For what it's worth. If you own Real Property in England, even if only a Leasehold (Long Lease e.g. 99 years) you can get the Land Registry to email you about activity or, once per year, the lack of activity for your property records.
Land Registry records have a sort of poor man's locking. The buyers (or in practice their solicitor) need to first perform a "Search" which would get recorded as activity, some time before they can file paperwork to claim it was sold, and so that gives you considerable time to say "Hey, I'm not selling this, why is there a Search by Honest But Incompetent Solicitors LLC?" and phone up to yell at somebody.
It is always nice being vigilant for all and every possible scam and fraud out there coming our ways, being ready and prepared for whatever comes from whatever direction and for whatever target of ours, going after every suspicious matters we encounter or believe we encounter, being suspitious against as much as possible preparing ourselves for all kinds that could happen out there, but shouldn't be required. If it is required then the sytem does not work, need to be fixed! Not the victims.
This sort of scam is really common in Kenya. Walking around you'll see plenty of houses with large spray-painted letters stating 'THIS HOUSE IS NOT FOR SALE.'
In the US I’ve always been told it’s in the best interest of a home owner to always have some type of bank loan on the property. Mortgage, even a zero balance HELOC. Supposedly, this allows the bank to ensure there’s no title fraud because they maintain a claim to it.
> Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it.
That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the person who failed to properly vet the seller is out of £131,000 and the house? So I can "buy" a local mansion and then say "oops, I didn't know this random guy didn't own it. Oh well."
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.
Yeah, that part confused me to. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a stolen xbox from some guy on a street corner and the Police find me with it, they'd not throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess you own it now, on your way".
I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
In France it's the notary's job ( who are the only ones who can validate a sale) to ensure that the seller is who they say they are, and that they do actually own the land/house/apartment. Wonder how that works across the Channel and whose responsibility it was.
You are confusing who actually owned it, or who morally owned it, with who legally owned it.
The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it.
They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.
Since it was not sold by the owner it is difficult to argue for the legality of the transaction. Whoever claims bought something has nothing in fact, the person they've been in business with had nothing to sell. Selling nothing is nothing. The records are false!
If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)
In the US, there is title insurance. If the seller didn't have the legal right to sell the house, the house reverts to the legal owner, and the buyer is paid back by the insurance. It's not possible to get a mortgage without title insurance, and a cash buyer would be nuts to not demand it from the seller. In some states (example, California) it can get more complicated, though, because the right to sell a house isn't the same thing as the right to live in it. They buyer may own the house, but not have the right to force the current occupants to leave. That's why it's important to state in the contract that the house must be completely empty before the seller gets paid, and every month that it is not completely empty, a few thousand dollars is subtracted from the purchase price.
This seems backwards. To evict someone you have to swear up and down that you're going to occupy the place yourself. People get prosecuted for e.g. doing an owner-move-in eviction and then selling to a developer. The old owner doesn't have a legal basis to get rid of the tenant, but the new owner does.
In some states you can buy a house without title insurance. I assume this is so that people who enjoy Russian roulette and jumping out of planes without parachutes can enjoy the same adrenaline rush when buying a home.
I live in the US and had my debit card (number only, one of the bigger data leaks) stolen years ago and ever since then my bank will check every purchase with me over $300. It was really frustrating for years until someone else took my card (from another data leak) and was easily stopped and new card issued. I cannot imagine someone selling my home without involving me, or at the very least without several other of my personal contact methods also compromised at the same time.
It’s the Land Registry itself, it’s free, and: “Once you have signed up to the service, you will receive email alerts when certain activity occurs on your monitored properties, allowing you to take action if necessary.”
This is the same bs we have to deal with in the US with financial credit and social security numbers. Because there’s no actual security, the individual must monitor their own credit for abuses, or prevent anyone from accessing it via a freeze.
I have a friend who was almost the buyer of a house in the UK in a very similar situation. Fundamentally, it relied on the seller buying counterfeit identity documents (passport and driving licence) off the internet. That way, in theory, the identity checks were all conducted.
There was the suggestion that the seller's solicitor was in on it, but no firm evidence. The seller has been arrested at least.
It's a shame that the systems that are really important, like passports, id cards, property registers etc. are all still so far behind in basic security. They could easily require certain info up-front on the title like mobile, photo etc. and then if you need to update it, you have to do it via a solicitor or equivalent, it's not like most people change their photo or mobile number every week.
Is it roughly the same to "prove" your identity in the US as it is in the UK? In the US, at least for most credit checks, you just need your SSN, some public record data about where you've lived, and personal data (name, DOB, etc).
It's largely because there is no "National ID" system in the US (due to political reasons). That makes it hard for companies to track people, and the SSN is the only number that people consistently have.
Are there any examples of countries where their government is getting this right and eliminating stupid fraud?
"You and Yours obtained the driving licence used to impersonate Mr Hall" ... what? who?
And then, "Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."
The people who sold the house did not have the right to sell the house because they did not own it. The person who bought it does not own it since it was not legally sold.
Having gone through the purchase and sale of houses I'm honestly confused at how this happens. It involves a ton of paperwork, phone calls and in-person appointments, generally.
