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.
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.
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.
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
(IANAL so this may be incorrect)
Could you elaborate on that, please? I don't know which historical aspects you're referring to.
One example is Ayn Rand who said that Natives weren't using land productively and therefore weren't really owners of it.
Now, the contemporary English system isn’t strictly speaking Torrens, it actually is somewhat of a hybrid between a pure Torrens system (as used in Australia and many other places), and the original English system (which slowly evolved out of mediaeval English law) and which is still mostly retained in the US. But still, to the extent that the records of the Land Registry take priority over the actual title documents, it is closer to the Torrens system than most US systems.
I think the main reasons for the lesser adoption of Torrens in the US have little to do with the reasons you suggest. Trying to link the US non-adoption of it to the dispossession of indigenous people is dubious given that Australia, where it was invented, has a similar history. It is basically due to the greater number and greater conservatism of US state jurisdictions (here I mean “conservatism” primarily in the “slow-to-embrace-change” sense, rather than conservatism as a political ideology, this is the kind of technocratic legal issue about which neither progressives nor conservatives, in the ideological sense, care much), and also due to the lobbying power of the US title services/insurance industry, which sees the greater simplicity of the Torrens system (most of the time, ignoring occasional problems and frauds like this, which can and have happened under pre-Torrens systems too) as a threat to their established business models
Torrens essentially tries to optimise for the most common case, in which title is clear and no fraud is going on, and make that common case as simple and cheap as possible, even if by doing so the outcome in those rare cases of disputes and frauds may not always be completely optimal
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.
Nonetheless, here's how the Land Registry handles matters of fraud: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rectification-and...
3.2 Suspected fraud or forgery
If someone suspects that a fraud has taken place or is
about to take place in relation to their property, they
should contact us immediately. In many cases, we will
be able, on application, to enter a standard form
restriction LL in the register, that requires a
certificate to be given by a conveyancer that they are
satisfied that the person who executed a document
lodged for registration as disponor is the same person
as the proprietor.
It will also be advisable to take legal or other
professional advice to try to minimise any loss.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...
But, if the Registry says your property is registered, and that Jim owns it, the fact you say it isn't registered doesn't trump that. You would need to persuade a Court that the Registry is wrong, and then they'd need to tell the Registry to fix that. Until both those things happen, Jim owns it.
> 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!
Prima Facie there's a Deed which says the legal owner sold it. Now we've got this chap, says he's the legal owner, says he never signed that paperwork. That's a contradiction, which is true? So that's the sort of problem we have Courts for.
My guess is, this chap is exactly who he says he is, there's a fraudster somewhere with £131000 of somebody else's money who won't show up to court.
But of course it's also possible this is a different fraud in progress. The chap who claims it was "stolen" has £131000 in an account in his friend's name, and now wants both the house and the money.
A judge gets to decide the truth of the matter. Often things are clear cut (e.g. the "driving license" proves to be a badly photocopied Photoshop image, a solicitor's clerk admits a "face to face" transaction actually took place on Zoom, the bank account is traced to a known crook who fled the country last week) but sometimes it's just very hard to decide, which is why we need smart, honest people to do that job and decide what's a fair outcome when it's unclear.
Sounds like a court needs to dig in and figure out what is going on for sure.
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.
Otherwise it sets an absurd precedent. If it was not some man's house but a critical piece of infrastructure, the courts are not going to stand idly by and let some random person take possession of Sellafield, or for that matter, Harrods.
But the existing owner will probably settle for compensation instead of fight a lengthy court battle.
Nobody is going to end up as the accidental innocent purchaser of a stolen Sellafield, so that's not a concern. If the government really needs to reverse a transaction under these circumstances it could use a compulsory purchase order or a private act of Parliament.
The bottom line is that there are two innocent victims and one or both are getting screwed. I prefer your rule too, overall, but there are circumstances where one or the other is going to be more unjust in a particular case.
The issue is there are scenarios where the person writing the article may not actually be the legit owner - maybe they are delusional, or were squatting, or whatever. Maybe they are in league with the person who took off with the money, etc.
