Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Man left shocked as his house is 'stolen'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
350 comments
> 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."
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."
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.
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.
Any UK reader can avoid this by signing up to:
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.”
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.”
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.
There was the suggestion that the seller's solicitor was in on it, but no firm evidence. The seller has been arrested at least.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It seems this is becoming somewhat common in the UK: https://www.step.org/industry-news/uk-solicitors-warned-grow...
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?
Something similar happened in Germany recently. A house worth millions was fraudulently sold like this. The original owners got it back luckily.
German video about it: https://youtu.be/TolvzYzk64c
German video about it: https://youtu.be/TolvzYzk64c
I am baffled by the fact that a complete house can be had for the little sum of £131,000.
That's about €150.000 in real money... I guess where I live that would get me a garage, maybe.
That's about €150.000 in real money... I guess where I live that would get me a garage, maybe.
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.
Police: “not my problem, lol”.
The joy of paying taxes.
The joy of paying taxes.
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!
This is apparently enough of a problem in the UK that the land registry has procedures for locking a title and for reporting frauds.[1]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud
[1] https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud
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.
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)
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)
UK house owner - just signed up to the Land Registry alert system. Which has to be a record from not knowing something existed to signing up in four minutes.
1. The registry seriously refuses passwords that do not have alphanumeric characters only. Did not try Unicode.
2. Most of the UK is not in the land registry - it only is compulsory for land sold IIRR since the 1990s and generally has records going back to early 1900s. If someone owns land from before then, no-one publically knows who they are or who owns it. As most land in the UK is held by government or aristocracy and they have not needed to sell it for centuries we don't know who owns what.
3. This simply cannot be the first time - something this sophisticated, the original fraudster did not so this the first time now. How common is this? I mean see above - the land registry has a monitoring service for this ?
4. Thinking about it, I just added a monitoring account with just an email. If I create a new account and try to add $TargetAddress I find out if it is monitored - and I suspect that that is not going to count as a monitoring event !
1. The registry seriously refuses passwords that do not have alphanumeric characters only. Did not try Unicode.
2. Most of the UK is not in the land registry - it only is compulsory for land sold IIRR since the 1990s and generally has records going back to early 1900s. If someone owns land from before then, no-one publically knows who they are or who owns it. As most land in the UK is held by government or aristocracy and they have not needed to sell it for centuries we don't know who owns what.
3. This simply cannot be the first time - something this sophisticated, the original fraudster did not so this the first time now. How common is this? I mean see above - the land registry has a monitoring service for this ?
4. Thinking about it, I just added a monitoring account with just an email. If I create a new account and try to add $TargetAddress I find out if it is monitored - and I suspect that that is not going to count as a monitoring event !
It’s odd that in the UK a person who buys stolen property legally owns it.
> "I have read of a gentleman who owned a so fine house in London, and when he went for months of summer to Switzerland and lock up his house, some burglar came and broke window at back and got in. Then he went and made open the shutters in front and walk out and in through the door, before the very eyes of the police. Then he have an auction in that house, and advertise it, and put up big notice; and when the day come he sell off by a great auctioneer all the goods of that other man who own them. Then he go to a builder, and he sell him that house, making an agreement that he pull it down and take all away within a certain time. And your police and other authority help him all they can. And when that owner come back from his holiday in Switzerland he find only an empty hole where his house had been."
- Dracula, 1897.
- Dracula, 1897.
Sounds like the Land Registry is missing a NoTransfers bit in their settings for properties.
Another reason to use an anonymous LLC/entity. The owning entity gets a new state identification number which won't have appeared in as many leaks to be impersonated. While the individual owner of the LLC isn't known to impersonate.
Really interesting, a very similar case has recently been reported in Berlin, Germany [1]. Here the fraudsters tried to get legal ownership of a whole apartment building in Berlin. It seems they nearly made it, but then some insurance company sent a letter to the actual owners who could successfully blocked the transaction from committing.
[1] (in German) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-wie-ein-rentne...
[1] (in German) https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-wie-ein-rentne...
"it's a civil matter" seems to be the go to excuse for British police. There's a whole TV series following property owners in the UK who have experienced issues and this response comes up way too often in the series.
I remember reading about a "sovereign citizen" outfit, doing something similar, in the US.
In that case, the "sovereign citizen" would get bounced out on their ear, but they can still make the homeowner's life a nightmare.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/sovereign-citizens-sentence...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/nyregion/moors-newark.htm...
In that case, the "sovereign citizen" would get bounced out on their ear, but they can still make the homeowner's life a nightmare.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/sovereign-citizens-sentence...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/nyregion/moors-newark.htm...
When signing/transferring over the title deed, aren't all parties involved supposed to be physically present in front of a lawyer/notary?
Me thinks due diligence by all members involved in this transaction was severely lacking and they should be held accountable. I.e. Real Estate agent, bank, brokers, what have you. One could even say they all conspired in this property theft.
Alternatively, perhaps the victim was lacking some sort of documentation that allowed the illicit procurement to occur?
Me thinks due diligence by all members involved in this transaction was severely lacking and they should be held accountable. I.e. Real Estate agent, bank, brokers, what have you. One could even say they all conspired in this property theft.
Alternatively, perhaps the victim was lacking some sort of documentation that allowed the illicit procurement to occur?
This is somewhat the point of "title insurance" in the US. In this case the buyer would be protected since technically the real owner never actually sold the property.
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.