11 ms·

I'm in the US. What I see is that stolen+sold property tends to belong to the original owner, not the purchaser. Is it different in the UK?

klyrs 5y ago
I'm not sure the police would do anything different in the US. I'm guessing that proper owner, like most people, kept the deed in his house -- which was emptied of his belongings and sold. Without that, the police don't have much to act on.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  Paper deeds are no longer relevant to property ownership in the UK. The HM Land Registry records are authoritative (subject to legal challenges). See for example: https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/19/title-deeds/ https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/19/title-deeds/ Edit: technically they are still relevant if the property has not been sold since the records were digitised in the 1990s
  - Maxburn 5y ago
    In the US I believe your Title Insurance would give you a suitable paper trail as well. That and the registrar.
- bogle 5y ago
  In England the owner doesn't have the deeds, although they may obtain a copy. It's digital with the Land Registry. Scotland, incidentally, has the oldest land registry in the world (1617 CE), the Sasines.
  - stevekemp 5y ago
    I paid off my flat in Edinburgh back in 2016 or so, and in exchange I received a huge bundle of papers "the deeds", from the bank. I spent a fun evening flicking through the records of owners, the price they'd paid for it, and the few details provided (occupation, etc). All dating back to when the building was built in 1890 or so. Later I left the country, and moved to Finland. After a year or two here I wanted to sell the flat as I'd decided I wasn't going back. Despite going through the process of ensuring the registry was updated I had to mail them back to the solicators based in Scotland prior to selling the flat. The sale was carried out 100% remotely; I had a couple of phone calls, and when I balked at the use of a FAX machine I printed out a few forms/documents from emails, signed them, and physically posted them back to the solicators. Happily I'd had the foresight to leave a spare set of keys with a trusted friend, which were used for the viewings, etc. It probably helped that the solicator who handled the sale had also handled the registration of the deeds when I received them so they were probably confident it was a flat I owned.. When I queried things I was told "The only registry is definitive, but .. things are .. smoother .. with the physical deeds". Made no sense to me, but I wasn't going to argue.
    - willyt 5y ago
      When the land registry was digitised they got the land boundaries from the Ordnance Survey maps. The Ordnance Survey got them from tracing aerial photos. When property changes hands for the first time since the digital system was introduced the land boundaries from the OS mapping agency have to be checked against the original deeds as they are almost always slightly wrong, e.g my kitchen was shown as being partly in my neighbour’s garden according to the digital map.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      I bought my house in August, I've got original deeds for the land dating back to 1831 which was quite unusual to be holding the 200 year old paper.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  In my state, original deeds are filed with the property appraiser's office. I suspect this is the case for all states but I do not know. Our PAO gives a receipt at filing. Copies are available after the deed is processed. In my state, they're public record; in my county, they're available online. source: worked for real estate attorney
- op00to 5y ago
  Who keeps their deed in the house? When I bought my first house, my realtor basically steered us right into a bank to open a safe deposit box.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Not saying it's the best of ideas (especially in light of this story), but I think that a lot of people do it.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  I don’t think most people in the US hold a physical deed. I know I certainly don’t for my house.
staticman2 5y ago
You need a court case to determine if it was stolen is presumably the issue. You don't want police running around "taking people's house back" without due process, presumbly.
- lbriner 5y ago
  No, I think the issue is that police would have no power to "take the house back" because it was legally purchased. They could investigate the fraud committed by the seller against other organisations but specifically, the real owner is not the victim of criminal fraud. I don't think he will have any ablity to forceably reobtain the house, although potentially, if he refunded the buyers money (after getting it from the accused), they might agree to give it to him back. On the other hand, if already cleared, it would probably be easier for the real owner to get his money back and buy somewhere else. Very sad though.
chrisseaton 5y ago
The key problem is that it is a civil matter. It's like a contract dispute - it's not a police matter. Obviously for the individual it's a major life-changing disaster... but in the eyes of the state it's equivalent to 'we ordered four cases of Coca-Cola but our vendor only delivered three'.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > The key problem is that it is a civil matter. No. The criminal matter, as alleged, is that someone scammed the buyer, the solicitors and the Land Registry into believing that they are who they were not. That is not a civil matter, it is I believe fraud. If a bloke sells their house, but then gets cold feet, or not happy with the compensation that is a civil matter. This is not what is alleged.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    Yes, it is unclear why the police told him it was civil since fraud is "misrepresentation for a gain", which the fraudulent seller presumably did. Maybe the argument is that without proof that the fraudulent seller made a gain, it is merely a Tort and not Fraud?
    - krisoft 5y ago
      > it is unclear why the police told him it was civil It's just typical first level support. Police didn't see any obvious simple solution and wanted the issue out of their hair so they said the thing which usually gets the issue out of their hair. The person persisted and escalated the issue higher. (for example to the news papers.) And now "The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with Bedfordshire Police's fraud squad, which has begun an investigation."
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      I suspect the average PC called out to an argument between two seemingly innocent parties about ownership is going to want to get as far away from it as possible...
    - 5y ago
so_throwaway 5y ago
It is not different in the UK. This person will get their house back when the Land Registry has ticked all the boxes. They were shocked by the reluctance of the police to enforce their property rights simply on their say-so. They were shocked by it because they hadn't really thought through how the system works. It is not the role of the police to evict someone who is the registered owner merely on the say-so of someone else who claims to have been defrauded. Clearly there are good reasons for this. The article presents the facts as though they will never get their house back (with some creative ambiguity about what 'legal owner' means - does it mean the legally registered owner, regardless of any past fraud? or the actual rightful owner) because it makes a more interesting article than 'Man left annoyed after a painstaking legal process restores him his property rights'.
tzs 5y ago
But the house wasn't really stolen. It was fraudulently sold. You might think that such quibbling cannot possibly matter, and maybe it doesn't in the UK, but in the US it can. Here's a case from 2008 in Washington state [1]. Company X leased a car to Y. Y forged documents to show X had released their interest in the car and then Y sold the car to innocent buyer Z. X sued to recover the car from Z. Washington law (RCW 10.79.050) states "All property obtained by larceny, robbery or burglary, shall be restored to the owner; and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser or not, shall divest the owner of his rights to such property". But there was no larceny, robbery, or burglary in this case so that did not apply. Z got to keep the car. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html

