or sell the property. They didn't ever have to live there.
That's very city/state dependent. SF has a lot of tenant protections, which is probably what the parent was referring to. In a lot of SF apartments, the landlord can only evict a tenant under specific conditions, one of which is owner moving in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act).
Rent controlled tenancies are a whole different animal. A conversation about them probably ought to begin by clarifying it's a RC'd property.
I expect that SF's non-rent controlled property is evictable like any other.
I expect that SF's non-rent controlled property is evictable like any other.
That doesn't seem to say the landlord can only evict if they themselves are going to personally reside there.
The listed causes for eviction all seem fairly typical - like non-payment.
The listed causes for eviction all seem fairly typical - like non-payment.
That requires the tenant to have done something wrong. The landlord can’t just decide on his own initiative to empty the unit.
Correct.
In some states you can buy a house without title insurance. I assume this is so that people who enjoy Russian roulette and jumping out of planes without parachutes can enjoy the same adrenaline rush when buying a home.
It's common to buy real estate from someone you already trust, such as a family member. You know the title was good when they bought it, so you can bet the title insurance fee (several thousand dollars) against that trust nothing fishy happened since then.
But what if something fishy happened before they sold it to you, but it isn't discovered until after? Does their title insurance still cover it? For instance, if their original purchase turns out to not have been legitimate to begin with for some reason.
Yes, title insurance is a single premium but gives the owner forever coverage. This is essentially the purpose, to give the buyer confidence that they are protected for anything that may have happened that they wouldn't know about, because the seller may not even know about it and potentially it happened 100s of years ago.
Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when you bought it, then you do a refinance, you're often required to buy the insurance again because that original policy ends.
All said, the loss ratio of title insurance companies is extremely low compared to other types of insurances. But in some places it's cost is fairly high (eg Texas) and it's mostly to do with strong political interests / lobbying
Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when you bought it, then you do a refinance, you're often required to buy the insurance again because that original policy ends.
All said, the loss ratio of title insurance companies is extremely low compared to other types of insurances. But in some places it's cost is fairly high (eg Texas) and it's mostly to do with strong political interests / lobbying
But what if I'm not the owner anymore? Specifically, I buy a house and purchase title insurance on it. Later, I sell the house to you. You trust me completely, so figure you don't need to buy title insurance. Later, unexpected to all of us, it turns out that my original purchase was somehow flawed, and someone else actually owns the house. You now ask me to now invoke my title insurance, and (since I'm such a nice guy) reimburse you. So I call up my title insurance company, and explain that while I no longer even think I own the house, something was amiss in my original purchase, and I want them to reimburse me. The title insurance company agrees that there was a problem at the time of my purchase. Will they then say "Yes, you're right, the check is in the mail" or "No, be that as it may, once you 'sold' the house we're off the hook; tell the guy who 'bought' it from you to contact their title insurance company"?
> You now ask me to now invoke my title insurance
That's not how it works (at least where I live, US state of Texas). I, having bought from you, would be responsible to have my own title insurance policy. Your policy would have essentially ended when you sold the home. It protects you during your ownership. ANd my policy would protect me during my ownership. Once sold, and title transfers (whether legit or not), you as the seller have no liability (mostly, I'm sure if you committed fraud or something you could be on the hook along with other criminal issues, but my insurance is still going to pay me if I experience a loss of my purchase). So...
> "No, be that as it may, once you 'sold' the house we're off the hook; tell the guy who 'bought' it from you to contact their title insurance company"
Yes, that's exactly what they would say. It's also why it's customary for the seller to purchase the title policy for the buyer during the transaction. Although, it's a hot market the seller could have the power to deny and the buyer would have to buy their own policy.
While you owned the property at some point in time, you never experienced a loss from the title issue because you sold before the title issue was known. Your liability also ended the moment you sold the property. It's always the CURRENT owner that needs protection.
That's not how it works (at least where I live, US state of Texas). I, having bought from you, would be responsible to have my own title insurance policy. Your policy would have essentially ended when you sold the home. It protects you during your ownership. ANd my policy would protect me during my ownership. Once sold, and title transfers (whether legit or not), you as the seller have no liability (mostly, I'm sure if you committed fraud or something you could be on the hook along with other criminal issues, but my insurance is still going to pay me if I experience a loss of my purchase). So...
> "No, be that as it may, once you 'sold' the house we're off the hook; tell the guy who 'bought' it from you to contact their title insurance company"
Yes, that's exactly what they would say. It's also why it's customary for the seller to purchase the title policy for the buyer during the transaction. Although, it's a hot market the seller could have the power to deny and the buyer would have to buy their own policy.
While you owned the property at some point in time, you never experienced a loss from the title issue because you sold before the title issue was known. Your liability also ended the moment you sold the property. It's always the CURRENT owner that needs protection.
It's not rare for crap to come out after a sale, often w/o knowledge of the seller. Liens are the most common (HOA, contractor, tax).
I don't think it's very common. But even if it is, common does not mean expensive.
> Property/casualty lines of business typically experience pure loss ratios well above 10%, approaching 70% or higher at times. Title insurers historically have loss ratios in the 5% to 10% range.
https://www.naic.org/documents/topics_title_insurance_brief....
Also, 2017 in Texas 6% loss ratio. Other states are better in that they don't charge as much for the policy. However, loss ratios are still very low.
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
> Property/casualty lines of business typically experience pure loss ratios well above 10%, approaching 70% or higher at times. Title insurers historically have loss ratios in the 5% to 10% range.
https://www.naic.org/documents/topics_title_insurance_brief....
Also, 2017 in Texas 6% loss ratio. Other states are better in that they don't charge as much for the policy. However, loss ratios are still very low.
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
>> Where this gets kind of crazy is if you own a property and have title insurance on it from when you bought it, then you do a refinance, you're often required to buy the insurance again because that original policy ends.
That's when you ask for the re-issue rate.
http://www.insuranceqna.com/title-and-mortgage-insurance/wha...
That's when you ask for the re-issue rate.
http://www.insuranceqna.com/title-and-mortgage-insurance/wha...
Still it's "40-60% cheaper" which means it's 60-40% more expensive than it should be. It's exactly zero additional risk and the point of insurance is to manage risk.
IIRC, casually passing down property to heirs is a common scenarios in which titles do become disputed.
Let's say your mom lives in a house, and she sells it to you without a title. No big deal, because it was family property she got from her parents and she's lived there her entire life. Right?
Maybe not, when your grandparents children and grandchildren show up and claim their fraction of ownership of the grandparents' estate.
i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_property
Let's say your mom lives in a house, and she sells it to you without a title. No big deal, because it was family property she got from her parents and she's lived there her entire life. Right?
Maybe not, when your grandparents children and grandchildren show up and claim their fraction of ownership of the grandparents' estate.
i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_property
[deleted]
Perhaps, but in some places (aka Texas) title insurance is unnecessarily and outrageously expensive:
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-ti...
Some states protect their titles better than others. In Iowa (possibly other states) land transfers are done by the state who verifies the seller really has right to sell the property, so title insurance isn't something you need to buy. (title insurance does cover other things as well, so banks make your buy it for those things, but once the sale is closed it is your property)
Eh - depends on why you're buying the house.
There are a lot of rental properties for sale with "tenants in place" in my area.
If you want to live in it, then yes - Ensure seller is responsible for removal.
If you want to continue renting the property then a lot of times it's easier for both parties to complete the sale and then let the current rental contract conclude before doing reno/construction.
There are a lot of rental properties for sale with "tenants in place" in my area.
If you want to live in it, then yes - Ensure seller is responsible for removal.
If you want to continue renting the property then a lot of times it's easier for both parties to complete the sale and then let the current rental contract conclude before doing reno/construction.
If there's a lease in place, that lease continues unabated.
If the new owner wants the tenants out, the tenants have to agree to break the lease. Otherwise the tenants can continue to live there until their lease runs out.
It doesn't matter whether these are the best options for the owner(s). They're the only options.
If the new owner wants the tenants out, the tenants have to agree to break the lease. Otherwise the tenants can continue to live there until their lease runs out.
It doesn't matter whether these are the best options for the owner(s). They're the only options.
Yes - I understand how leasing works (although you can absolutely build a termination clause in for either/all sides).
That's why I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee), or offer to buy the tenants out, or pay you some penalty fee for every day the house remains occupied after sale.
Alternatively - if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
That's why I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee), or offer to buy the tenants out, or pay you some penalty fee for every day the house remains occupied after sale.
Alternatively - if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
> I say make it the current owners responsibility if you don't want tenants there:
I can't say there has never been a home seller that would agree to that. I can say I never ran into it at our office, nor have I heard of it. Commercial real estate does all kinds of build-to-suit but residential property is generally sold as-is, with any improvements done before listing.
In this market tho, sellers don't listen to buyer conditions. They just go to the next all-cash buyer who's probably offering over list price.
> if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee)
Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.
> if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
This is generally how it goes. That and the keys for cash thing you alluded to earlier. However tenants are less likely to take the latter because moving costs are typically equal to 2mos-6mos rent - and because renters have nowhere to go. Rent cost skyrocketed (15-120% here) and what few rentals there are have 40-400 applicants each.
notes: I was offered a cash-for-keys recently when our previous rental was sold. Unsurprisingly, that seller stiffed us so it's small claims.
My ex and her bf have been squatting in a foreclosure for the past few years. They generally kept it up. The buyer is letting them stay for another month until the remodel begins.
I can't say there has never been a home seller that would agree to that. I can say I never ran into it at our office, nor have I heard of it. Commercial real estate does all kinds of build-to-suit but residential property is generally sold as-is, with any improvements done before listing.
