"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 fr

"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.