House "stolen" and sold

seven-day-weekend

ProDave said:

Can you register with the LR for someone trying to register your property?

Situation:  My BTL is not on the electronic land registry.  The deeds are locked in my solicitors safe.  Is it possible to be allerted if someone tried to register it for the first time?

Why don't you get it registered on the electronic land registry and then register for the alerts service?

GDB2222

NewShadow said:

jrawle said:

What surprised me is that the article says the new "owner" is now the legal owner and nothing can be done about that. If your bike is stolen and sold on, and you subsequently trace it, it's yours to take back. The fact that an innocent person paid a crook some money for it is neither here nor there, it wasn't the crook's to sell, so the innocent buyer loses out. Why the difference when it comes to property?

Thanks for pointing out the alert service. I guess this is more of an issue for unmortgaged properties, as otherwise the lender is going to get in touch if the property is sold?

Yes.

Not an area of law I'm familiar with, but I would have thought [once the facts of the fraud had been confirmed] the ownership would revert to the original owner and the buyer would be able to sue their conveyancer [or possibly the bank who allowed the fraudulent account to be set up?] for not verifying the right of the fraudulent owner to sell...  

I'm not suggesting it would be easy for the buyer to reclaim their money, but I can't see that's the owners problem. 

"the buyer would be able to sue their conveyancer [or possibly the bank who allowed the fraudulent account to be set up?] for not verifying the right of the fraudulent owner to sell.."

It's highly unlikely that anyone was negligent. The fraudulent seller had good ID, which passed the scrutiny of his own conveyancer. It ought to, as it was a genuine driving licence, etc.   It's not the buyer's solicitor's job to second guess that.

Fortunately, there's the Land Registry compensation fund, which may well pay out in this case. 

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

NewShadow said:

jrawle said:

What surprised me is that the article says the new "owner" is now the legal owner and nothing can be done about that. If your bike is stolen and sold on, and you subsequently trace it, it's yours to take back. The fact that an innocent person paid a crook some money for it is neither here nor there, it wasn't the crook's to sell, so the innocent buyer loses out. Why the difference when it comes to property?

Thanks for pointing out the alert service. I guess this is more of an issue for unmortgaged properties, as otherwise the lender is going to get in touch if the property is sold?

Yes.

Not an area of law I'm familiar with, but I would have thought [once the facts of the fraud had been confirmed] the ownership would revert to the original owner and the buyer would be able to sue their conveyancer [or possibly the bank who allowed the fraudulent account to be set up?] for not verifying the right of the fraudulent owner to sell...  

I'm not suggesting it would be easy for the buyer to reclaim their money, but I can't see that's the owners problem. 

"the buyer would be able to sue their conveyancer [or possibly the bank who allowed the fraudulent account to be set up?] for not verifying the right of the fraudulent owner to sell.."

It's highly unlikely that anyone was negligent. The fraudulent seller had good ID, which passed the scrutiny of his own conveyancer. It ought to, as it was a genuine driving licence, etc.   It's not the buyer's solicitor's job to second guess that.

Fortunately, there's the Land Registry compensation fund, which may well pay out in this case. 

This is quite likely correct, everyone will have their backside covered and have don't the legally necessary checks to avoid any liability. Unless the buyer can show negligence somewhere the LR fund is their only hope.

It might also be that they have a mortgage so the bank is going to lose out as well.

Of course that still leaves them up a creek, needing to find a new home. The article mentions his furniture and a lot of the fixings are all gone too.

Shame he didn't discover it a bit later, he might have had his house renovated for free.

NewShadow

GDB2222 said:

"the buyer would be able to sue their conveyancer [or possibly the bank who allowed the fraudulent account to be set up?] for not verifying the right of the fraudulent owner to sell.."

It's highly unlikely that anyone was negligent. The fraudulent seller had good ID, which passed the scrutiny of his own conveyancer. It ought to, as it was a genuine driving licence, etc.   It's not the buyer's solicitor's job to second guess that.

Fortunately, there's the Land Registry compensation fund, which may well pay out in this case. 

As I've said, this isn't an area I'm familiar with - I just remember when I was buying this place the seller had a devil of a time proving their identity/right to sell - I only know what he said, but apparently because of covid they had to set up a video call to compare his face to his passport photo [because the passport might not have been his] and they wouldn't accept a newly set up bank account as proof of address because of the risk of money laundering... 

Either way, the question remains why the ownership wouldn't revert - so the buyer would be the one receiving the compensation rather than the original owner. 

user1977

jrawle said:

What surprised me is that the article says the new "owner" is now the legal owner and nothing can be done about that. If your bike is stolen and sold on, and you subsequently trace it, it's yours to take back. The fact that an innocent person paid a crook some money for it is neither here nor there, it wasn't the crook's to sell, so the innocent buyer loses out. Why the difference when it comes to property?

Because that's the whole point of a land register - people can rely on it without having to look behind the previous transactions to check for any fraud etc. If the property has since been sold on to an innocent party, the "real" owner only has a right to get compensation (not the property) from the Land Registry (and they might in turn be able to sue the conveyancers if they've been negligent).

FreeBear

ProDave said:

Can you register with the LR for someone trying to register your property?

Situation:  My BTL is not on the electronic land registry.  The deeds are locked in my solicitors safe.  Is it possible to be allerted if someone tried to register it for the first time?

Do your executors a favour and do a voluntary first registration - It will save them quite a bit of time and expense should you pass away anytime.

ShinyYellowBoots

user1977 said:

jrawle said:

What surprised me is that the article says the new "owner" is now the legal owner and nothing can be done about that. If your bike is stolen and sold on, and you subsequently trace it, it's yours to take back. The fact that an innocent person paid a crook some money for it is neither here nor there, it wasn't the crook's to sell, so the innocent buyer loses out. Why the difference when it comes to property?

Because that's the whole point of a land register - people can rely on it without having to look behind the previous transactions to check for any fraud etc. If the property has since been sold on to an innocent party, the "real" owner only has a right to get compensation (not the property) from the Land Registry (and they might in turn be able to sue the conveyancers if they've been negligent).

Yes. When I studied property law many, many years ago we were forever being told that it was a system of "title by registration", rather than "registration of title". 

Section62

GDB2222 said:

The fraudulent seller had good ID, which passed the scrutiny of his own conveyancer. It ought to, as it was a genuine driving licence, etc.   It's not the buyer's solicitor's job to second guess that.

The thing which would interest me is how the fraudster got a replacement driving licence with their photo on it.

If it were a replacement of a photo licence then are there not checks to make sure the photos appear to be the same person?

If it were a replacement for a paper licence, then aren't there checks that the photo is of the person named on the licence?


It feels like there is more to this story which - perhaps for good reasons - isn't being told.

jeaniemsm

How the hell does something like this happen?
Did the fraudster have keys to the house to allow viewings?

Surely the neighbour that called the owner would have seen a for sale sign up, people coming in for viewings 

MaryNB

jeaniemsm said:

How the hell does something like this happen?
Did the fraudster have keys to the house to allow viewings?

Surely the neighbour that called the owner would have seen a for sale sign up, people coming in for viewings 

I've seen a few cases where empty houses are fraudulently rented out to unsuspecting tenants. Scammers break in and change the locks. 

I wonder if a for sale sign was even put up. The scammer probably wouldn't want to alert the neighbours, or the owner if they popped back for a few days.