In this market tho, sellers don't listen to buyer conditions. They just go to the next all-cash buyer who's probably offering over list price.
> if you don't want tenants there: They must either invoke their termination clause (and usually pay a fee)
Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.
> if you plan on gutting the place anyways, and their lease is due to expire in less than 6 months: Leave them in place and keep the property bringing in some income while you schedule contractors and line up work.
This is generally how it goes. That and the keys for cash thing you alluded to earlier. However tenants are less likely to take the latter because moving costs are typically equal to 2mos-6mos rent - and because renters have nowhere to go. Rent cost skyrocketed (15-120% here) and what few rentals there are have 40-400 applicants each.
notes: I was offered a cash-for-keys recently when our previous rental was sold. Unsurprisingly, that seller stiffed us so it's small claims.
My ex and her bf have been squatting in a foreclosure for the past few years. They generally kept it up. The buyer is letting them stay for another month until the remodel begins.
> Again here, I've never heard of a residential lease with a fee-based termination clause, nor prepared one or had one as a tenant. One possibility is that it's not legal in areas I've lived but I don't know. I'm visiting the attorney (now ret) this week so I'll ask.
I've literally never had a residential lease that hasn't included a termination clause. Generally speaking, both parties agree up front that the other party may request termination in exchange for compensation (in my experience, 3 months rent is typical, although I've seen fixed payments as well).
Commercial is a different beast, since generally subletting is approved, and space customization is expected (the business will adjust the space as needed for commercial use, like changing walls, installing shelves/chairs/tables, adding or removing kitchen space, etc.)
I've literally never had a residential lease that hasn't included a termination clause. Generally speaking, both parties agree up front that the other party may request termination in exchange for compensation (in my experience, 3 months rent is typical, although I've seen fixed payments as well).
Commercial is a different beast, since generally subletting is approved, and space customization is expected (the business will adjust the space as needed for commercial use, like changing walls, installing shelves/chairs/tables, adding or removing kitchen space, etc.)
I live in the US and had my debit card (number only, one of the bigger data leaks) stolen years ago and ever since then my bank will check every purchase with me over $300. It was really frustrating for years until someone else took my card (from another data leak) and was easily stopped and new card issued. I cannot imagine someone selling my home without involving me, or at the very least without several other of my personal contact methods also compromised at the same time.
The Solicitor has no existing relationship with the real owner of the house. A bloke turns up and says they want to sell their house and has the correct Land Registry details and some ID, the solicitor does other checks and makes it all happen.
The illegal seller must have known that the owner was away for some time though because even if everything is ready, it usually takes at least 2 months to go through.
The illegal seller must have known that the owner was away for some time though because even if everything is ready, it usually takes at least 2 months to go through.
Vast majority of house sales involve at least one of
* an estate agent
* a mortgage company (on the purchase or the sale)
* involve a sale at a market rate
* involve parties that know each other personally (family etc).
To not have any of those surely should raise a warning flag that "this requires a little more investigation" than a forged driving license. This wasn't an abandoned house being sold after being empty for several years.
* an estate agent
* a mortgage company (on the purchase or the sale)
* involve a sale at a market rate
* involve parties that know each other personally (family etc).
To not have any of those surely should raise a warning flag that "this requires a little more investigation" than a forged driving license. This wasn't an abandoned house being sold after being empty for several years.
But surely the land registry has an existing relationship with the real owner of the land? Isn't that the entire point of the land registry, to be able to contact and deal with the person who owns a particular piece of land?
I purchased my property in 1989. Any contact detail for me in the land registry in NSW Australia would be the house where I lived and the phone number there. Neither would be valid and lead them to me specifically. I certainly have never had further contact with them or they with me. So if someone presents themselves as me with a government issued driver's licence at the property address they would be none the wiser. (You'd normally also need to present say a utility bill and a credit card to have enough points to prove identity)
The land registry could theoretically ask the tax office for current valid contact details, because the tax office is likely to be in closer contact with you...
Any UK reader can avoid this by signing up to:
https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
It’s the Land Registry itself, it’s free, and: “Once you have signed up to the service, you will receive email alerts when certain activity occurs on your monitored properties, allowing you to take action if necessary.”
https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
It’s the Land Registry itself, it’s free, and: “Once you have signed up to the service, you will receive email alerts when certain activity occurs on your monitored properties, allowing you to take action if necessary.”
Only covers England and Wales -- not Scotland and Northern Ireland. So not actually UK wide.
This is the same bs we have to deal with in the US with financial credit and social security numbers. Because there’s no actual security, the individual must monitor their own credit for abuses, or prevent anyone from accessing it via a freeze.
Just signed up to this. Only alpha numeric passwords allowed. Always worries me.
I have a friend who was almost the buyer of a house in the UK in a very similar situation. Fundamentally, it relied on the seller buying counterfeit identity documents (passport and driving licence) off the internet. That way, in theory, the identity checks were all conducted.
There was the suggestion that the seller's solicitor was in on it, but no firm evidence. The seller has been arrested at least.
There was the suggestion that the seller's solicitor was in on it, but no firm evidence. The seller has been arrested at least.
It's a shame that the systems that are really important, like passports, id cards, property registers etc. are all still so far behind in basic security. They could easily require certain info up-front on the title like mobile, photo etc. and then if you need to update it, you have to do it via a solicitor or equivalent, it's not like most people change their photo or mobile number every week.
But the phone number system isn't perfectly secure. A fraudster could transfer your account or even have physical access to the phone line. And it still relies on a solicitor to authenticate changes which could then be fraudulent.
The advantage of the current system system is that it is fairly explicit and public. It can be checked without any secret codes or processes using the information on the title itself.
The advantage of the current system system is that it is fairly explicit and public. It can be checked without any secret codes or processes using the information on the title itself.
How did they find the house? Was it advertised through an estate agent?
Is it roughly the same to "prove" your identity in the US as it is in the UK? In the US, at least for most credit checks, you just need your SSN, some public record data about where you've lived, and personal data (name, DOB, etc).
It's largely because there is no "National ID" system in the US (due to political reasons). That makes it hard for companies to track people, and the SSN is the only number that people consistently have.
Are there any examples of countries where their government is getting this right and eliminating stupid fraud?
It's largely because there is no "National ID" system in the US (due to political reasons). That makes it hard for companies to track people, and the SSN is the only number that people consistently have.
Are there any examples of countries where their government is getting this right and eliminating stupid fraud?
Currently buying a house in the UK and it involved rather a lot of ID verification. I had to provide, to the bank, estate agent, mortgage broker and lawyers, the following: passport, driving license, utility bills, payslips, source of funds, bank statements, app-based liveness verification and more.
However, in the event of an off-market cash transaction, a lot fewer parties are involved - potentially just a conveyancer/solicitor. I'm guessing it's them who hugely dropped the ball in identity verification.
However, in the event of an off-market cash transaction, a lot fewer parties are involved - potentially just a conveyancer/solicitor. I'm guessing it's them who hugely dropped the ball in identity verification.
Same here. We completed over the summer and even had to provide our marriage certificate to the bank (no idea why, are single people not allowed mortgages?). Sounds very much like the conveyancers (lawyers) screwed up massively. There still some bits of this story I don't understand. Like, how did the fraudster get access to the house in the first place? Did he break in then fix the damage and replace the locks so he had a set of keys to give to the "buyer"?
The breaking in is not really that hard. It could be a simple as calling a locksmith, telling them you were out of town on business and lost your keys, and asking them to re-key or replace the locks.
If you've got the ID to sell the house, you certainly have enough ID to convince anyone else.
If you've got the ID to sell the house, you certainly have enough ID to convince anyone else.
> We completed over the summer and even had to provide our marriage certificate to the bank (no idea why, are single people not allowed mortgages?).
Single people are allowed mortgages. Certain property ownership forms are only available to married couples, and anything recorded in that form incorrectly will revert to a different form with different consequences if the owners were not qualified; there are also different provisions that might affect other interests in the property that apply based on the presence of absence of a marital relationship among the owners.
So, a lienholder is going to want to be as certain as possible about the actual relation of the parties.
Single people are allowed mortgages. Certain property ownership forms are only available to married couples, and anything recorded in that form incorrectly will revert to a different form with different consequences if the owners were not qualified; there are also different provisions that might affect other interests in the property that apply based on the presence of absence of a marital relationship among the owners.
So, a lienholder is going to want to be as certain as possible about the actual relation of the parties.
>no idea why, are single people not allowed mortgages?
The bank needs to know the status of the relationship because in the terrible event of it breaking up, your partner would have equity in the asset.
The bank needs to know the status of the relationship because in the terrible event of it breaking up, your partner would have equity in the asset.
The mortgage lists the equity, joint implies 50-50 unless you were to specify otherwise.
There is zero difference if you are married, best friends, siblings, co habitating, two people who had never met before etc. In all likelyhood a divorce would change the equity, not keep it 50-50.
There is zero difference if you are married, best friends, siblings, co habitating, two people who had never met before etc. In all likelyhood a divorce would change the equity, not keep it 50-50.
"app-based liveness verification"
Ok, now you have me curious. Whazzat?
Ok, now you have me curious. Whazzat?
Imagine that you run a business where it is important to properly check the ID of your customer. You need to know two things: the photographic ID matches the person, and there is a real living person present there, not just some scammer who stole the ID.
In real life this is a simple task. You look at the photo on the ID, then you look at the person and check that they match. You also would immediately notice if something is weird, like they are wearing a lifelike mask, or they are a plastic doll.
Why does this not work for businesses then? There can be two reason: either they want to check the customers ID remotely through the internet, or the customer is present in their office but the business does not trust their own employees to check them.
