Conveyancer fraud warning - is this usual?

Fionargh

Hi all I'm a FTB and would appreciate some more knowledgeable opinion on if I am be unnecessarily concerned.

I recently received the property report, contract pack etc from my conveyancer and within all the information found out that the sellers had owned the property for less than 6 months before it was put on the market. The reason given for this when enquiry raised was that the seller wanted to be closer to family.


The following was included as a section of the property report:
"Warning concerning Purrunsing and Dreamvar Case - Fraud

In view of the recent case law we would stress to you that it is imperative for you to ensure you are completely happy that the seller is the beneficial owner of the property and has the right to transfer the title upon completion.

As your conveyancers, we rely on the Sellers legal representative to establish their clients identify and clarification that they have a legal right to sell the property. The problem is they can’t provide unequivocal confirmation because they may not have access to the datasets which would prove a relationship between the client, their ID and the property. In light of this we would suggest, especially where the seller is not living at the property:

• You attend/view the property with the owner and not just the estate agent. This could work towards clarifying whether or not the seller had sufficient knowledge of the layout and services of the property.

• You take time to speak to the owners/ occupiers of neighbouring properties to ascertain if they have any information as to the owners.

• Where the property is tenanted you take time to speak to the current tenants residing at the property and possibly request they confirm the sellers name and address, if they have this. All the above might help reduce the risk to yourself in establishing the identity of the seller and their right to sell the property."

I do not see how any of the bullet points above can confirm someone's identity and felt like the onus was being placed on us as buyers which I felt should be on our conveyancer to confirm.

I raised this with my conveyancer and was basically told not to worry as it's not affecting the mortgage offer and that the sellers solicitors should do their due diligence but that hasn't help to allay my concern.

The property has been empty since viewing and I went to view the property again having not seen it since initial viewing some months ago and did mention to the EA who said not to worry he's confirmed the seller's identity and they lived there a long time and he'd done his checks. Though he himself was visibly surprised when I informed him the short length of time they have owned it. He also said when communicating regarding the property this is generally with the 'aunt'.

So with the backstory hopefully covered, I guess my questions are:
Should I be concerned or am I overthinking this?
Should I request any further action from my solicitor?

Thanks for taking the time to read through.

user1977

Fionargh said:

I do not see how any of the bullet points above can confirm someone's identity and felt like the onus was being placed on us as buyers which I felt should be on our conveyancer to confirm.

What steps do you think the conveyancer can reasonably do though? Your conveyancer does not meet the vendor or see their ID. The vendor's conveyancer checks their ID - but even that doesn't necessarily prove their client is the same person as the vendor (e.g. I could have valid ID as John Smith, but that doesn't prove I'm the same John Smith who owns the property).

The other steps they've suggested may seem overly paranoid but they make sense.

Fionargh

I thought they could confirm what checks the seller's conveyancer have completed to ensure they are as satisfied as I presume the seller's conveyancers are but I understand it's kind of impossible to know for 100% certain. Is this just a general risk then with all property transactions that's you can't really guard against as a buyer?

I guess I should try to follow the advice of the bullet points then? Though I guess the seller could refuse to attend and may not even be possible if they have potentially moved away somewhere. I also thought if they've owned it such a short time the neighbours might not have the foggiest clue about them anyway.

Tiglet2

Your solicitor would have probably asked the following when making their enquiries:

"Can the seller’s conveyancer please confirm that you have carried out with proper due diligence checks on the identity of your client/s in accordance with the CQS protocol and that you are satisfied that the seller is the same person as the person entitled to sell the property"

If you have a copy of the enquiries raised, have a look and see what the seller's solicitor response was.

It may be that your solicitor puts this clause in their report as a matter of course, just to advise that you need to be aware of the potential fraud that could happen, even though it is very rare.

