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

311–320 of 360 posts

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

#311

Post by 7952 »

lbriner wrote: post #58
rkangel wrote: post #45

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.

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.

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

#312

Post by jonp888 »

iso1631 wrote: post #251
jonp888 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I mistyped :)

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

#313

Post by blitzar »

7952 wrote: post #309
blitzar wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if you die without a will there will be different heirs for your part of the property.

So the bank really should be asking for a copy of the will rather than a certificate of marriage.

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

#314

Post by pas »

nootropicat wrote: post #301
iso1631 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what happens when the owner wants to sell it, but forgets the PIN?

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

#315

Post by lifeisstillgood »

iso1631 wrote: post #254
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #214

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…

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...

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

#316

Post by gpderetta »

gpderetta wrote: post #124
ElFitz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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_...

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

#317

Post by pmyteh »

bradleyjg wrote: post #280
pmyteh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

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

#318

Post by mytailorisrich »

pmyteh wrote: post #317
bradleyjg wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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...

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

#319

Post by nootropicat »

pas wrote: post #314
nootropicat wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wallet has a pin code and it erases itself after 3 failed attempts. 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.

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

#320

Post by mrep »

lazide wrote: post #220
zarzavat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

Who pays back the 150k uk pounds?

Title insurance at least here in the US. Not sure what you guys do in the UK.
Post reply on HN