Houses being stolen without the owner knowing?

martinthebandit

I think some people need to put down the Daily Mail and get on with life.

terryw

Here is a link to the LR rules on identification to prevent such fraud:
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-67

As a practical tip, landlords who have let out their own home and moved elsewhere MUST ensure that the address for service of notices is updated to show the new address. Here is a link:
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/guides/public-guide-2

terryw

Running_Horse wrote: »

Such an important case would have been reported by a reliable news source.

Link please, not just "I know of a case".

While this is an interesting discussion point, can anyone give an instance of where it actually happened without the owner being coerced or tricked into signing their house away?

You may find this link interesting/helpful:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/15/land-registry-title-fraud-compensation

terryw

martinthebandit wrote: »

I think some people need to put down the Daily Mail and get on with life.

You may be right but what has this to do with the very real problem of title fraud?

moneyistooshorttomention

worried_jim wrote: »

I know of a case a number of years ago where the owner rented their house whilst they sailed round the world.
The tenant, whilst searching the attic came across a chest with some personal documents in it including the property deeds and used them to apply for a passport in the home owners name but containing the tenants photo.
They then promptly put the house on the market, sold it for £400k and disappeared.
The owner returned to find they were no longer the owner, the conveying solicitor wasn't negligent as all the searches where correct, the seller had the deeds and a passport as identification. The new owners where the new owners and didn't budge.

What we probably all want to know is the answer to "What happened next?".

Was there a mysterious fire and the house burnt down?

Guessing that anyone in that position would think "Since I cant live in my own house, then no-one else is going to do so either"?

Running_Horse

terryw wrote: »

You may find this link interesting/helpful:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/15/land-registry-title-fraud-compensation

So plenty of mortgage fraud with millions in compensation, but nobody who had their house legally stolen.

worried_jim

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

What we probably all want to know is the answer to "What happened next?".

Was there a mysterious fire and the house burnt down?

Guessing that anyone in that position would think "Since I cant live in my own house, then no-one else is going to do so either"?

When I joined my company's fraud dept in 2006 the director came to visit and used this as an example of how fraud can effect not just your wallet directly or your computer but also the roof over your head.
As it was so long ago I can't remember the full out come but the buyers solicitor had done nothing wrong, the buyers had done nothing wrong, the estate agent handling the sale did nothing wrong and the solicitor had done all the proper id checks and the seller had the deeds.
I'd imagine that the genuine owner would have had to have gone to court and hopefully there would be some insurance in place to compensate. The moral was if you are renting out you house don't leave any documents stashed in the attic, I believe one of the terms of the rental was that the tenant didn't have use of/access to the attic, so the first thing anyone would do is have a look in there to see what secret it would be hiding and bingo.
To the nest of my memory the tenant/seller was never traced or caught.

Sorry Running Horse- I have no timescale to when this occurred so could well be before widespread websites- again apologies I heard it 8 years ago so can't be more precise.

RAS

Does anyone remember this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4663325 ?

Not theft of property but fraudulent sale.

missjames

More scary than is these credit default swap orders or what ever other names have been made for these derivatives.

They take a load of mortgages and 'sell' them in a big package to lots of others entities. If the buyer who lives in the house can not pay the mortgage payments when interest rates go back up to more normal levels, THEN WHO OWNS THE HOUSE WHEN IT GETS REPOSSESSED?

princeofpounds

They take a load of mortgages and 'sell' them in a big package to lots of others entities. If the buyer who lives in the house can not pay the mortgage payments when interest rates go back up to more normal levels, THEN WHO OWNS THE HOUSE WHEN IT GETS REPOSSESSED?

It's really not that complicated. The bank that originated the mortgages on which the MBS (a CDS is something different) is based will repossess and sell the property. They act as servicing agent for the MBS and from the point of view of the borrower/house little changes.

The bank will then pass on the money to the owners of the beneficial interest in the mortgage, who are the holders of the MBS.

There were problems in the US around this process, but it wasn't because the legal structure was deficient, it was because half the mortgage companies (very often not banks) issuing mortgages in the boom were cowboys who didn't do proper record-keeping.