Why would a business not trust their own employees? Because the company employees are in the best position to perpetuate some fraud on the business. Very often clerks receive some direct compensation or bonus based on how many new customers they subscribe for example, and if not properly checked this can incentivise the employees invent fake customers for you for example.
So you want to check the ID of a person in some way you can conduct remotely without trusting anyone physically present. Simple! You ask for an image of the ID and a photo of the customer, then a remote employee or machine learning model can decide if they match up.
But there is a problem with that! Anyone who is sophisticated enough to scam you with a fake ID will also be able to give you a matching photo. Ugh oh.
How do you solve this? You ask for the ID as previously, but instead of asking for a photo you ask for a video of the customer. Maybe you even flash the phone’s screen while recording the video with random colours and ask the customer to read up randomly selected digits. This way you can be sure that the video is not just some previous stock footage, or plastic doll or who knows. This is what is being refered to as “app-based liveness verification”
Now of course you might notice that this is an arms race. You make a better verification tool, and the scammers make a better scam. I bet that there is already someone out there training a neural network to create an animated deep fake which is convincing and can reflect the flashing colours appropriately and can read up the digits too. Likewise there is someone who is working on detecting that. What matters is that the business is trying to keep the cost of deception high enough so it is not worth doing at scale.
In real life this is a simple task. You look at the photo on the ID, then you look at the person and check that they match. You also would immediately notice if something is weird, like they are wearing a lifelike mask, or they are a plastic doll.
Why does this not work for businesses then? There can be two reason: either they want to check the customers ID remotely through the internet, or the customer is present in their office but the business does not trust their own employees to check them.
Why would a business not trust their own employees? Because the company employees are in the best position to perpetuate some fraud on the business. Very often clerks receive some direct compensation or bonus based on how many new customers they subscribe for example, and if not properly checked this can incentivise the employees invent fake customers for you for example.
So you want to check the ID of a person in some way you can conduct remotely without trusting anyone physically present. Simple! You ask for an image of the ID and a photo of the customer, then a remote employee or machine learning model can decide if they match up.
But there is a problem with that! Anyone who is sophisticated enough to scam you with a fake ID will also be able to give you a matching photo. Ugh oh.
How do you solve this? You ask for the ID as previously, but instead of asking for a photo you ask for a video of the customer. Maybe you even flash the phone’s screen while recording the video with random colours and ask the customer to read up randomly selected digits. This way you can be sure that the video is not just some previous stock footage, or plastic doll or who knows. This is what is being refered to as “app-based liveness verification”
Now of course you might notice that this is an arms race. You make a better verification tool, and the scammers make a better scam. I bet that there is already someone out there training a neural network to create an animated deep fake which is convincing and can reflect the flashing colours appropriately and can read up the digits too. Likewise there is someone who is working on detecting that. What matters is that the business is trying to keep the cost of deception high enough so it is not worth doing at scale.
Still need a purchase contract. But it's insane to me that UK law would allow for someone to forge documents in a civil matter and get away with it.
I believe it depends, a house sale is no "ordinary" matter.
In other european countries like, say, Italy, Spain, France there are national ID's and - opposed to solicitors like in the UK - notaries which are a sort of public officials for the contract (and they will check and certify the identities of the people involved, besides the acts of property) and you won't likely be able to open an account or however cash a check (I mean large sums, like the sale of a house) with someone else's identity in any bank without proper ID.
Possibly, with at least two well forged pieces of ID[1], you can get around it in the bank, but I don't think it is easy.
[1] this is (or used to be) a common request, though I doubt it is Law, when you want to open a bank account in Italy, and you need to exhibit the actual documents, not a photo or similar.
In other european countries like, say, Italy, Spain, France there are national ID's and - opposed to solicitors like in the UK - notaries which are a sort of public officials for the contract (and they will check and certify the identities of the people involved, besides the acts of property) and you won't likely be able to open an account or however cash a check (I mean large sums, like the sale of a house) with someone else's identity in any bank without proper ID.
Possibly, with at least two well forged pieces of ID[1], you can get around it in the bank, but I don't think it is easy.
[1] this is (or used to be) a common request, though I doubt it is Law, when you want to open a bank account in Italy, and you need to exhibit the actual documents, not a photo or similar.
It sounds like the fraudster got a copy of the real person's driving licence, although he must have looked the real person presumably.
A Solicitor has to due the legal due-diligence to make sure they have the right to sell including usually ownership of the title deeds but if you don't have the title deeds and they are held by the Land Registry in name only, this is fairly easy to get around.
I smell an insurance claim against the Solicitor but it depends whether they did everything correctly or not, otherwise I don't know where he stands.
A Solicitor has to due the legal due-diligence to make sure they have the right to sell including usually ownership of the title deeds but if you don't have the title deeds and they are held by the Land Registry in name only, this is fairly easy to get around.
I smell an insurance claim against the Solicitor but it depends whether they did everything correctly or not, otherwise I don't know where he stands.
though presumably in "these trying times" the entire transaction was done remotely and so the proof of ID was images/photos/scans rather than seeing the originals - a lot easier to forge and alter
I had to turn up in person to a solicitor's office with ID (and my face) for a recent house purchase (in England), so that's at least not universal.
I have never done this for personal house sales in the UK, the only time we did it was when getting a commercial lease signed by the directors and each of them had to ID at the Solicitors offices.
Thinking about it, it does seem very open to abuse!
Thinking about it, it does seem very open to abuse!
[deleted]
There is no such thing as "getting this right" the way you're thinking. No matter what you choose, any possible source of truth will be imperfect. In this case, the UK Land Registry is used as a source of truth, but didn't thoroughly check IDs. Seemingly because the UK ID system is used as a source of truth, but then itself failed in some way.
With an ambient concept of ownership, one is inherently left with a tradeoff between trusting the system as defined and being able to override it. In fact, this is exactly what caused this failure of the victim being unable to get their house back - compared to the common law deed system still prevalent in the US, whereby the buyer would be left without any title and would have to fall back on title insurance to be made whole.
The only way to eliminate fraud is to define away right and wrong, creating a single source of truth ala Bitcoin [0]. In Bitcoin if you have the privkey to a pubkey, then you can transfer value to a new pubkey, period - there is no such thing as theft, as it has been defined away. But obviously this isn't the kind of harsh regime people have in mind when they say they want to eliminate fraud.
FWIW the political problem in the US preventing national ID is the complete lack of ability to reign in corporate behavior. The ongoing abuse of SSN and drivers license numbers by private surveillance companies needs to be stopped (by something akin to the GDPR) before it would make any sense to talk about creating even stronger identification.
[0] Actually this is going to fail for Bitcoin as well, because it lacks the key ecash property of untraceability. Since it lacks fungibility, it's only a matter of time until courts routinely override the computational system with their own version of truth.
With an ambient concept of ownership, one is inherently left with a tradeoff between trusting the system as defined and being able to override it. In fact, this is exactly what caused this failure of the victim being unable to get their house back - compared to the common law deed system still prevalent in the US, whereby the buyer would be left without any title and would have to fall back on title insurance to be made whole.
The only way to eliminate fraud is to define away right and wrong, creating a single source of truth ala Bitcoin [0]. In Bitcoin if you have the privkey to a pubkey, then you can transfer value to a new pubkey, period - there is no such thing as theft, as it has been defined away. But obviously this isn't the kind of harsh regime people have in mind when they say they want to eliminate fraud.
FWIW the political problem in the US preventing national ID is the complete lack of ability to reign in corporate behavior. The ongoing abuse of SSN and drivers license numbers by private surveillance companies needs to be stopped (by something akin to the GDPR) before it would make any sense to talk about creating even stronger identification.
[0] Actually this is going to fail for Bitcoin as well, because it lacks the key ecash property of untraceability. Since it lacks fungibility, it's only a matter of time until courts routinely override the computational system with their own version of truth.
"It's largely because there is no "National ID" system in the US (due to political reasons). That makes it hard for companies to track people, and the SSN is the only number that people consistently have."
"Real ID" is now a thing. It's a "National ID". https://www.dhs.gov/real-id
"Real ID" is now a thing. It's a "National ID". https://www.dhs.gov/real-id
> REAL ID is a federal law, not an actual piece of ID. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005. The act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver licenses and ID cards.
https://www.dol.wa.gov/about/real-id-overview.html
REAL ID doesn't sound like a federal ID system, it's just security standards for state issued ID cards.
https://www.dol.wa.gov/about/real-id-overview.html
REAL ID doesn't sound like a federal ID system, it's just security standards for state issued ID cards.
If states are complying to federal standards for ID, then it is effectively a federal ID.
But they aren't issued or backed by the federal government. There isn't a national database for it, each state still has it's own system
There is a national database. It is called SPEXS.
No it isn't. This might be the case when SSNs stop being requested for non social-security purposes and 'real id' starts to get used in its place.
People don't necessarily have them either. Only those who have chosen to do so at a DMV.
SSNs are often assigned at birth, for people born in the US.
People don't necessarily have them either. Only those who have chosen to do so at a DMV.
SSNs are often assigned at birth, for people born in the US.
Seems pretty questionable as to whether due diligence was done given the first indicator neighbors had of the sale was after the transaction occurred. At least in the U.S. it's typically pretty tough to miss that a house is up for sale - signage, open houses, realtors showing up to give tours. Curious how this buyer even connected with the seller.