And the person who bought it is out real money on the meantime and is trying to make a home in good faith - it’s a pretty bad situation all around.
Original proprietor had a furnished house, and the end result should be that they still have the house at no expense and at least trouble: they did not partake in the "sale", so they shouldn't suffer consequences from someone's incompetence or negligence. House is not just a "financial" instrument: it might have large emotional value too (memories, tradition & history, community and neighbourhood...).
Unfortunately, the honest buyer hired a solicitor to act as their agent, and while the solicitor might lose their professional license, buyer should get their damages back from the said solicitor or licensing body, because buyer is a victim of their incompetence/negligence, yet competence and care were guaranteed with the professional license.
Solicitor relies on the Land Registry to be the ultimate arbiter, so they should expect their damages to come from them for the duties they failed to perform.
Regardless of what the law is anywhere, that's how it should work IMHO. Unfortunately, the practicalities of how long it takes courts to (dis)prove a fraud make some of these hard to effectively achieve in a timely manner.
Theoretically, courts could make the process more expedient in cases of inhabiting-properties by "pausing" the transfer and putting the property into government custody, giving temporary use rights to the more likely resulting owner from the preliminary hearing (hey, fake document was involved, sorry, original owner gets to live there for the time being: everyone, please keep all receipts for any work done on the property and about your legal representation so you can be fairly compensated).
I’m not condoning that choice but recognize the consequences are particularly low when you’re already at the bottom.
I assume there is a specific legal quirk with property ownership.
This is mostly how private property works in practice, everywhere.
Not just random clerk writing a line in a book when random stranger comes and tells they own a piece of land and are going to sell it.
That person is a random clerk
> possibly after appeals
I can 100% gaurantee that this case goes to court (if it is not settled to the now previous owners satisfaction).
I also suspect that the original owner will come out on top, by likely more than the 150k that their 'house' was worth.
The random clerk does not get to do write off your property belonging to someone else, unless your elected representative had a change voice an opinion in a proceedings where a clear public decision by the elected representatives to specifically take away someone's property was made.
It’s not like you can take anything with you when you’re dead, owning materials is really just a societal construct no matter which way you slice it.
Ownership is a legal abstraction/construct.
We've redefined what "taking good care of something" means for things you possess, and we made elaborate social/legal constructs to clearly define boundaries of possession.
But this is present even in the animal world, even when it comes to "property" (wolfs mark their territory, so do lions, bees go back to their own hives, etc).
This assertion immediately falls apart on consideration IMO. Even in simple, controlled circumstances like football, the meaning of "possession" is subject to mutual agreement (i.e. "rules").
You could take some particular definition of "possession" as "natural" or otherwise axiomatic. This is not unheard of, but I think it's a trick of misdirection to place it in the domain of the "physical/real" when it is plainly a political matter.
I wonder if we will ever have a future where cryogenic freezing works and allows people to own land after they are temporarily dead.
Can you name a country that behaves differently?
It's more like you lease the land :)
Cash is legally considered fungible. So, if someone steals a bunch of cash and buys something from you with it, even though that specific cash technically belonged to someone else before theft, it can't be reclaimed even if they can prove it.
Or just make it rain on so many people that it's effectively impossible to get it all back. The power of decentralization.
It's why thieves try to steal and then turn over immediately.
Had my TV stolen, it ended up in a pawn shop. Luckily, I had receipt and serial number. There was some paperwork and court order but pawnshop had to return TV to me.
>>According to general receiving stolen property laws, it is a crime to accept or purchase any property which you believe or have actual knowledge that it was obtained through illegal means, such as theft. However, receiving stolen property is its own separate crime and thus should not be confused with the similar criminal acts of theft, robbery, or extortion.
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-sto...
In Belgium the notary will always ask for your digital ID card.
Somebody ordered satellite TV to be installed at my house. A few days later they went to a phone shop and walked out with an iPhone in my name, using (I assume) the invoice from the TV service as proof of identity. They then did the same with a few other phone companies. The only way I found out about these was when they sent me bills demanding payment a month or so later :-)
They also opened a bank account in my name, which I found out via a credit search, but the bank would not confirm or deny it as I was not the person who opened it.