So many conveyancing transactions are now done by internet/email that solicitors and clients rarely know each other and often do not meet.  A solicitor cannot guarantee 100% that their client is who they say they are, so they have to rely on the ID provided and AML checks that the solicitor carries out.  In most cases, this is sufficient, but they are making you aware that fraudsters can and have sold properties they have no right to and that therefore you should satisfy yourself that you are dealing with a genuine seller.

Of course, if the seller's solicitor responded "confirmed" to the enquiry above, then as far as they are concerned, the seller is genuine.

robatwork

They aren't asking anything particularly onerous from you - everything they request you try are things I do anyway when buying a property. 

In particular asking the near neighbours. In every house I've bought the neighbours are only too keen to talk about the street/house involved. Obviously don't open with "tell me about your neighbour" but with "Hello - I will be your new neighbour and just wanted to introduce myself". You can then touch on some "conveyancer confusion with who owns the property" with a sad shake of the head.

Your new potential neighbours are just as concerned about you as the other way around so will be only too happy, in my experience, to talk. I've been invited in before now for tea and ginger nuts with this approach. In hindsight it turned out previous tenants were horrible and noisy and they were only too pleased to get someone "normal".

This was also confirmation to me I was "normal" which isn't something you get every day!

RAS

Presumably, your lawyer has details of the current and previous owner and the date of the transfer?

Have you considered going to the main local library where they will probably have the electoral roll for area; or at least know where it is kept. Even if people choose the basic opt-out, the names of all adult occupants should be listed. You just ask for the address and they will find it for you. 

You won't be allowed to take a photo or photocopy, so you do need paper and pen or an electronic note taker, although the latter may make them jumpy. Then ask neighbours.

Gavin83

Fionargh said:

Hi all I'm a FTB and would appreciate some more knowledgeable opinion on if I am be unnecessarily concerned.

I recently received the property report, contract pack etc from my conveyancer and within all the information found out that the sellers had owned the property for less than 6 months before it was put on the market. The reason given for this when enquiry raised was that the seller wanted to be closer to family.


The following was included as a section of the property report:
"Warning concerning Purrunsing and Dreamvar Case - Fraud

In view of the recent case law we would stress to you that it is imperative for you to ensure you are completely happy that the seller is the beneficial owner of the property and has the right to transfer the title upon completion.

As your conveyancers, we rely on the Sellers legal representative to establish their clients identify and clarification that they have a legal right to sell the property. The problem is they can’t provide unequivocal confirmation because they may not have access to the datasets which would prove a relationship between the client, their ID and the property. In light of this we would suggest, especially where the seller is not living at the property:

• You attend/view the property with the owner and not just the estate agent. This could work towards clarifying whether or not the seller had sufficient knowledge of the layout and services of the property.

• You take time to speak to the owners/ occupiers of neighbouring properties to ascertain if they have any information as to the owners.

• Where the property is tenanted you take time to speak to the current tenants residing at the property and possibly request they confirm the sellers name and address, if they have this. All the above might help reduce the risk to yourself in establishing the identity of the seller and their right to sell the property."

I do not see how any of the bullet points above can confirm someone's identity and felt like the onus was being placed on us as buyers which I felt should be on our conveyancer to confirm.

I raised this with my conveyancer and was basically told not to worry as it's not affecting the mortgage offer and that the sellers solicitors should do their due diligence but that hasn't help to allay my concern.

The property has been empty since viewing and I went to view the property again having not seen it since initial viewing some months ago and did mention to the EA who said not to worry he's confirmed the seller's identity and they lived there a long time and he'd done his checks. Though he himself was visibly surprised when I informed him the short length of time they have owned it. He also said when communicating regarding the property this is generally with the 'aunt'.

So with the backstory hopefully covered, I guess my questions are:
Should I be concerned or am I overthinking this?
Should I request any further action from my solicitor?

Thanks for taking the time to read through.

Have you had a mortgage accepted?

Personally someone selling who had owned less than 6 months would be a complete dealbreaker for me. There are a whole lot of bad reasons as to why they could be selling so quickly and a few that wouldn't really affect you. I wouldn't recommend taking the risk. Your choice though.

housebuyer143

Gavin83 said:

Fionargh said:

Hi all I'm a FTB and would appreciate some more knowledgeable opinion on if I am be unnecessarily concerned.

