Crazy story. I wonder what mechanism allows the new owner to keep the house? Logically it seems like they should just lose their money.
With stolen property this situation would totally make sense, but it's not like the house was ever in the possession of the fraudster. Can't fraudulent land registry entries not just be undone? Clearly a person with no control over the property can't have sold it.
If it works like this for houses, how does it work for companies? Can anyone steal a UK LTD in the same manner?
Your last question is really interesting and someone who knows should chime in.
> The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year.
I’d imagine (like my imagination fits with actual law!) that the original owner should get the house back and the new owners get money. The new owners were the victims of fraud, I can’t see justice in them being out. But just like a baseball game is over on a called third strike and no replay will overturn the call, and when an election is certified or called by the judges it’s over regardless of further maneuvering, the new ownership is registered and that’s a fact on the ground. Could just be a bureaucratic thing.
Then again, in SF, a couple bought some property a few years ago at tax auction, bought it free and clear, and then the wealthy and connected neighbors who let it get into tax arrears in the first place raised a big snit and the city reversed its own sale. So whoever owns the registry can do whatever they want, at least in the US, title be damned. Maybe the same in the UK.
2 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadWith stolen property this situation would totally make sense, but it's not like the house was ever in the possession of the fraudster. Can't fraudulent land registry entries not just be undone? Clearly a person with no control over the property can't have sold it.
If it works like this for houses, how does it work for companies? Can anyone steal a UK LTD in the same manner?
> The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year.
I’d imagine (like my imagination fits with actual law!) that the original owner should get the house back and the new owners get money. The new owners were the victims of fraud, I can’t see justice in them being out. But just like a baseball game is over on a called third strike and no replay will overturn the call, and when an election is certified or called by the judges it’s over regardless of further maneuvering, the new ownership is registered and that’s a fact on the ground. Could just be a bureaucratic thing.
Then again, in SF, a couple bought some property a few years ago at tax auction, bought it free and clear, and then the wealthy and connected neighbors who let it get into tax arrears in the first place raised a big snit and the city reversed its own sale. So whoever owns the registry can do whatever they want, at least in the US, title be damned. Maybe the same in the UK.