So a fraudster takes out a mortgage on your property by

SuzieSue

transferring the deeds into their name. However once you get your property back you find that you are responsible for the mortgage.

How is this possible? Surely, the lender should suffer the loss not you:


http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2016/05/23/landlords-three-ways-fraudsters-can-target-property/

PasturesNew

Presumably because the rightful owner didn't "protect" himself by having his correct address at LR, so they got him by the knackers on a technicality.

They don't spell it out, but I'm guessing he rented the house out, but left the "owner's address" information on LR as the rented property's address and he didn't write to say "it's my house, but I don't live there.... I live here now ..... so all letters need to go to me at my different address".

SuzieSue

PasturesNew wrote: »

Presumably because the rightful owner didn't "protect" himself by having his correct address at LR, so they got him by the knackers on a technicality.

Well, I hope that is the reason as otherwise it is very unfair.

davidmcn

No, the point of land registers is that third parties are entitled to rely on the information in the registers - so perverse though it may seem, the fraudsters' bank is entitled to repossess, and the genuine owner has to make a claim for compensation from the Land Registry.

That case is clouded somewhat by the "fraudulent" transfer actually having been signed by the genuine owner, and the fact that he was aware of the transfer having been registered several months before the charge was registered, but didn't seem excited enough by it to do anything in time.

antrobus

SuzieSue wrote: »

transferring the deeds into their name. However once you get your property back you find that you are responsible for the mortgage.

How is this possible? Surely, the lender should suffer the loss not you:

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2016/05/23/landlords-three-ways-fraudsters-can-target-property/

In the case referred to of Guy v Barclays Bank plc, it was a bit more than a 'property', rather 48 acres of development land in Manchester. (We are talking about a £100 m.) And the reason that Mr Guy lost might have had something to do with the fact that he signed a blank form transferring ownership of these 48 acres to the alleged fraudster before the deal had actually been concluded.

It's a bit like signing a blank cheque and then trying to blame the bank for allowing it to clear.

AdrianC

Reading the judgement on that Guy v Barclays case (linked from the LLBlog) shows exactly how much contributory wuckfittery there was on Guy's part.