I live in the USA, this year we both sold our previous home and purchased our new home without the use of signage, open houses, tours, realtors, etc. We found the house we bought and found the buyers of our old house through our network of friends. We filled out all the paperwork from forms we printed off online. The title company took care of everything after that. It was all done completely online until the very last signing. At that signing the title company person told us that they are almost ready to have everything completely done online so that nobody ever has to meet in person. So, shortly it will be possible to completely buy and sell a house without ever meeting in person. At the time I was just thinking about how easy and convenient it all was (and how much money we saved by not having realtors), but now I’m wondering about the fraud aspects.
> I live in the USA, this year we both sold our previous home and purchased our new home without the use of signage, open houses, tours, realtors, etc. We found the house we bought and found the buyers of our old house through our network of friends. We filled out all the paperwork from forms we printed off online.
Surely you left a massive amount of money on the table then, right?
Surely you left a massive amount of money on the table then, right?
> Surely you left a massive amount of money on the table then, right?
s/surely/potentially/
They may have been better off also. At least the agent commissions are saved, and maybe other costs. If the buyer is motivated to buy, who knows if they weren't already over market?
s/surely/potentially/
They may have been better off also. At least the agent commissions are saved, and maybe other costs. If the buyer is motivated to buy, who knows if they weren't already over market?
Sounds like they avoided the 4-7% realtor commissions.
Yeah, here in the UK one of my friends bought his home off another of my friends. A third friend practices commercial property law, so she's insured to buy and sell property and did all their paperwork at mates rates. (Her employer buys her insurance, but it's personal insurance, so it covers her off-the-clock work too)
Big saving all round.
Big saving all round.
I laughed at an old fashioned estate agent who wanted 1.2% to sell my house. Realtor prices in the US seem shockingly excessive. I guess it explains how Modern Family live such a nice lifestyle I guess.
In what way? We sat down and decided how much we wanted for our house and told the potential buyers how much. They thought about it for a day and then told us they would give us that much money for the house. Maybe we could have made more on the open market, but we were happy and they were happy.
> Maybe we could have made more on the open market, but we were happy and they were happy.
That's my point. You could potentially have made a lot more money on the open market. Especially if the buyers didn't even try to negotiate. That usually means they would pay more (let alone what other buyers might pay).
The value of your house is what people are willing to pay for it, not what you think it's worth or what you want for it.
That's my point. You could potentially have made a lot more money on the open market. Especially if the buyers didn't even try to negotiate. That usually means they would pay more (let alone what other buyers might pay).
The value of your house is what people are willing to pay for it, not what you think it's worth or what you want for it.
I don’t understand your point. We are happy with what we sold our house for. Would more money make us happier? No.
Sure, but you've invalidated the argument with your own example - there was a personal link. In this case, it seems to have been a complete stranger given the"seller" was an imposter.
In the UK there's no requirement that 'For Sale' signs be put up. Very few people look for a house to buy by driving around looking for such signs - online listings are what drive the traffic these days, and you can sell a house with nothing but online listings.
Of course, most buyers will want to see the house themselves before making an offer, as estate agents are famously creative in their property descriptions. If you're getting a mortgage to buy a house, the bank will generally insist on a 'survey' where an independent third party turns up and confirms that the building physically exists and suchlike.
Of course, most buyers will want to see the house themselves before making an offer, as estate agents are famously creative in their property descriptions. If you're getting a mortgage to buy a house, the bank will generally insist on a 'survey' where an independent third party turns up and confirms that the building physically exists and suchlike.
Fair enough about the sign, but what about showing the property or a home inspection (which usually takes several hours)?
Off market sales are not unheard of in the USA -- my neighbor's condo was sold off-market. They were talking to a realtor to prepare to sell, and the realtor put them into touch with a buyer that paid cash for higher than they planned to list it at. So it's completely possible for a home to sell without neighbors being aware of it.
Also, in my experience, many homes are listed on the realtors MLS systems before they hit public sites like Zillow.
I bought my house right after it was listed on my realtors MLS system -- I had already made an offer before it ever hit Zillow or before there was a For Sale sign in the yard.
I bought my house right after it was listed on my realtors MLS system -- I had already made an offer before it ever hit Zillow or before there was a For Sale sign in the yard.
Not sure whether they will ever find the link. Regarding signs etc. it sounds like the owner worked away so maybe the neighbours just assumed that he was selling?
In the UK, it is very much a paperwork exercise, I have never met any of the solicitors I have sold houses with, haven't even spoken to most of them (everything on email)
In the UK, it is very much a paperwork exercise, I have never met any of the solicitors I have sold houses with, haven't even spoken to most of them (everything on email)
Selling for below market rate would probably help things a lot.
The situation with government data in the US is extremely frustrating. Between the government themselves and quasi-governmental private companies (the credit bureaus) they know practically everything about us—but we refuse to let them use that information in any kind of helpful way to make our lives easier and reduce our stress & workloads, because that would be "big brother" or a step toward ushering in the end times (for foreigners: yes, seriously, that's not a joke) or whatever.
The UK also has national ID system. It is almost unique in Europe in this respect.
The UK doesn't have a national ID system. It's not clear how such a system would help in this situation - if the fraudster managed to get a driving license, why would they have a problem getting an ID card.
Many national ID systems in the EU have a digital component. With two factor authentication.
They are not perfect, but it raises the bar.
They are not perfect, but it raises the bar.
So if you lose your phone you can never get a replacement ID?
Or is the 2FA not worth the paper it isn't printed on when it comes to replacements, and you're back to the same level of proof you need for a driving license or passport.
Or is the 2FA not worth the paper it isn't printed on when it comes to replacements, and you're back to the same level of proof you need for a driving license or passport.
(A) If the app on my phone stops working because someone stole my ID, then I'll likely notice next time I try to use it.
(B) You have to compromise both password and 2FA.
(C) Walking into a government office certainly raises the barrier to stealing ID.
(B) You have to compromise both password and 2FA.
(C) Walking into a government office certainly raises the barrier to stealing ID.
Sorry, I mistyped :)
"You and Yours obtained the driving licence used to impersonate Mr Hall" ... what? who?
And then, "Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."
The people who sold the house did not have the right to sell the house because they did not own it. The person who bought it does not own it since it was not legally sold.
And then, "Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."
The people who sold the house did not have the right to sell the house because they did not own it. The person who bought it does not own it since it was not legally sold.
Having gone through the purchase and sale of houses I'm honestly confused at how this happens. It involves a ton of paperwork, phone calls and in-person appointments, generally.
If there is a mortgage on the property, the bank holds the title. The bank has a relationship with the owner. How did the bank sign off on the transfer of funds and title? They'd have to verify the identity of the seller.
If there was no mortgage, at least in the US some bank normally holds onto the title on behalf of the owner so the same applies.
There would need to be a settlement process where the sale proceeds (minus mortgage repayment) needs to be paid to the seller. What happened here?
Being aware of the possibility of fraud, banks can and do make simple checks in my experience. A simple phone call with the contact details on record would've probably prevented this.
In addition the Land Registry authorizing title transfer, the bank would have to be on the hook here too. It's a colossal screw up and a huge nightmare for the owner to deal with but I imagine restitution will be made.
It sounds like he probably won't get his house back. I assume the buyer acted in good faith. It sure does suck though.
If there is a mortgage on the property, the bank holds the title. The bank has a relationship with the owner. How did the bank sign off on the transfer of funds and title? They'd have to verify the identity of the seller.
If there was no mortgage, at least in the US some bank normally holds onto the title on behalf of the owner so the same applies.
There would need to be a settlement process where the sale proceeds (minus mortgage repayment) needs to be paid to the seller. What happened here?
Being aware of the possibility of fraud, banks can and do make simple checks in my experience. A simple phone call with the contact details on record would've probably prevented this.
In addition the Land Registry authorizing title transfer, the bank would have to be on the hook here too. It's a colossal screw up and a huge nightmare for the owner to deal with but I imagine restitution will be made.
It sounds like he probably won't get his house back. I assume the buyer acted in good faith. It sure does suck though.
> Having gone through the purchase and sale of houses I'm honestly confused at how this happens. It involves a ton of paperwork, phone calls and in-person appointments, generally.
It seems that this was sophisticated identity theft.
If someone managed to get a DL with your name on it, but their picture, and your SSN, then it's pretty much carte blanche at that point.
Go into a bank and say "I need to close my accounts". "What are the account numbers?" "Oh, golly, I forget -- here's my DL, my BDay is XX-YY-ZZZZ and my Social is 123-45-6789. I recently moved from 1234 Main St. to 4567 First Ave." "Of course sir, one moment." Next thing you know you're walking out with a check.
And..that's it, it all comes from that. Buy a house, sell a house, request some documentation. Especially, since they're SELLING the house, they don't have to go through the rigors of a background check for the loan. The BUYERS are placed under a microscope. The sellers? "So, you got the key?" "Yea." "We're good, sign here."
And it's noone's fault except the original perpetrator. Everyone else did "due diligence". If the questions were answered properly, showed appropriate ID, what more can they do?
It seems that this was sophisticated identity theft.
If someone managed to get a DL with your name on it, but their picture, and your SSN, then it's pretty much carte blanche at that point.
Go into a bank and say "I need to close my accounts". "What are the account numbers?" "Oh, golly, I forget -- here's my DL, my BDay is XX-YY-ZZZZ and my Social is 123-45-6789. I recently moved from 1234 Main St. to 4567 First Ave." "Of course sir, one moment." Next thing you know you're walking out with a check.
And..that's it, it all comes from that. Buy a house, sell a house, request some documentation. Especially, since they're SELLING the house, they don't have to go through the rigors of a background check for the loan. The BUYERS are placed under a microscope. The sellers? "So, you got the key?" "Yea." "We're good, sign here."
And it's noone's fault except the original perpetrator. Everyone else did "due diligence". If the questions were answered properly, showed appropriate ID, what more can they do?
