4 ms·

It sounds like a sophisticated fraud. They probably target clergy or others who have well known public schedules. I assume there is an equivalent of title ins

• jacquesm 5y ago
  The original owner is not going to be the one with title insurance though, that's usually bought by the buyer, not the seller, especially not a seller who isn't even aware that there is a transaction.
  • bloak 5y ago
    "Title insurance" isn't much of a thing in the UK. I think this is because the Land Registry gives you something similar as part of the service. Random quote from the web, from the Law Society Gazette, no less: "We already have a land registry which provides a comprehensive guarantee of title backed by the state." As for whether fraudulent sales should be reverted or not, I've been pondering the question since I read the story yesterday and come to the conclusion that it would be good to apply some common sense: * Someone buys a house without looking at it, before or after the sale, as an investment because the price seems really attractive. It is then discovered that the owner, who is living in the house, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously they should revert the transfer of ownership and compensate the purchaser. * Someone buys a field, gets planning permission, builds a house on it, and moves in. Ten years later it is discovered that the real owner of the field, a company in Dubai, was not involved in the "sale". Obviously the transfer should not be reverted and the involuntary seller should be compensated.