Live data from Hacker News

Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

bbc.co.uk

121–130 of 360 posts

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

#121

> 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 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

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

#123

> 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 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

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.

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

#124
post #102
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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

#125

> 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."

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.

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.

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

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#127
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.

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

#128
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 conveyan…

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...

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

#130
post #35

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 m…

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.

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?
Post reply on HN