Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen' • Hacker News Board

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#101

Post by so_throwaway » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

Androider wrote: post #15

> 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."

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#102

Post by ElFitz » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #19

Androider wrote: post #15

> 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."

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.

Don’t we have actual, physical, titles, tied to the property?

Could someone actually sell a house without those?

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#103

Post by funshed » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #87

It’s odd that in the UK a person who buys stolen property legally owns it.

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#104

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

so_throwaway wrote: post #101

Androider wrote: post #15

> 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."

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 a…

> 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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#105

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#106

Post by ElFitz » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

iptrans wrote: post #100

Sounds like the Land Registry is missing a NoTransfers bit in their settings for properties.

It’s wild to think that DNS registries might be better protected than real estate ownership.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#107

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #24

Androider wrote: post #15

> 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."

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.

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#108

Post by zarzavat » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #75

tialaramex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

> 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 lawy…

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#109

Post by stevekemp » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

bogle wrote: post #16

klyrs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

#110

Post by so_throwaway » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #78

Police: “not my problem, lol”. The joy of paying taxes.

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.