AIBU to not understand fraud law in this case?

[MRex]

Man's house sold by fraudster. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
"Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."

Why is it the new buyer who owns the house, and not their transaction that's reversed and considered fraud? Mr Hall didn't sell the house. AIBU to think it should be buyer beware, because the buyer can sue their solicitor, but even Mr Hall's home insurance becomes invalid when the property changes hands so he has no formal support to sue the same solicitors for his possessions and all the damage.

There's another thread here :

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/4390065-House-stolen

I don't understand it either really!

What struck me was that the police did nothing except basically tell him to piss off and only bothered to start an investigation because the BBC weighed in on his side.

Access to justice shouldn't depend upon having powerful connections or advocates.

The law says that the Land Registry is the definitive source of land ownership. This is unique to property and means that if you buy property you can always be sure that you are buying the title regardless of what’s gone on in previous transactions.

We are registered with Land Registry Property Alert to be informed if anyone tries to search on the property. I'm not convinced that process couldn't fail with the rapid timeframes that fraudsters specialise in.