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

51–60 of 360 posts

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

#51

Post by pmyteh »

lbriner wrote: post #32
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'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!

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.

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

#52

Post by dgb23 »

dtparr wrote: post #30
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.

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.

So the Land Registry is at fault? Good luck...

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

#53

Post by pmyteh »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #17
lbriner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cla…

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.

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

#54

Post by m4tthumphrey »

implements wrote: post #25

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.”

Just signed up to this. Only alpha numeric passwords allowed. Always worries me.

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

#55

Post by krisoft »

lbriner wrote: post #42
krisoft wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

> 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."

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

#56

Post by tialaramex »

lbriner wrote: post #32
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'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.

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

#57

Post by tantalor »

merpnderp wrote: post #33
pjdemers wrote: post #18

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…

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.

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

#58

Post by lbriner »

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.

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

#59

Post by laurent92 »

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.

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.

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

#60

Post by lbriner »

pmyteh wrote: post #53
marcus_holmes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Post reply on HN