Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 360 posts

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

#161

Post by anonymousisme »

2fast4you wrote: post #146
anonymousisme wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 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.

If states are complying to federal standards for ID, then it is effectively a federal ID.

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

#162

Post by rectang »

kelnos wrote: post #152
rectang wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

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.

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

#163

Post by mihaaly »

tialaramex wrote: post #39

For what it's worth. If you own Real Property in England, even if only a Leasehold (Long Lease e.g. 99 years) you can get the Land Registry to email you about activity or, once per year, the lack of activity for your property records. 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 wo…

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.

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

#164

Post by 2fast4you »

anonymousisme wrote: post #161
2fast4you wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

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

#165

Post by jakeinspace »

anonporridge wrote: post #148
aclelland wrote: post #21

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.

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.

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?

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

#166

Post by outworlder »

anonymousisme wrote: post #118
freeqaz wrote: post #2

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 con…

"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

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.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

tantalor wrote: post #57
merpnderp wrote: post #33

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.

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by martinflack »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #92
dmoy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

> 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)

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

#169

Post by mihaaly »

pc86 wrote: post #156
mihaaly wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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!

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.

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

#170

Post by eropple »

dahfizz wrote: post #159
rectang wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's messed up — it pushes the blame onto the victims for not monitoring.

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.

Post reply on HN