It sucks that the bank has its money stolen in your scenario, but at least the person who the bank owes the money to (the real holder) doesn't lose anything.
The fraudster probably picked a property with both an absentee owner and no mortgage for that reason.
It seems this is becoming somewhat common in the UK: https://www.step.org/industry-news/uk-solicitors-warned-grow...
I'm in the US. What I see is that stolen+sold property tends to belong to the original owner, not the purchaser. Is it different in the UK?
It is not different in the UK. This person will get their house back when the Land Registry has ticked all the boxes.
They were shocked by the reluctance of the police to enforce their property rights simply on their say-so. They were shocked by it because they hadn't really thought through how the system works. It is not the role of the police to evict someone who is the registered owner merely on the say-so of someone else who claims to have been defrauded. Clearly there are good reasons for this.
The article presents the facts as though they will never get their house back (with some creative ambiguity about what 'legal owner' means - does it mean the legally registered owner, regardless of any past fraud? or the actual rightful owner) because it makes a more interesting article than 'Man left annoyed after a painstaking legal process restores him his property rights'.
They were shocked by the reluctance of the police to enforce their property rights simply on their say-so. They were shocked by it because they hadn't really thought through how the system works. It is not the role of the police to evict someone who is the registered owner merely on the say-so of someone else who claims to have been defrauded. Clearly there are good reasons for this.
The article presents the facts as though they will never get their house back (with some creative ambiguity about what 'legal owner' means - does it mean the legally registered owner, regardless of any past fraud? or the actual rightful owner) because it makes a more interesting article than 'Man left annoyed after a painstaking legal process restores him his property rights'.
The key problem is that it is a civil matter. It's like a contract dispute - it's not a police matter. Obviously for the individual it's a major life-changing disaster... but in the eyes of the state it's equivalent to 'we ordered four cases of Coca-Cola but our vendor only delivered three'.
> The key problem is that it is a civil matter.
No. The criminal matter, as alleged, is that someone scammed the buyer, the solicitors and the Land Registry into believing that they are who they were not. That is not a civil matter, it is I believe fraud.
If a bloke sells their house, but then gets cold feet, or not happy with the compensation that is a civil matter. This is not what is alleged.
No. The criminal matter, as alleged, is that someone scammed the buyer, the solicitors and the Land Registry into believing that they are who they were not. That is not a civil matter, it is I believe fraud.
If a bloke sells their house, but then gets cold feet, or not happy with the compensation that is a civil matter. This is not what is alleged.
Yes, it is unclear why the police told him it was civil since fraud is "misrepresentation for a gain", which the fraudulent seller presumably did.
Maybe the argument is that without proof that the fraudulent seller made a gain, it is merely a Tort and not Fraud?
Maybe the argument is that without proof that the fraudulent seller made a gain, it is merely a Tort and not Fraud?
> it is unclear why the police told him it was civil
It's just typical first level support. Police didn't see any obvious simple solution and wanted the issue out of their hair so they said the thing which usually gets the issue out of their hair. The person persisted and escalated the issue higher. (for example to the news papers.) And now "The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with Bedfordshire Police's fraud squad, which has begun an investigation."
It's just typical first level support. Police didn't see any obvious simple solution and wanted the issue out of their hair so they said the thing which usually gets the issue out of their hair. The person persisted and escalated the issue higher. (for example to the news papers.) And now "The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with Bedfordshire Police's fraud squad, which has begun an investigation."
Because there are three parties, and only one of them committed a crime. The one who currently has the house and the one who lost the house have not -- their dispute is civil. The criminal was long gone by the time the police arrived.
They're referring to the parties at the house when the police were called. By all official accounts the house had been sold and the police couldn't find anyone to arrest.
I suspect the average PC called out to an argument between two seemingly innocent parties about ownership is going to want to get as far away from it as possible...
> The criminal matter, as alleged, is that someone scammed the buyer, the solicitors and the Land Registry
Did you notice who you didn't list there?
The home owner.
The criminal issue doesn't involve him!
Did you notice who you didn't list there?
The home owner.
The criminal issue doesn't involve him!
> The criminal issue doesn't involve him!
Of course it does. If it is as alleged, then the home owner and the new "owner" is equally victims of the crime.
Of course it does. If it is as alleged, then the home owner and the new "owner" is equally victims of the crime.
Maybe you know more about law in the UK than I, but I believe the criminal issue is between HM's Land Registry and the person who sold it, and there is only a civil issue between the rightful owner and anyone.
Criminal law in England and Wales is between the Crown (represented by a prosecutor, often but not always an arm of the state) and the alleged criminal. So the question 'who is the technical victim' isn't usually very interesting. The three salient questions here are:
1) Has the person committed an offence (probably yes: fraud by false representation, contrary to s.2 Fraud Act 2006);
2) Is there a reasonable prospect of conviction? (Who knows: will depend on the evidence); and
3) Is it in the public interest to prosecute? (Almost certainly yes).
'Who has been defrauded' doesn't even matter for establishing (1), only that the fraudster intended to make a gain for himself or a loss for someone else by making a false representation (in this case that he was the owner of the house). So in this case it really is a bit crappy from the police: if a fraud has been committed it doesn't in principle matter who complains about it, they should investigate (or at least register the crime) anyway.
1) Has the person committed an offence (probably yes: fraud by false representation, contrary to s.2 Fraud Act 2006);
2) Is there a reasonable prospect of conviction? (Who knows: will depend on the evidence); and
3) Is it in the public interest to prosecute? (Almost certainly yes).
'Who has been defrauded' doesn't even matter for establishing (1), only that the fraudster intended to make a gain for himself or a loss for someone else by making a false representation (in this case that he was the owner of the house). So in this case it really is a bit crappy from the police: if a fraud has been committed it doesn't in principle matter who complains about it, they should investigate (or at least register the crime) anyway.
Actually, in this case it should be both. It is a civil matter to get the house back, but obviously there was also some criminal fraud involved. The victim of the fraud though is presumably the land registry rather than the house owner.
> It is a civil matter to get the house back
Well that's what he cares about.
Well that's what he cares about.
Sure. But as a distant second place after having somewhere to live, I would also want the fraudster to go to prison. Assuming this article is correct, he was "told by the police they didn't believe a criminal offence had been committed here" which seems dumb.
The home owner has not been scammed. The land registry and the buyer have been scammed.
[deleted]
Well there's also all his belongings which also have been taken (and are not controlled by the land registry)
But the house wasn't really stolen. It was fraudulently sold.
You might think that such quibbling cannot possibly matter, and maybe it doesn't in the UK, but in the US it can.
Here's a case from 2008 in Washington state [1].
Company X leased a car to Y.
Y forged documents to show X had released their interest in the car and then Y sold the car to innocent buyer Z.
X sued to recover the car from Z.
Washington law (RCW 10.79.050) states "All property obtained by larceny, robbery or burglary, shall be restored to the owner; and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser or not, shall divest the owner of his rights to such property".
But there was no larceny, robbery, or burglary in this case so that did not apply.
Z got to keep the car.
[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html
You might think that such quibbling cannot possibly matter, and maybe it doesn't in the UK, but in the US it can.
Here's a case from 2008 in Washington state [1].
Company X leased a car to Y.
Y forged documents to show X had released their interest in the car and then Y sold the car to innocent buyer Z.
X sued to recover the car from Z.
Washington law (RCW 10.79.050) states "All property obtained by larceny, robbery or burglary, shall be restored to the owner; and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser or not, shall divest the owner of his rights to such property".
But there was no larceny, robbery, or burglary in this case so that did not apply.
Z got to keep the car.
[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html
I'm not sure the police would do anything different in the US. I'm guessing that proper owner, like most people, kept the deed in his house -- which was emptied of his belongings and sold. Without that, the police don't have much to act on.
Paper deeds are no longer relevant to property ownership in the UK. The HM Land Registry records are authoritative (subject to legal challenges). See for example: https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/19/title-deeds/
Edit: technically they are still relevant if the property has not been sold since the records were digitised in the 1990s
Edit: technically they are still relevant if the property has not been sold since the records were digitised in the 1990s
In the US I believe your Title Insurance would give you a suitable paper trail as well. That and the registrar.
In England the owner doesn't have the deeds, although they may obtain a copy. It's digital with the Land Registry.
Scotland, incidentally, has the oldest land registry in the world (1617 CE), the Sasines.
I paid off my flat in Edinburgh back in 2016 or so, and in exchange I received a huge bundle of papers "the deeds", from the bank.
I spent a fun evening flicking through the records of owners, the price they'd paid for it, and the few details provided (occupation, etc). All dating back to when the building was built in 1890 or so.
Later I left the country, and moved to Finland. After a year or two here I wanted to sell the flat as I'd decided I wasn't going back. Despite going through the process of ensuring the registry was updated I had to mail them back to the solicators based in Scotland prior to selling the flat.
The sale was carried out 100% remotely; I had a couple of phone calls, and when I balked at the use of a FAX machine I printed out a few forms/documents from emails, signed them, and physically posted them back to the solicators.
Happily I'd had the foresight to leave a spare set of keys with a trusted friend, which were used for the viewings, etc. It probably helped that the solicator who handled the sale had also handled the registration of the deeds when I received them so they were probably confident it was a flat I owned..
When I queried things I was told "The only registry is definitive, but .. things are .. smoother .. with the physical deeds". Made no sense to me, but I wasn't going to argue.
I spent a fun evening flicking through the records of owners, the price they'd paid for it, and the few details provided (occupation, etc). All dating back to when the building was built in 1890 or so.