If there is a mortgage on the property, the bank holds the title. The bank has a relationship with the owner. How did the bank sign off on the transfer of funds and title? They'd have to verify the identity of the seller.
If there was no mortgage, at least in the US some bank normally holds onto the title on behalf of the owner so the same applies.
There would need to be a settlement process where the sale proceeds (minus mortgage repayment) needs to be paid to the seller. What happened here?
Being aware of the possibility of fraud, banks can and do make simple checks in my experience. A simple phone call with the contact details on record would've probably prevented this.
In addition the Land Registry authorizing title transfer, the bank would have to be on the hook here too. It's a colossal screw up and a huge nightmare for the owner to deal with but I imagine restitution will be made.
It sounds like he probably won't get his house back. I assume the buyer acted in good faith. It sure does suck though.
> Having gone through the purchase and sale of houses I'm honestly confused at how this happens. It involves a ton of paperwork, phone calls and in-person appointments, generally.
It seems that this was sophisticated identity theft.
If someone managed to get a DL with your name on it, but their picture, and your SSN, then it's pretty much carte blanche at that point.
Go into a bank and say "I need to close my accounts". "What are the account numbers?" "Oh, golly, I forget -- here's my DL, my BDay is XX-YY-ZZZZ and my Social is 123-45-6789. I recently moved from 1234 Main St. to 4567 First Ave." "Of course sir, one moment." Next thing you know you're walking out with a check.
And..that's it, it all comes from that. Buy a house, sell a house, request some documentation. Especially, since they're SELLING the house, they don't have to go through the rigors of a background check for the loan. The BUYERS are placed under a microscope. The sellers? "So, you got the key?" "Yea." "We're good, sign here."
And it's noone's fault except the original perpetrator. Everyone else did "due diligence". If the questions were answered properly, showed appropriate ID, what more can they do?
At least here the thieves were known (or even well-known). What if the buyer transferred money to some Nigerian prince who showed up with fake ID and disappeared after the sale? Would the buyer end up with no money and no house?
A reminder, once again, that "identity theft" does not exist. It is fraud, plain and simple, and the responsibility of the businesses which aren't performing due diligence in confirming your identity. 6-figure sums shouldn't be exchanging hands without multiple layers of confirmation. This could easily have been avoided with a search for any other numbers associated with the man and a call to them to confirm.
It is pretty much how policing works in the UK. Declare it a civil matter, get it off the books as soon as possible... and that's not mentioning the mountain of police misconduct court cases that have popped up recently.
Sadly the only chance of getting anything out of them is if the media get involved and hold their feet in the fire a bit.
If A says that B is trespassing on their property, and A not B is listed as the legal owner of the property according to the single source of truth, isn't it normal that the police should evict B and defend A's property rights?
Imagine if the police took the attitude "we have to give equal weight to B's hard luck story about how he's the technical owner". Harassment and vexatious claims of fraud would be absolutely rampant.
My grandfather was rather fond of telling a story about a neighbor when he was younger who came home from vacation to find that their house had been stolen... like someone had brought a wagon and team of horses in, jacked up the house, and pulled it away. Being in a rather rural area, no one apparently noticed the heist!
Imagine if we really did tokenization of assets? This type of fraud would be much easier (steal password vs months long identity theft), and impossible to reverse.
Reminded of Victor Lustig, who sold someone the Eiffel Tower.
He impersonated a government official and told a group of scrap metal dealers it was too costly to maintain and that it was set to be demolished and sold as scrap.
The man who purchased it was too embarrassed to go to authorities, lest it ruin his reputation.
Seems like the point of the conveyancer is to prevent this sort of thing.
In California it seems that a title transfer company is in practice the only way to transfer property, and for their exorbitant fee they do at least insure the buyer against this risk in perpetuity.
(Last time I bought a house in California I read the seller’s insurance policy and discovered its perpetual nature. I realized that if I ever had a problem I could sue the seller and their policy would cover me (and them). Unfortunately the title company refused to do the transfer until I bought my own title insurance. What a ripoff)
[+] [-] tialaramex|4 years ago|reply
https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
Land Registry records have a sort of poor man's locking. The buyers (or in practice their solicitor) need to first perform a "Search" which would get recorded as activity, some time before they can file paperwork to claim it was sold, and so that gives you considerable time to say "Hey, I'm not selling this, why is there a Search by Honest But Incompetent Solicitors LLC?" and phone up to yell at somebody.
[+] [-] mihaaly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdenton4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightball|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blibble|4 years ago|reply
makes it a much less tempting target
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Androider|4 years ago|reply
That's nuts. Why isn't it the case that the person who failed to properly vet the seller is out of £131,000 and the house? So I can "buy" a local mansion and then say "oops, I didn't know this random guy didn't own it. Oh well."
[+] [-] dmoy|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] aclelland|4 years ago|reply
I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
[+] [-] sofixa|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonAndOn|4 years ago|reply
[0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/title_insurance.asp
[+] [-] so_throwaway|4 years ago|reply
The claim is not that, once the legal issues and the fraud get untangled, the buyer will be held to be the rightful owner. The claim is that AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it.