klyrs 5y ago

I'm not sure the police would do anything different in the US. I'm guessing that proper owner, like most people, kept the deed in his house -- which was emptied of his belongings and sold. Without that, the police don't have much to act on.

quietbritishjim 5y ago
Paper deeds are no longer relevant to property ownership in the UK. The HM Land Registry records are authoritative (subject to legal challenges). See for example: https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/19/title-deeds/ https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/19/title-deeds/ Edit: technically they are still relevant if the property has not been sold since the records were digitised in the 1990s
- Maxburn 5y ago
  In the US I believe your Title Insurance would give you a suitable paper trail as well. That and the registrar.
bogle 5y ago
In England the owner doesn't have the deeds, although they may obtain a copy. It's digital with the Land Registry. Scotland, incidentally, has the oldest land registry in the world (1617 CE), the Sasines.
- stevekemp 5y ago
  I paid off my flat in Edinburgh back in 2016 or so, and in exchange I received a huge bundle of papers "the deeds", from the bank. I spent a fun evening flicking through the records of owners, the price they'd paid for it, and the few details provided (occupation, etc). All dating back to when the building was built in 1890 or so. Later I left the country, and moved to Finland. After a year or two here I wanted to sell the flat as I'd decided I wasn't going back. Despite going through the process of ensuring the registry was updated I had to mail them back to the solicators based in Scotland prior to selling the flat. The sale was carried out 100% remotely; I had a couple of phone calls, and when I balked at the use of a FAX machine I printed out a few forms/documents from emails, signed them, and physically posted them back to the solicators. Happily I'd had the foresight to leave a spare set of keys with a trusted friend, which were used for the viewings, etc. It probably helped that the solicator who handled the sale had also handled the registration of the deeds when I received them so they were probably confident it was a flat I owned.. When I queried things I was told "The only registry is definitive, but .. things are .. smoother .. with the physical deeds". Made no sense to me, but I wasn't going to argue.
  - willyt 5y ago
    When the land registry was digitised they got the land boundaries from the Ordnance Survey maps. The Ordnance Survey got them from tracing aerial photos. When property changes hands for the first time since the digital system was introduced the land boundaries from the OS mapping agency have to be checked against the original deeds as they are almost always slightly wrong, e.g my kitchen was shown as being partly in my neighbour’s garden according to the digital map.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    I bought my house in August, I've got original deeds for the land dating back to 1831 which was quite unusual to be holding the 200 year old paper.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
In my state, original deeds are filed with the property appraiser's office. I suspect this is the case for all states but I do not know. Our PAO gives a receipt at filing. Copies are available after the deed is processed. In my state, they're public record; in my county, they're available online. source: worked for real estate attorney
op00to 5y ago
Who keeps their deed in the house? When I bought my first house, my realtor basically steered us right into a bank to open a safe deposit box.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Not saying it's the best of ideas (especially in light of this story), but I think that a lot of people do it.
cortesoft 5y ago
I don’t think most people in the US hold a physical deed. I know I certainly don’t for my house.