I recently received the property report, contract pack etc from my conveyancer and within all the information found out that the sellers had owned the property for less than 6 months before it was put on the market. The reason given for this when enquiry raised was that the seller wanted to be closer to family.


The following was included as a section of the property report:
"Warning concerning Purrunsing and Dreamvar Case - Fraud

In view of the recent case law we would stress to you that it is imperative for you to ensure you are completely happy that the seller is the beneficial owner of the property and has the right to transfer the title upon completion.

As your conveyancers, we rely on the Sellers legal representative to establish their clients identify and clarification that they have a legal right to sell the property. The problem is they can’t provide unequivocal confirmation because they may not have access to the datasets which would prove a relationship between the client, their ID and the property. In light of this we would suggest, especially where the seller is not living at the property:

• You attend/view the property with the owner and not just the estate agent. This could work towards clarifying whether or not the seller had sufficient knowledge of the layout and services of the property.

• You take time to speak to the owners/ occupiers of neighbouring properties to ascertain if they have any information as to the owners.

• Where the property is tenanted you take time to speak to the current tenants residing at the property and possibly request they confirm the sellers name and address, if they have this. All the above might help reduce the risk to yourself in establishing the identity of the seller and their right to sell the property."

I do not see how any of the bullet points above can confirm someone's identity and felt like the onus was being placed on us as buyers which I felt should be on our conveyancer to confirm.

I raised this with my conveyancer and was basically told not to worry as it's not affecting the mortgage offer and that the sellers solicitors should do their due diligence but that hasn't help to allay my concern.

The property has been empty since viewing and I went to view the property again having not seen it since initial viewing some months ago and did mention to the EA who said not to worry he's confirmed the seller's identity and they lived there a long time and he'd done his checks. Though he himself was visibly surprised when I informed him the short length of time they have owned it. He also said when communicating regarding the property this is generally with the 'aunt'.

So with the backstory hopefully covered, I guess my questions are:
Should I be concerned or am I overthinking this?
Should I request any further action from my solicitor?

Thanks for taking the time to read through.

Have you had a mortgage accepted?

Personally someone selling who had owned less than 6 months would be a complete dealbreaker for me. There are a whole lot of bad reasons as to why they could be selling so quickly and a few that wouldn't really affect you. I wouldn't recommend taking the risk. Your choice though.

I have to agree.. Unless they bought it and flipped it, less than 6 months ownership sends alarm bells and it's very likely they are not on the title deeds yet, so that could delay things as it needs to be in their name before they can sell it to you. 

hazyjo

Definitely speak with neighbours as I'd be extremely nervous about an undeclared neighbour dispute. See what they're like, as well as following the above advice.

AFF8879

I looked up the case you mentioned, pretty scary stuff….but you have to imagine the chances of something like this happening would be millions to one….

https://www.rpc.co.uk/-/media/rpc/files/perspectives/insurance-and-reinsurance/16916-bult-buyers-solicitor-beware-email2.ashx

Rachelredwood16

robatwork said:

They aren't asking anything particularly onerous from you - everything they request you try are things I do anyway when buying a property. 

In particular asking the near neighbours. In every house I've bought the neighbours are only too keen to talk about the street/house involved. Obviously don't open with "tell me about your neighbour" but with "Hello - I will be your new neighbour and just wanted to introduce myself". You can then touch on some "conveyancer confusion with who owns the property" with a sad shake of the head.

Your new potential neighbours are just as concerned about you as the other way around so will be only too happy, in my experience, to talk. I've been invited in before now for tea and ginger nuts with this approach. In hindsight it turned out previous tenants were horrible and noisy and they were only too pleased to get someone "normal".

This was also confirmation to me I was "normal" which isn't something you get every day!

So do you just knock on the door and do this?