Vendor impersonated me.... help!

[Deleted User]

getmore4less wrote: »

Knock £10k off

Fiction or not, I read this as knock £10 off and thought "crickey, are things that tight"? :rotfl:

hazyjo

Blimey, missed all this thread. Wonder what the OP's decided on.

I wouldn't be blaming the EA or solicitor - I don't remember having to answer security questions other than to my lender.

I would report to police just to cover my own backside. For some reason, she's rushing this through and trying to make out like you are happy not to go for certain insurances or checks. One of those reasons has to cause suspicion for money laundering. Couldn't even guess at what it might entail, but something doesn't add up or sit well with me. I would absolutely not under any circumstances want to see their proof of ID, etc. As stated, that's the solicitor's job and you need that responsibility to be down to them, not you! If they are scamming (which actually I doubt), and run away with all your money and were never actually the owners, the solicitor will be liable having done the ID checks (to the best of my knowledge!). Keep it that way.

You have a legal duty to report ANY suspicions of money laundering. If you don't, the buck stops with YOU and could result in a fine/sentence (again, to the best of my knowledge and what we were told at the law firm I work for).

Albala

Doesn't sound like money laundering to me, though of course it is possible. I think it might need reporting to the police, if only to establish form should it happen again to someone else in a worse context, but if the OP was unsure about that, they could ask a solicitor or the CAB for advice.

davidmcn

Albala wrote: »

Doesn't sound like money laundering to me, though of course it is possible.

Doesn't sound like fraud to me, unless it's a pretty inept fraudster - why arouse suspicion by having chats about irrelevant stuff rather than just go in with whatever the fraud actually is? Sounds to me just like the other party naively thought this would be a useful way of progressing the transaction. Can't see the police being interested given there's no less, and as even the OP has disappeared from here they're probably not too bothered either.

Albala

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

It’s probably technically a phone hacking offence. Police might be interest on this basis.

I'd have thought it could be more likely defined as a data protection offence. No phone was hacked that I can see. But could still be fraud. I think it does need taking further, in case worse happens another time, but it's the OP's call; if they desperately want to buy the house they may want to leave sleeping dogs lie. I suppose anther offended party is whoever was conned into talking to the person concerned, they could have an interest in taking it further.

cloo

I think it might just be that vendor is a dimwit, and thinks this was worth a try to speed things up. Honestly, the process can send you a little nuts sometimes - we were on the verge once of househunting on behalf of a bonkers old lady whose flat we were trying to buy because she hadn't found anywhere and wasn't making any effort to look!



I agree that it's easy to say OP should pull out, but as has been said, she's much more invested, in all senses, in moving, so it's not necessarily for us to say.


My approach might be to convey the message 'Vendor, it looks as though you were trying to speed things up by pretending to be me, you must understand that this makes us concerned you are trying to keep some information from us, so as a result we have to ask our solicitors to double check everything and the sale will be delayed because of your interference. We would like to proceed but only after we have been assured that no corners have been cut, please can you now comply with making sure things proceed as they are supposed to'

Albala

If a person is intelligent enough to do something this complex, then they surely would be not so legally incapable as to not realise it's wrong. In any case, ignorance of the law is never taken as an excuse for wrongdoing.

SnooksNJ

Doozergirl wrote: »

The Doozer household follows the Obama household. When they low, we go high.

I hope the OP's vendor doesn't take a page out of US politics because getting information by deception is now called opposition research.

charlie792

I know this doesn't help the OP but it's pretty common in property transactions for Estate Agents to pretend to be the buyer/vendor or even a solicitor. Happens more often than people probably realise

Firms should be asking security questions though, usually a minimum of three pieces of info, one being something only the relevant person would be likely to know, such as mortgage account number or balance outstanding on mortgage etc.