They have written this article as though to suggest that this is final and the original owner has no recourse. That isn't the case. What is the case is that the police don't have a remit to investigate the fraudulent sale. If person A is listed in the registry (they 'legally own' the property) and person B isn't, the police will follow person A's instructions to remove person B from the property, but not vice versa.
[+] [-] anonporridge|4 years ago|reply
It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.
[+] [-] _0ffh|4 years ago|reply
If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C.
Absolutely insane!
[+] [-] mihaaly|4 years ago|reply
If the authorities assume things are in order here they should also be prosecuted for negligence or being accomplice and at least revert the FALSE transfer of ownership. (are we sure here that the 'buyer' is an unsuspecting party theyself?...)
[+] [-] pjdemers|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closeparen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merpnderp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superfamicom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] implements|4 years ago|reply
https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
It’s the Land Registry itself, it’s free, and: “Once you have signed up to the service, you will receive email alerts when certain activity occurs on your monitored properties, allowing you to take action if necessary.”
[+] [-] cstross|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] op00to|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m4tthumphrey|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkangel|4 years ago|reply
There was the suggestion that the seller's solicitor was in on it, but no firm evidence. The seller has been arrested at least.
[+] [-] lbriner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iso1631|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freeqaz|4 years ago|reply
It's largely because there is no "National ID" system in the US (due to political reasons). That makes it hard for companies to track people, and the SSN is the only number that people consistently have.
Are there any examples of countries where their government is getting this right and eliminating stupid fraud?
[+] [-] blunte|4 years ago|reply
And then, "Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."
The people who sold the house did not have the right to sell the house because they did not own it. The person who bought it does not own it since it was not legally sold.
[+] [-] jonp888|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|4 years ago|reply
If there is a mortgage on the property, the bank holds the title. The bank has a relationship with the owner. How did the bank sign off on the transfer of funds and title? They'd have to verify the identity of the seller.
If there was no mortgage, at least in the US some bank normally holds onto the title on behalf of the owner so the same applies.
There would need to be a settlement process where the sale proceeds (minus mortgage repayment) needs to be paid to the seller. What happened here?
Being aware of the possibility of fraud, banks can and do make simple checks in my experience. A simple phone call with the contact details on record would've probably prevented this.
In addition the Land Registry authorizing title transfer, the bank would have to be on the hook here too. It's a colossal screw up and a huge nightmare for the owner to deal with but I imagine restitution will be made.
It sounds like he probably won't get his house back. I assume the buyer acted in good faith. It sure does suck though.
[+] [-] whartung|4 years ago|reply
It seems that this was sophisticated identity theft.
If someone managed to get a DL with your name on it, but their picture, and your SSN, then it's pretty much carte blanche at that point.
Go into a bank and say "I need to close my accounts". "What are the account numbers?" "Oh, golly, I forget -- here's my DL, my BDay is XX-YY-ZZZZ and my Social is 123-45-6789. I recently moved from 1234 Main St. to 4567 First Ave." "Of course sir, one moment." Next thing you know you're walking out with a check.
And..that's it, it all comes from that. Buy a house, sell a house, request some documentation. Especially, since they're SELLING the house, they don't have to go through the rigors of a background check for the loan. The BUYERS are placed under a microscope. The sellers? "So, you got the key?" "Yea." "We're good, sign here."
And it's noone's fault except the original perpetrator. Everyone else did "due diligence". If the questions were answered properly, showed appropriate ID, what more can they do?
[+] [-] meltedcapacitor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WarOnPrivacy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aulig|4 years ago|reply
German video about it: https://youtu.be/TolvzYzk64c
[+] [-] bellyfullofbac|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kfprt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janandonly|4 years ago|reply
That's about €150.000 in real money... I guess where I live that would get me a garage, maybe.
[+] [-] bsanr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kybernetyk|4 years ago|reply
The joy of paying taxes.
[+] [-] philpem|4 years ago|reply
Sadly the only chance of getting anything out of them is if the media get involved and hold their feet in the fire a bit.
[+] [-] so_throwaway|4 years ago|reply
If A says that B is trespassing on their property, and A not B is listed as the legal owner of the property according to the single source of truth, isn't it normal that the police should evict B and defend A's property rights?
Imagine if the police took the attitude "we have to give equal weight to B's hard luck story about how he's the technical owner". Harassment and vexatious claims of fraud would be absolutely rampant.
[+] [-] mhh__|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ensignavenger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud
[+] [-] scosman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nootropicat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchook|4 years ago|reply
He impersonated a government official and told a group of scrap metal dealers it was too costly to maintain and that it was set to be demolished and sold as scrap.
The man who purchased it was too embarrassed to go to authorities, lest it ruin his reputation.
[+] [-] gumby|4 years ago|reply
In California it seems that a title transfer company is in practice the only way to transfer property, and for their exorbitant fee they do at least insure the buyer against this risk in perpetuity.
(Last time I bought a house in California I read the seller’s insurance policy and discovered its perpetual nature. I realized that if I ever had a problem I could sue the seller and their policy would cover me (and them). Unfortunately the title company refused to do the transfer until I bought my own title insurance. What a ripoff)