This last bit is more interesting as I believe it had a different address, but was in my name. Technically that is not fraud, as in the UK names are freely changeable without needing any official registration. I could go into a bank tomorrow and ask to open an account, saying my name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" (the Prime Minister's full name) and that would be legal. The bank would probably send me away as I don't have any supporting evidence to prove that's my name, but there's ways around that.
You can easily see how you could use this to have enough evidence to back up the claim that you are the owner of the property - especially if the property was vacant and you broke in so you could get the post (I assume the buyer was shown around before they bought it?).
Most people doing notary/certification on stuff like this are used to that kind of situation, so someone having an acceptable but not ideal ID method isn’t going to slow this process down.
However I can do the following: use digital identification, that uses multiple factors along with an app, that requires using digital certificate from id card to setup. Afterwards its just my device and that app PIN that is required to impersonate me (well and semi-public national personal identification number)… this applies to almost all gov services with few exceptions like operations with property…
Drivers license has been invalidated years ago as an identification mechanism. Let alone for dealing with property - notary is mandatory along with proper identification.
I would be very surprised if a notary wouldn't demand it. They would not put their own job on the line for some idiot.
- Double ownership for 30 years followed by a proof of ownership from the real, hidden one;
- Or simply it is the notary’s understanding that there is no record past 12 years for example, and yet there is. If they have checked “the normal books”, their duty is fulfilled.
My guess is that in France, if such a story as the article happended, the buyer would be kicked out of the house (and probably lose their money stolen by the fraudsters) but maybe I'm completely wrong.
Here is a similar story: https://lemans.maville.com/actu/actudet_--nous-sommes-abando...
But I think in any case your ownership of the property is not challenged. It's "just" that you cannot use it, but eventually you can get it back.
Could someone actually sell a house without those?
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/qkew77/is_a_...
While the counties record titles as a matter of convenience, the true title is determined by the courts.
Other countries have centralized registries so that if the country's database says X piece of land is owned by Y, that's final. In the us it can be litigated and title insurance comes into play for the buyer who purchased it fraudulently.
Like any statement about the US, "it's complicated".
For example, in Massachusetts there are two types of real estate: recorded and registered. See https://www.deeds.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-... for a quick rundown.
In some cases, the property that goes with a single house will actually be made up of two bits of land, one of which is recorded and one of which is registered. In other cases it's all recorded or all registered.
Now this is not a nationwide centralized registry, it is a state-wide registry within Massachusetts, and my understanding is that the sort of litigation you could get for recorded land does not happen for registered land, because transfer of registered land is already a Land Court decision.
Key quote from the above link's description of registered land:
As the current state of title is sequentially updated
by the registration of future transactions, it embodies
a certificate of title that not only evidences title,
but in fact guarantees title and is subject only to the
exceptions provided by statute and matters of federal law.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.
Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it.
Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.
The hubris of an internet commenter?
Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1].
This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.)
[1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...
I don't understand by what logic this sale is temporary? What mechanism can undo the sale?
It almost makes me wonder if this is a semi common scam wealthy folks use to take poor people's desirable homes.
Could more easily disappear if paid in cash.
For example, the FBI was able to partially recover the Colonial Pipeline ransom, although that seems to be in part because the perpetrators were stupid by trying to sell it on a US exchange, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline_ransomware_a...
Criminals don't use bitcoin anymore.
They use cash and monero.
If you can't get a hold on B, then clearly A should be the one all outta luck, not C.
Absolutely insane!
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?...)
But I greatly prefer your version of events to what happened in the article so please prove me wrong!
How my will has anything to do about this or affecting if selling nothing becomes something or not?
Where exactly a legal education needed for being able to recognise that the real owner did not sell or give away his property? If I am not a solicitor I cannot possibly comprehend what is a theft, fraud, or recognise bodily harm or crimes in general that are condemned by the society? I do not buy into that. The recognition of these kind of crimes are older than institutions dealing with those. If the stealing of the property is not prosecuted then the system is wrong, needs a fix.
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."