7 ms·
It depends on how Title law works in the jurisdiction. I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left hol
by dmoy 5y ago
It depends on how Title law works in the jurisdiction.
I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property.
It's one reason in the US that most property sales include a purchase of title insurance.
- lbriner 5y agoI'm not a lawyer but the article implies that once the title is transferred, the new owner owns it! There might be liability with the Solicitor or the Land Registry, otherwise it would appear to be incredibly unfair!
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoThe article says "The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year." which tends to imply they have some liability.
- pdmccormick 5y agoI wonder if that means they don't pay all that much compensation on a case by case basis, or if there isn't that much fraud occurring to begin with.
- pmyteh 5y agoI suspect they'd rather you claimed against the fraudster or a solicitor, with the compensation fund as a backstop. If that is the case, it could be neither: just that most people get recompensed elsewhere.
- pmyteh 5y agoThat's right, I think. The property can be recovered from the fraudster, but not from an innocent subsequent purchaser. There is at least some form of compensation scheme by the Land Registry. And 'selling on behalf of someone who isn't the actual owner' certainly can found a liability claim on the solicitor.
- Causality1 5y agoThat's wild. Is there any other case where someone gets to keep stolen property as long as they didn't know it was stolen? I have to say if I was in the victim's position, my reaction would probably land me in prison for longer than the fraudster.
- White_Wolf 5y agoI second that. If I'd end up losing my house to something like this... Let's just say nobody would get it by the end of it.
- pydry 5y agoIf you're implying what I think you're implying it would probably end with you in prison.
- reificator 5y agoLosing the singular most expensive item you own, that typically contains the rest of your property, with no warning… that tends to end with you on the street which some may feel worse than prison. I’m not condoning that choice but recognize the consequences are particularly low when you’re already at the bottom.
- White_Wolf 5y agomate.. it's a matter of perspective. for people that have nothing left... prison doesn't sound that bad. If I have to choose between ending up on the streets again or prison... I'm pretty sure I'd chose prison this time around. I was young and lucky the first time. Now...
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoPart of his point is that's not really much of a deterrent if you've already lost everything.
- lazide 5y ago
- tialaramex 5y agoThe Land Registry is the final arbitor of who owns what in England and Wales. So yes, right now the Registry says this New Owner owns this property, there is no way to contest this in a court of law, the official Land Registry paperwork is de jure supreme, it has the same legal effect as if an Officer from the Registry was in Court to say yup, that's who owns this property says the Crown. But, of course what we've got here is apparently Fraud. Presumably the likely legal outcome is that the actual sale price or, if higher, fair market value, must go to the previous legitimate owner. Unless the new owner is shown to have committed fraud. The Solicitors are required to be insured. And of course the Government owns the Land Registry and so is quite capable of standing any of its potential liabilities, though it seems most likely the Solicitors screwed up here in accepting bogus "proof" of identity.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago> The Land Registry is the final arbitor of who owns what in England and Wales. I don't think that's true because for instance there are still properties unregistered (as mandatory registration was phased in until 1990). Certainly it seems possible to rectify the Register, not least in case of fraud [1] Also, in English law, a valid sale of land must meet strict criteria, including being made by Deed. I am not a lawyer but I don't see how the Deed can valid in this case since it did not involve the legal owner at all! Since solicitors must check identities (how could they have failed that?) and executing a Deed includes signing it in the presence of a witness I suspect a number of people have at the minimum massively screwed up, and the witness is likely an accomplice. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and-indemnity/practice-guide-39-rectification-and-indemnity https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
- ineedasername 5y agoIt seems to be true: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and-indemnity/practice-guide-39-rectification-and-indemnity#rectification-and-fraud https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
- tialaramex 5y ago
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> I don't know how it works in this part of the UK, but in many states in the US, the buyer would left holding the bag - the original homeowner would keep the property Different ways of dealing with the problem of fraudulent transfer and property records. In the U.S., the risk is the buyer's. If the property was fraudulently transferred, the transaction is mutable. This makes the sureness of ownership, as well as the record, less reliable, while making ownership per se more. The U.K. flips that assessment. If the Land Registry says you own the property, you can rest assured you own it. No re-litigating whether that transfer two sales back was done correctly. In exchange, this shit. If you consider each country's history with respect to property and power, it makes sense.
- chongli 5y agoIf the Land Registry says you own the property, you can rest assured you own it. Sounds to me like you can only rest assured at the moment the Land Registry tells you. After that, it’s only a matter of time before some scammer sells your house out from under you. Not a great system.
- Seattle3503 5y agoSeems like you should be able to lock your title just like domain names.
- mahkeiro 5y agoCould you use a very small mortgage as a proxy for that function? In my country a mortgage will prevent any transaction if the bank don't agree. This will add a non trivial step for the scammer.
- martinflack 5y ago> In the U.S., the risk is the buyer's. If the property was fraudulently transferred, the transaction is mutable. Ironically you're describing the original English legal system centered around deeds. But a few US States, some of the UK Commonwealth, and England, as it sounds from this article, use the Torrens system[1]. The difference is whether the deeds are primary and the registry a mere copy (or even optional); or the registry primary and any papers reflecting registration a mere copy. But generally with a Torrens system there is some statutory compensation for fraud cases. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrens_title (IANAL so this may be incorrect)
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoThis and un-filed liens are typically why you should always pay for owners policies on title. Otherwise if something comes up, you're royally fucked.