Later I left the country, and moved to Finland. After a year or two here I wanted to sell the flat as I'd decided I wasn't going back. Despite going through the process of ensuring the registry was updated I had to mail them back to the solicators based in Scotland prior to selling the flat.
The sale was carried out 100% remotely; I had a couple of phone calls, and when I balked at the use of a FAX machine I printed out a few forms/documents from emails, signed them, and physically posted them back to the solicators.
Happily I'd had the foresight to leave a spare set of keys with a trusted friend, which were used for the viewings, etc. It probably helped that the solicator who handled the sale had also handled the registration of the deeds when I received them so they were probably confident it was a flat I owned..
When I queried things I was told "The only registry is definitive, but .. things are .. smoother .. with the physical deeds". Made no sense to me, but I wasn't going to argue.
When the land registry was digitised they got the land boundaries from the Ordnance Survey maps. The Ordnance Survey got them from tracing aerial photos. When property changes hands for the first time since the digital system was introduced the land boundaries from the OS mapping agency have to be checked against the original deeds as they are almost always slightly wrong, e.g my kitchen was shown as being partly in my neighbour’s garden according to the digital map.
I bought my house in August, I've got original deeds for the land dating back to 1831 which was quite unusual to be holding the 200 year old paper.
In my state, original deeds are filed with the property appraiser's office. I suspect this is the case for all states but I do not know.
Our PAO gives a receipt at filing. Copies are available after the deed is processed. In my state, they're public record; in my county, they're available online.
source: worked for real estate attorney
Our PAO gives a receipt at filing. Copies are available after the deed is processed. In my state, they're public record; in my county, they're available online.
source: worked for real estate attorney
I don’t think most people in the US hold a physical deed. I know I certainly don’t for my house.
You need a court case to determine if it was stolen is presumably the issue.
You don't want police running around "taking people's house back" without due process, presumbly.
You don't want police running around "taking people's house back" without due process, presumbly.
No, I think the issue is that police would have no power to "take the house back" because it was legally purchased. They could investigate the fraud committed by the seller against other organisations but specifically, the real owner is not the victim of criminal fraud.
I don't think he will have any ablity to forceably reobtain the house, although potentially, if he refunded the buyers money (after getting it from the accused), they might agree to give it to him back. On the other hand, if already cleared, it would probably be easier for the real owner to get his money back and buy somewhere else.
Very sad though.
I don't think he will have any ablity to forceably reobtain the house, although potentially, if he refunded the buyers money (after getting it from the accused), they might agree to give it to him back. On the other hand, if already cleared, it would probably be easier for the real owner to get his money back and buy somewhere else.
Very sad though.
Something similar happened in Germany recently. A house worth millions was fraudulently sold like this. The original owners got it back luckily.
German video about it: https://youtu.be/TolvzYzk64c
German video about it: https://youtu.be/TolvzYzk64c
At least here the thieves were known (or even well-known). What if the buyer transferred money to some Nigerian prince who showed up with fake ID and disappeared after the sale? Would the buyer end up with no money and no house?
These things always happen when a low trust society comes into contact with a high trust society.
I am baffled by the fact that a complete house can be had for the little sum of £131,000.
That's about €150.000 in real money... I guess where I live that would get me a garage, maybe.
That's about €150.000 in real money... I guess where I live that would get me a garage, maybe.
Luton isn't exactly the nicest of places, but £131k is way below the asking price for even the cheapest houses there
It’s an absolute steal
Ahem...you're missing a $ :)
A reminder, once again, that "identity theft" does not exist. It is fraud, plain and simple, and the responsibility of the businesses which aren't performing due diligence in confirming your identity. 6-figure sums shouldn't be exchanging hands without multiple layers of confirmation. This could easily have been avoided with a search for any other numbers associated with the man and a call to them to confirm.
Police: “not my problem, lol”.
The joy of paying taxes.
The joy of paying taxes.
It is pretty much how policing works in the UK. Declare it a civil matter, get it off the books as soon as possible... and that's not mentioning the mountain of police misconduct court cases that have popped up recently.
Sadly the only chance of getting anything out of them is if the media get involved and hold their feet in the fire a bit.
Sadly the only chance of getting anything out of them is if the media get involved and hold their feet in the fire a bit.
Why do you expect the police to investigate this?
If A says that B is trespassing on their property, and A not B is listed as the legal owner of the property according to the single source of truth, isn't it normal that the police should evict B and defend A's property rights?
Imagine if the police took the attitude "we have to give equal weight to B's hard luck story about how he's the technical owner". Harassment and vexatious claims of fraud would be absolutely rampant.
If A says that B is trespassing on their property, and A not B is listed as the legal owner of the property according to the single source of truth, isn't it normal that the police should evict B and defend A's property rights?
Imagine if the police took the attitude "we have to give equal weight to B's hard luck story about how he's the technical owner". Harassment and vexatious claims of fraud would be absolutely rampant.
This is what fiscal responsibility looks like. The police and local councils have been cut to the bone by the Tories.
My grandfather was rather fond of telling a story about a neighbor when he was younger who came home from vacation to find that their house had been stolen... like someone had brought a wagon and team of horses in, jacked up the house, and pulled it away. Being in a rather rural area, no one apparently noticed the heist!
This is apparently enough of a problem in the UK that the land registry has procedures for locking a title and for reporting frauds.[1]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud
[1] https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud
Imagine if we really did tokenization of assets? This type of fraud would be much easier (steal password vs months long identity theft), and impossible to reverse.
Easier? It would become borderline impossible. How exactly do you steal the seed for a hardware wallet? How do you even know where it's stored?
You steal the wallet, you own the house. You lose the wallet, you no longer own the house.
The wallet has a pin code and it erases itself after 3 failed attempts.
It would be a great improvement in security.
It would be a great improvement in security.
So what happens when the owner wants to sell it, but forgets the PIN?
He recovers the wallet from a seed stored in safe place.
And how does he prove he's the owner to get into that safe space?
Reminded of Victor Lustig, who sold someone the Eiffel Tower.
He impersonated a government official and told a group of scrap metal dealers it was too costly to maintain and that it was set to be demolished and sold as scrap.
The man who purchased it was too embarrassed to go to authorities, lest it ruin his reputation.
He impersonated a government official and told a group of scrap metal dealers it was too costly to maintain and that it was set to be demolished and sold as scrap.
The man who purchased it was too embarrassed to go to authorities, lest it ruin his reputation.
Seems like the point of the conveyancer is to prevent this sort of thing.
In California it seems that a title transfer company is in practice the only way to transfer property, and for their exorbitant fee they do at least insure the buyer against this risk in perpetuity.
(Last time I bought a house in California I read the seller’s insurance policy and discovered its perpetual nature. I realized that if I ever had a problem I could sue the seller and their policy would cover me (and them). Unfortunately the title company refused to do the transfer until I bought my own title insurance. What a ripoff)
In California it seems that a title transfer company is in practice the only way to transfer property, and for their exorbitant fee they do at least insure the buyer against this risk in perpetuity.
(Last time I bought a house in California I read the seller’s insurance policy and discovered its perpetual nature. I realized that if I ever had a problem I could sue the seller and their policy would cover me (and them). Unfortunately the title company refused to do the transfer until I bought my own title insurance. What a ripoff)
UK house owner - just signed up to the Land Registry alert system. Which has to be a record from not knowing something existed to signing up in four minutes.
1. The registry seriously refuses passwords that do not have alphanumeric characters only. Did not try Unicode.
2. Most of the UK is not in the land registry - it only is compulsory for land sold IIRR since the 1990s and generally has records going back to early 1900s. If someone owns land from before then, no-one publically knows who they are or who owns it. As most land in the UK is held by government or aristocracy and they have not needed to sell it for centuries we don't know who owns what.
3. This simply cannot be the first time - something this sophisticated, the original fraudster did not so this the first time now. How common is this? I mean see above - the land registry has a monitoring service for this ?
4. Thinking about it, I just added a monitoring account with just an email. If I create a new account and try to add $TargetAddress I find out if it is monitored - and I suspect that that is not going to count as a monitoring event !
1. The registry seriously refuses passwords that do not have alphanumeric characters only. Did not try Unicode.
2. Most of the UK is not in the land registry - it only is compulsory for land sold IIRR since the 1990s and generally has records going back to early 1900s. If someone owns land from before then, no-one publically knows who they are or who owns it. As most land in the UK is held by government or aristocracy and they have not needed to sell it for centuries we don't know who owns what.
3. This simply cannot be the first time - something this sophisticated, the original fraudster did not so this the first time now. How common is this? I mean see above - the land registry has a monitoring service for this ?
4. Thinking about it, I just added a monitoring account with just an email. If I create a new account and try to add $TargetAddress I find out if it is monitored - and I suspect that that is not going to count as a monitoring event !
About 85% of land in the UK is registered - including the vast majority of domestic dwellings.
My apologies - bad memory
https://whoownsengland.org/2019/01/11/the-holes-in-the-map-e...
https://whoownsengland.org/2019/01/11/the-holes-in-the-map-e...
You can get INSPIRE polygons from https://use-land-property-data.service.gov.uk/datasets/inspi...
Either download the GML or view it on the map. This gives you a number which you can pump into https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAPropert...
And the spend £3 buying the deeds for the property. One look at the coverage in your local area shows the type of properties available, for example Parliament Square (North and South), or tiny bits of rock off the edge of the Isles of Scilly, as well as more pedestrian locations like "Flat 1-14, Grosvenor Court, 55 Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells, TN1 2DY"
A lot of unregistered land, certainly in towns, are roads and railways that have been there for over 100 years
Either download the GML or view it on the map. This gives you a number which you can pump into https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAPropert...
