Seriously SCARY situation

GaleSF63

Slinky wrote: »

Many years ago my Granddad on the way home from the pub mistook which house he lived in, opened the front door with his key and went to hang his coat up, only to find the coathooks weren't there. At this point he realised he was in the wrong house, backed out, re-locked the door and found his way home. The door locks were obviously a job lot!

I live in one of 24 flats. I've sometimes idly wondered if the door key I was supplied with (when the flats were built) would open any other of the doors. After all I don't suppose any of the 24 has ever tried their key in another door!

I don't seriously think it would be so - just wondered.

FBaby

It doesn't seem natural for him to be so angry at innocent strangers - his ire should be directed elsewhere

He's not angry at you, he is angry at the situation and took it out on you since you were there when he was faced with it.

It's displaced anger, but the shock probably clouded his judgement. If he has a short fuse anyway, he probably didn't even consider himself so. An apology from him would be more than appropriate, but again, there might be a reason why she acted the way she did (although no excuse for breaking the law).

Are they absolutely confirmed that she signed for him rather than having gone to court? My understanding is that if you can evidence that you've made all appropriate attempts to contact the person and that you have a fair reason for wanting to sell, a court order can be granted without too much trouble as long as the money is kept to be handed over as soon as contact is made, which is clearly what she's done.

moneyistooshorttomention

BlessedNotStressed wrote: »

I can't understand why the man in question is so hostile towards my husband and I. He must think we colluded with his wife somehow? It doesn't seem natural for him to be so angry at innocent strangers - his ire should be directed elsewhere.
FYI, the wife did indeed use an online conveyancer.

I wouldnt take it personally - as it sounds like you've done everything in all good faith and it's not your fault this situation happened. It's all down to the other part-owner and at least one of the "legal bods" involved (hers and/or yours).

It's just the way it is. If I came back one day and found a stranger living in my house - I wouldnt be carefully asking exactly what happened/making sure I got the exact "facts" of what happened. I'd just lash out one way or another and be determined they were going to get out of my house quicksharp and...yes....that would still apply even if "legal" ownership had been transferred and "legally" speaking it wasnt mine anymore. I hadnt sold it myself - so I would still be the "real" owner in my book and all hell would break loose.

Having just remembered a friend of mine that sent a brick hurtling through someone's window (in a very different context - ie her husbands mistress), despite being a very nice and law-abiding etc etc person normally then its the case that even nice/law-abiding people might well "lose it" in those circumstances. Errrm....have you done what you can to safeguard the glass in your windows?

.....and I'm a little woman....but...yep....all hell would still break loose.

EDIT: Nope...correction.....I remember it was one of those heavy glass ashtrays and not a brick.

EDIT; Now I come to think of it - I think I recall one of the questions on the legal questionnaire the vendor has to fill in is a general one. To the effect of "....and is there anything else the buyer needs to know that might put them off the house?". I dont recall the wording - but I'm pretty sure there is a question like that on the form. Well - this is certainly something the (part) vendor should have told you and I'm guessing you might have some comeback at her for not saying about that. "Misrepresentation" is the word for it.

davidmcn

FBaby wrote: »

Are they absolutely confirmed that she signed for him rather than having gone to court? My understanding is that if you can evidence that you've made all appropriate attempts to contact the person and that you have a fair reason for wanting to sell, a court order can be granted without too much trouble as long as the money is kept to be handed over as soon as contact is made, which is clearly what she's done.

The OP's solicitor would have been aware of how the sale was effected, so if they've said his signature was there then either it was forged or Mr Seller has been lying.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I think I recall one of the questions on the legal questionnaire the vendor has to fill in is a general one. To the effect of "....and is there anything else the buyer needs to know that might put them off the house?". Well - this is certainly something the (part) vendor should have told you and I'm guessing you might have some comeback at her for not saying about that.

You think she ought to have declared "in order to effect the sale I'm planning to forge my husband's signature"?

moneyistooshorttomention

It's a "material fact" for her to have said "I've made all possible appropriate efforts to trace the other part-owner as per so-and-so legal requirement to do so and now under Law So-and-So I am legally permitted to go ahead without his consent - as I have made all the efforts the law requires me to do. The law requires me to set to one side half the proceeds of the house sale for the other part-owner if/when they ever get back in touch - and I have duly lodged this money with x Bank for him as required" or whatever legal form of words are necessary to cover herself and OP.

Of course - if she hasnt done any of the necessary legal efforts to find him - then it brings up that OP possibly has some sort of case against her too for landing them in this situation because part-vendor didnt do this and just lied to them ("misrepresentation").

Gorecki

Slightly off topic, it's a shame there's not a service where you can take in locks/lock barrels + sets of keys and anonymously swap them for alternatives.

There must be a lot of money spent changing locks where you don't necessarily need new ones, just different ones.

silvercar

MrsNubs wrote: »

You don't always have to have your ID seen by the solicitor, it can be verified by another professional. We never met our solicitor, we sent copies of our passports signed by our accountant. It would be interesting to know who verified the ID in this case and if there can be any comeback on them

Exactly what we did. All the verifier did was sign that our copies were actual copies of our passports. So if the wife has a copy of ex's passport that would be fine. In fact, I still have spare copies of this, so the wife could have used old genuinely verified copies.

It is the forging of signatures on the sale document that actioned the fraud.

Hillbilly1

It sounds like the ex's claim won't go far if the vendor has the money set aside for him, hopefully it will all be over very quickly.

As a buyer what paperwork do you see that would tell you who is selling and when do you see it? It seems prudent to now ask your solicitor even more questions to ensure nothing is missed!

As for locks... always change them. It's the first thing we do in a new place, rented or bought. Have a collection of Yale locks for the purpose. As long as one lock is changed then anyone entering is 'breaking and entering' and you can buy more locks once you've checked what they are and what types you want. We've also got a spare mortice look too...

I'd also note to check window locks. I'm amazed at the amount of placates we've moved in to in London, on the ground floor, that have inadequate/broken window locks.

katejo

BlessedNotStressed wrote: »

I can't understand why the man in question is so hostile towards my husband and I. He must think we colluded with his wife somehow? It doesn't seem natural for him to be so angry at innocent strangers - his ire should be directed elsewhere.
FYI, the wife did indeed use an online conveyancer.

I suspect that it is a case of 'shoot the messenger' and he is understandably angry about what has happened. Of course he shouldn't be hostile towards your husband and yourself but he first heard about it from you. Maybe he will be more rational when the initial shock wears off.

Muttleythefrog

katejo wrote: »

I suspect that it is a case of 'shoot the messenger' and he is understandably angry about what has happened. Of course he shouldn't be hostile towards your husband and yourself but he first heard about it from you. Maybe he will be more rational when the initial shock wears off.

It's one of those rare cases where you hope Jeremy Beadle turns up with a grin on his face