staticman2 5y ago

You need a court case to determine if it was stolen is presumably the issue. You don't want police running around "taking people's house back" without due process, presumbly.

lbriner 5y ago
No, I think the issue is that police would have no power to "take the house back" because it was legally purchased. They could investigate the fraud committed by the seller against other organisations but specifically, the real owner is not the victim of criminal fraud. I don't think he will have any ablity to forceably reobtain the house, although potentially, if he refunded the buyers money (after getting it from the accused), they might agree to give it to him back. On the other hand, if already cleared, it would probably be easier for the real owner to get his money back and buy somewhere else. Very sad though.

chrisseaton 5y ago

The key problem is that it is a civil matter. It's like a contract dispute - it's not a police matter. Obviously for the individual it's a major life-changing disaster... but in the eyes of the state it's equivalent to 'we ordered four cases of Coca-Cola but our vendor only delivered three'.

krisoft 5y ago
> The key problem is that it is a civil matter. No. The criminal matter, as alleged, is that someone scammed the buyer, the solicitors and the Land Registry into believing that they are who they were not. That is not a civil matter, it is I believe fraud. If a bloke sells their house, but then gets cold feet, or not happy with the compensation that is a civil matter. This is not what is alleged.
- lbriner 5y ago
  Yes, it is unclear why the police told him it was civil since fraud is "misrepresentation for a gain", which the fraudulent seller presumably did. Maybe the argument is that without proof that the fraudulent seller made a gain, it is merely a Tort and not Fraud?
  - krisoft 5y ago
    > it is unclear why the police told him it was civil It's just typical first level support. Police didn't see any obvious simple solution and wanted the issue out of their hair so they said the thing which usually gets the issue out of their hair. The person persisted and escalated the issue higher. (for example to the news papers.) And now "The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with Bedfordshire Police's fraud squad, which has begun an investigation."
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    I suspect the average PC called out to an argument between two seemingly innocent parties about ownership is going to want to get as far away from it as possible...
  - 5y ago

so_throwaway 5y ago

It is not different in the UK. This person will get their house back when the Land Registry has ticked all the boxes. They were shocked by the reluctance of the police to enforce their property rights simply on their say-so. They were shocked by it because they hadn't really thought through how the system works. It is not the role of the police to evict someone who is the registered owner merely on the say-so of someone else who claims to have been defrauded. Clearly there are good reasons for this. The article presents the facts as though they will never get their house back (with some creative ambiguity about what 'legal owner' means - does it mean the legally registered owner, regardless of any past fraud? or the actual rightful owner) because it makes a more interesting article than 'Man left annoyed after a painstaking legal process restores him his property rights'.

tzs 5y ago

But the house wasn't really stolen. It was fraudulently sold. You might think that such quibbling cannot possibly matter, and maybe it doesn't in the UK, but in the US it can. Here's a case from 2008 in Washington state [1]. Company X leased a car to Y. Y forged documents to show X had released their interest in the car and then Y sold the car to innocent buyer Z. X sued to recover the car from Z. Washington law (RCW 10.79.050) states "All property obtained by larceny, robbery or burglary, shall be restored to the owner; and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser or not, shall divest the owner of his rights to such property". But there was no larceny, robbery, or burglary in this case so that did not apply. Z got to keep the car. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1210407.html