And the spend £3 buying the deeds for the property. One look at the coverage in your local area shows the type of properties available, for example Parliament Square (North and South), or tiny bits of rock off the edge of the Isles of Scilly, as well as more pedestrian locations like "Flat 1-14, Grosvenor Court, 55 Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells, TN1 2DY"
A lot of unregistered land, certainly in towns, are roads and railways that have been there for over 100 years
It’s odd that in the UK a person who buys stolen property legally owns it.
They legally own it in the sense that they are the legally registered owners, currently.
They do not legally own it in the sense that the original owner will not be able to eventually recover it after the fraud is unravelled.
Your instinct that this is odd is correct. It is odd because it isn't actually true. The statement of a police officer made while standing on the street outside someone's house deciding whose story to believe is not the final legal verdict on this case.
They do not legally own it in the sense that the original owner will not be able to eventually recover it after the fraud is unravelled.
Your instinct that this is odd is correct. It is odd because it isn't actually true. The statement of a police officer made while standing on the street outside someone's house deciding whose story to believe is not the final legal verdict on this case.
Every story I have read about this before is the transaction(s) are reversed. I presume the owner opted for cash instead of the property back.
> "I have read of a gentleman who owned a so fine house in London, and when he went for months of summer to Switzerland and lock up his house, some burglar came and broke window at back and got in. Then he went and made open the shutters in front and walk out and in through the door, before the very eyes of the police. Then he have an auction in that house, and advertise it, and put up big notice; and when the day come he sell off by a great auctioneer all the goods of that other man who own them. Then he go to a builder, and he sell him that house, making an agreement that he pull it down and take all away within a certain time. And your police and other authority help him all they can. And when that owner come back from his holiday in Switzerland he find only an empty hole where his house had been."
- Dracula, 1897.
- Dracula, 1897.
Another reason to use an anonymous LLC/entity. The owning entity gets a new state identification number which won't have appeared in as many leaks to be impersonated. While the individual owner of the LLC isn't known to impersonate.
Not a reason for the UK. We don't have anonymous companies like the US e.g. by assigning your attorney as a director so they can hide behind privilege.
The Directors of your limited company would be available for all to see with their address!
The Directors of your limited company would be available for all to see with their address!
The company that buys the house doesn't need to be formed in the UK.
1. doesn't that shift the problem to impersonating the LLC? If anything that seems easier than impersonating a person?
2. does this work with financing? how do mortgages work?
2. does this work with financing? how do mortgages work?
> doesn't that shift the problem to impersonating the LLC?
Correct, but as the grandparent comment says, the likelihood of identifying info of your LLC (that could be fraudulently used) to appear in as many data leaks is way less than that of your personal info.
Plus, even if this type of fraud is still technically possible with LLC (albeit with much more difficult steps), just the fact that it is more difficult should discourage the criminals (unless they have some personal vendetta against you). Similar to all the nigerian prince emails, why would they go for a target that is more protected, as opposed to going for any much less secured targets? Hence why they intentionally make their scam emails as obvious as possible, so that they know if the person took the bait, then they are super likely to follow through with the scam until the very end. No reason for fraudsters to make their own lives more difficult.
Correct, but as the grandparent comment says, the likelihood of identifying info of your LLC (that could be fraudulently used) to appear in as many data leaks is way less than that of your personal info.
Plus, even if this type of fraud is still technically possible with LLC (albeit with much more difficult steps), just the fact that it is more difficult should discourage the criminals (unless they have some personal vendetta against you). Similar to all the nigerian prince emails, why would they go for a target that is more protected, as opposed to going for any much less secured targets? Hence why they intentionally make their scam emails as obvious as possible, so that they know if the person took the bait, then they are super likely to follow through with the scam until the very end. No reason for fraudsters to make their own lives more difficult.
Social engineering is always a threat to anyone. What occurred in this article would not have been available if the entity was the owner.
Really interesting, a very similar case has recently been reported in Berlin, Germany [1]. Here the fraudsters tried to get legal ownership of a whole apartment building in Berlin. It seems they nearly made it, but then some insurance company sent a letter to the actual owners who could successfully blocked the transaction from committing.
[1] (in German) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-wie-ein-rentne...
[1] (in German) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-wie-ein-rentne...
"it's a civil matter" seems to be the go to excuse for British police. There's a whole TV series following property owners in the UK who have experienced issues and this response comes up way too often in the series.
I remember reading about a "sovereign citizen" outfit, doing something similar, in the US.
In that case, the "sovereign citizen" would get bounced out on their ear, but they can still make the homeowner's life a nightmare.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/sovereign-citizens-sentence...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/nyregion/moors-newark.htm...
In that case, the "sovereign citizen" would get bounced out on their ear, but they can still make the homeowner's life a nightmare.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/sovereign-citizens-sentence...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/nyregion/moors-newark.htm...
When signing/transferring over the title deed, aren't all parties involved supposed to be physically present in front of a lawyer/notary?
Me thinks due diligence by all members involved in this transaction was severely lacking and they should be held accountable. I.e. Real Estate agent, bank, brokers, what have you. One could even say they all conspired in this property theft.
Alternatively, perhaps the victim was lacking some sort of documentation that allowed the illicit procurement to occur?
Me thinks due diligence by all members involved in this transaction was severely lacking and they should be held accountable. I.e. Real Estate agent, bank, brokers, what have you. One could even say they all conspired in this property theft.
Alternatively, perhaps the victim was lacking some sort of documentation that allowed the illicit procurement to occur?
This is somewhat the point of "title insurance" in the US. In this case the buyer would be protected since technically the real owner never actually sold the property.
System doesn't seem very secure, but it relies on thiefs being lazy. If this happens 10 times a year, it's couple million pounds - much less than the cost of setting up a more secure (and thus more inconvenient) system. Just like credit card payments are very insecure, but they just charge some extra % in transaction fees to cover the losses.
PS later it mentions that Land Registry pays out $3.5m/year compensating fraud victims, so my estimate wasn't too far off)
PS later it mentions that Land Registry pays out $3.5m/year compensating fraud victims, so my estimate wasn't too far off)
Seemingly the gem Earth of the issue is the proof of identity.
Mention is made of a driving licence being obtained to open a bank account, was this the actual Driving licence? If it had been faked then the bank should have raised a flag.
There is a fair amount about having a government account to log in for taxes etc, is this robust enough to be used in property transaction like this? I not why?
Will this example highlight a number of other similar cases? Will it prompt others to try it?
Mention is made of a driving licence being obtained to open a bank account, was this the actual Driving licence? If it had been faked then the bank should have raised a flag.
There is a fair amount about having a government account to log in for taxes etc, is this robust enough to be used in property transaction like this? I not why?
Will this example highlight a number of other similar cases? Will it prompt others to try it?
A bit long, but here is a summary from the BBC Radio programme You and Yours which has more detail than the BBC News report:
Background
Mike Hall (owner of the property) moves around a lot due to his work. He rents out his home, but due to COVID the property has been empty for some time.
Returning to his property
When Mr Hall returned to his house he could tell clearly the house has been broken into. The front door window pane had been smashed and partially replaced, and the locks had been replaced.
Reporting to the police
Police told Mr Hall it was a civil matter and Mr Hall had to leave the house and contact his solicitors.
Mr Hall put in an online application to Bedfordshire Police Service to notify them of a crime. Every time he got an automated replying stating this was not a criminal offence but a civil matter.
He also contacted Action Fraud (UK’s national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime, run by the City of London Police). They also said it was a civil offence and they could not help him.
Mr Hall: "So everywhere I turned, it was a closed door"
Contacting the BBC
Mr Hall contacted the BBC Radio programme You and Yours (consumer affairs programme) and they confirmed this was a criminal offence, not a civil offence. (Comment from me: speaks a lot about the police that the owner ends going to a BBC Radio programme due to inactivity and incorrect information from police sources.)
The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with the Bedford Fraud Squad who agree Mr Hall is a victim of fraud and is now investigating.
How did it happen?
The criminal contacts the solicitor and pretends to be Mr Hall. But how did the criminal convince the solicitor he was Mr Hall?
Solicitors require identity documents e.g. Passport, Driving Licence (both include owner photo). The criminal applied for and got a genuine duplicate driver licence from the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) in Mr Hall's name ("genuine document fraudulently obtained").
Mike Hall's driving licence is in Welsh and contains the title 'Reverend', his address, his photo and signature. The criminal's licence is in English, with the title 'Mr', a different address, signature and photo. This is the fraudulent driving licence the solicitor saw.
It gets worse...
In April 2021, the DVLA contacted Mike Hall to confirm if he had applied for a duplicate driving licence as they has a suspicion the request they had received could be fraudulent. Mike Hall confirmed to the DVLA he didn't apply for a duplicate licence. The DVLA said they would cancel the fraudulent request.
Unfortunately, they failed to cancel the duplicate licence even though they promised they would.
The criminal gets the genuine duplicate driving licence and changes the picture in the driving licence. The DVLA would not comment on how the criminal altered the driving licence details. However, they say they are taking this matter very seriously (they described what happened to Mike Hall as "awful") and are working with Bedfordshire Police.
Fraudulent bank account
In April, a new TSB bank account is fraudulently created in Mike Hall's name. In July, over two days, £131,000 is deposited into the bank account - and then withdrawn. The BBC reporter contacted TSB to ask them: why did they not flag this as suspicious activity? TSB said the activity didn't trigger any suspicions and they are working with the police on the case.
Will Mike Hall get his house back?
Reporter: "Very possibly not"
Reporter: "If your name is on the Land Register for a property, that property is yours and it doesn't matter if you bought that property from a fraudster."
"The Land Registery is the only record of property ownership we have in the UK [England and Wales]. It is state guaranteed and that means if there is fraudlent change of title, which has happened in this case, victims of fraud and mistakes can be compensated."
This type of fraud ("vendor fraud") is on the rise. Compensation has risen from £2m to £3.5m in just twelve months - a 40% rise.
The Land Registry say they rely on solicitors to make checks to spot fraudulent attempts to impersonate property owners. Empty, rental and properties with no mortgages are particularly vulnerable to this type of fraud.
And what about Mike?
The BBC showed Mike the fake driving licence used to impersonate him: "I felt sick actually - seeing someone else's face on my driving licence...I felt an emptiness in my stomach and it make it all very real to me."
Background
Mike Hall (owner of the property) moves around a lot due to his work. He rents out his home, but due to COVID the property has been empty for some time.
Returning to his property
When Mr Hall returned to his house he could tell clearly the house has been broken into. The front door window pane had been smashed and partially replaced, and the locks had been replaced.
Reporting to the police
Police told Mr Hall it was a civil matter and Mr Hall had to leave the house and contact his solicitors.
Mr Hall put in an online application to Bedfordshire Police Service to notify them of a crime. Every time he got an automated replying stating this was not a criminal offence but a civil matter.
He also contacted Action Fraud (UK’s national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime, run by the City of London Police). They also said it was a civil offence and they could not help him.
Mr Hall: "So everywhere I turned, it was a closed door"
Contacting the BBC
Mr Hall contacted the BBC Radio programme You and Yours (consumer affairs programme) and they confirmed this was a criminal offence, not a civil offence. (Comment from me: speaks a lot about the police that the owner ends going to a BBC Radio programme due to inactivity and incorrect information from police sources.)
The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with the Bedford Fraud Squad who agree Mr Hall is a victim of fraud and is now investigating.
How did it happen?
The criminal contacts the solicitor and pretends to be Mr Hall. But how did the criminal convince the solicitor he was Mr Hall?
Solicitors require identity documents e.g. Passport, Driving Licence (both include owner photo). The criminal applied for and got a genuine duplicate driver licence from the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) in Mr Hall's name ("genuine document fraudulently obtained").
Mike Hall's driving licence is in Welsh and contains the title 'Reverend', his address, his photo and signature. The criminal's licence is in English, with the title 'Mr', a different address, signature and photo. This is the fraudulent driving licence the solicitor saw.
It gets worse...
In April 2021, the DVLA contacted Mike Hall to confirm if he had applied for a duplicate driving licence as they has a suspicion the request they had received could be fraudulent. Mike Hall confirmed to the DVLA he didn't apply for a duplicate licence. The DVLA said they would cancel the fraudulent request.
Unfortunately, they failed to cancel the duplicate licence even though they promised they would.
The criminal gets the genuine duplicate driving licence and changes the picture in the driving licence. The DVLA would not comment on how the criminal altered the driving licence details. However, they say they are taking this matter very seriously (they described what happened to Mike Hall as "awful") and are working with Bedfordshire Police.
Fraudulent bank account
In April, a new TSB bank account is fraudulently created in Mike Hall's name. In July, over two days, £131,000 is deposited into the bank account - and then withdrawn. The BBC reporter contacted TSB to ask them: why did they not flag this as suspicious activity? TSB said the activity didn't trigger any suspicions and they are working with the police on the case.
Will Mike Hall get his house back?
Reporter: "Very possibly not"
Reporter: "If your name is on the Land Register for a property, that property is yours and it doesn't matter if you bought that property from a fraudster."
"The Land Registery is the only record of property ownership we have in the UK [England and Wales]. It is state guaranteed and that means if there is fraudlent change of title, which has happened in this case, victims of fraud and mistakes can be compensated."
This type of fraud ("vendor fraud") is on the rise. Compensation has risen from £2m to £3.5m in just twelve months - a 40% rise.
The Land Registry say they rely on solicitors to make checks to spot fraudulent attempts to impersonate property owners. Empty, rental and properties with no mortgages are particularly vulnerable to this type of fraud.
And what about Mike?
The BBC showed Mike the fake driving licence used to impersonate him: "I felt sick actually - seeing someone else's face on my driving licence...I felt an emptiness in my stomach and it make it all very real to me."
Thanks for the summary. Everyone looks bad in this story: the police, the solictors, the DVLA, the bank, and finally the law itself which probably hasn't changed for decades if not longer.
A law that says a home can be fraudlently sold to an (innocent) purchaser and thus confers ownership on the purchaser, while the original owner loses ownership is simply not fit for modern times. Even if Mike Hall receives compensation, he's still lost his home and the contents in the home.
Will the compensation match the purchase price of the house and the contents in the home? And what of the innocent house buyer who bought the property? Surely it would make more sense to return the house to the original owner, and for compensation be paid to the house buyer.
A law that says a home can be fraudlently sold to an (innocent) purchaser and thus confers ownership on the purchaser, while the original owner loses ownership is simply not fit for modern times. Even if Mike Hall receives compensation, he's still lost his home and the contents in the home.
Will the compensation match the purchase price of the house and the contents in the home? And what of the innocent house buyer who bought the property? Surely it would make more sense to return the house to the original owner, and for compensation be paid to the house buyer.
I love that everyone's take on it is, "welp, it's legally theirs now".
How in the hell can an illegal, fraudulent transaction lead to legal ownership?
How in the hell can an illegal, fraudulent transaction lead to legal ownership?
I remember reading about something similar a few years ago. A lady had paid off her mortgage turned out that made her property vulnerable because without the mortgage company being involved there were less checks. Someone stole her post, impersonated her and sold her property without her knowledge obtaining the deed as well I think. Its always stuck in my brain!
I wonder if thats what happened here too?
I wonder if thats what happened here too?
[deleted]
Really close to https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E (satire from Mitchell and Webb)
It's weird that people get identified by their driver's license. Don't they have digital ID cards that are better suited for veryfying who is who?
The UK is funnily backwards about some things. In particular, they have neither national ID cards, nor a population registry. You end up sending utility bills to the government as proof of address.
It can be an absolute farce. I signed up for a GP, still living with my parents, they needed proof of address which I obviously don't have because I didn't pay for the water bill, so instead they accepted a written note from my father who provided no ID, and wasn't registered at the GP.
That may sound relatively minor but if I were doing some ID fraud it's all I would've needed to get started i.e. you need the first level of trust to exploit.
The British state is carefully designed to have the nationalized and privatized parts in the wrong places.
That may sound relatively minor but if I were doing some ID fraud it's all I would've needed to get started i.e. you need the first level of trust to exploit.
The British state is carefully designed to have the nationalized and privatized parts in the wrong places.
Talk about something that needs multifactor authentication.
UK does require you to prove your identity but the solicitor seems to have failed here with stolen identity. As the original owner did not update there details to another address.
Getting something in the mail is only imaginarily secure.
It became much funnier when I remember the old saying "property is theft". Quite fitting to this news.
Lol how does this sort of shit even happen in 2021. It's meant to be "the future".
Ironically it being "the future" is at least part of the reason why it happened. In the UK, all the land records are digitized nowadays, so the scammer didn't need to steal the physical deed to the property to pull off the scam. All they me had to dk was present their fraudulent identification to the office holding those digitized records and it was over without the owner even having to know.
isn't there a Steve Martin movie about that
This exact reason is why in the US you physically need to be in person to sign loan documents to purchase property. You need 2 forms of ID, verified by the parties, copies of it taken, and notarized.
It was likely a cash purchase, certainly was a cash sale, and the ID was verified by the solicitors.
While people decry the inability for crypto transactions to be adjudicated in court, what we don't talk about as much is that this is also the direction of non-crypto transactions. As the article stated, the police initially refused to even consider the theft of the man's house a crime.
We used to say possession is 9/10ths of the law. Now it seems the algorithm is 9/10ths of the law.
You have maybe 10% chance to reverse a transaction that was approved by the computers. Or at least we're headed that way.
We used to say possession is 9/10ths of the law. Now it seems the algorithm is 9/10ths of the law.
You have maybe 10% chance to reverse a transaction that was approved by the computers. Or at least we're headed that way.
That's not what they said. They said it was not criminal but civil, which a lot of contract and tort law falls under, it means the police won't do the investigation for you.
I don't know why they considered that this was not fraud, which is criminal but maybe they couldn't point to a detail that showed where the fraud took place.
They might also have been wrong to say that!
I don't know why they considered that this was not fraud, which is criminal but maybe they couldn't point to a detail that showed where the fraud took place.
They might also have been wrong to say that!
The article says "Police initially told him it was not fraud but are now investigating." My guess is the police couldn't be bothered.
A friend of mine had a problem with squatters moving into his house (which wasn't empty). Initially the police refused to get involved until he got his solicitor to point out it was a criminal issue.
A friend of mine had a problem with squatters moving into his house (which wasn't empty). Initially the police refused to get involved until he got his solicitor to point out it was a criminal issue.
> the police won't do the investigation for you
Even in criminal matters, they don't do the investigation for you, they do it for public prosecutors, which may or may not have incidental utility to you.
Even in criminal matters, they don't do the investigation for you, they do it for public prosecutors, which may or may not have incidental utility to you.
https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
Land Registry records have a sort of poor man's locking. The buyers (or in practice their solicitor) need to first perform a "Search" which would get recorded as activity, some time before they can file paperwork to claim it was sold, and so that gives you considerable time to say "Hey, I'm not selling this, why is there a Search by Honest But Incompetent Solicitors LLC?" and phone up to yell at somebody.