To not realise people can steal houses?

[radiatorsz]

Read this story

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662.amp

wtf!!!

How can this happen and how is it a civil matter? How can you stop this happening?

Sorry, I should have read your post properly, @amillionrosepetals.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

And if you are aware of the fact that you still get to keep the property while the real owner gets paid compensation - well you might be tempted.

It really shouldn't be allowed to be that simple, especially in this case: the buyer needs to be interviewed by the police and forced to explain why they thought the house price was in any way not highly suspicious.

Maybe if you're selling to family or a very close friend, you might give them a hefty discount (although, ironically, the authorities will still ask questions and query suspected stamp duty/other tax avoidance with a significantly below-market value price); but if actually buying from a stranger/mild acquaintance?

If nothing else, I'd be very wary that, even if the seller is the rightful owner, the buyer might be taking huge advantage of somebody with dementia or learning difficulties - or even threatening/gaslighting them - especially as the house never made it to being advertised on the open market.

If a fraudulent purchase doesn’t go through a solicitor buyers can and do lose the properties. This particular purchase went through a solicitor and it is their failings that caused the original owner to lose their property - they will be compensated.

I believe that this scam is only possible for properties that are fully paid/not mortgaged as when there is a mortgage, the owner is the Bank.

So worth keeping a low mortgage on the house, or not telling anyone you have paid off the mortgage!

I've just registered with the Land Registry for alerts, thanks to this thread. MN at its best!

@Cattenberg

Sorry, I should have read your post properly, *@amillionrosepetals*.

Not to worry. That was my point actually (sorry if I wasn't clear). I can't see how this could have been a normal at-arms-length type of transaction i.e openly advertise property for sale and conduct viewings. Some level of collusion between fraudster and purchaser is one explanation.

Am I the only one wondering why the neighbours didn’t see/hear anything odd going on, given it was a terraced house. I feel so sorry for this man.

@CounsellorTroi

Am I the only one wondering why the neighbours didn’t see/hear anything odd going on, given it was a terraced house. I feel so sorry for this man.

It was the neighbours who reported it as soon as they saw someone in the house.

Has it only just happened? Before the pandemic some streets were often quite dead during the day with everyone at work (as per Mumsnet threads you used to get regularly where the sahm or wfh op is moaning about having to take in parcels for half the street because all her neighbours are out all day).

If a fraudulent purchase doesn’t go through a solicitor buyers can and do lose the properties. This particular purchase went through a solicitor and it is their failings that caused the original owner to lose their property - they will be compensated.

Well, in that case, I think the solicitors should be investigated by the police for the reasons that I gave.

If we're going down the road of saying 'compensation due: end of matter', what's to stop any thief/fraudster/act of gross professional misconduct from trying their luck, with no repercussions other than having to pay back what they stole/mishandled on the occasions when they get caught?

Would it not ring a big bell flashing a sign saying 'GUILTY' if they have to pay compensation equivalent to the true value of the house? If they insist that the sale price was a realistic market value - and thus that's all the compo they expect to pay - they're just condemning themselves for their incompetence (assuming they weren't in on the fraud in the first place). Never mind compensation for all of his possessions and priceless sentimental things that can't be replaced, and his own mental suffering from all this.

At the very least, I would expect the valuer and anybody else along the line who should have queried the price and circumstances but didn't to be publicly named and exposed - and ideally struck off.

I also still think that, regardless of the solicitors' shocking misconduct, the buyer should be made to answer why they believed it all above-board and not at all fishy to be paying half the market value for a house that was never marketed. I cannot see how they are a completely innocent party in this.

I know that plenty of people do agree sales without ever marketing the property, but they would invariably get independent professional advise as to a fair price, and only severely reduce this if selling to a family member or similar. Even these 'buy your house instantly' companies, who profit from desperate people, wouldn't expect to pay less than 50% of the value.

It was the neighbours who reported it as soon as they saw someone in the house.

The neighbours seem like nice ones. It's not always easy to get the balance between being a good neighbour and being a nosey, interfering busybody. For all they knew, he could have put it on Air BnB whilst he was away and anybody entering the house was a legitimate short-term tenant.

Maybe if you're selling to family or a very close friend, you might give them a hefty discount (although, ironically, the authorities will still ask questions and query suspected stamp duty/other tax avoidance with a significantly below-market value price); but if actually buying from a stranger/mild acquaintance?

Who judges if a house is significantly below market value, though? Who judges its value? My house may appear to be worth ££ on first glance, but I know it doesn’t have building regs approval or planning permission for all sorts, plus it has rising damp, ancient electrics etc.

@Bluntness100

Remember we don’t know the full story and it could be the owner is actually the one who commuted the fraud,or more to the story that is known to the public.

I imagine Radio 4 did their due diligence

At the very least, I would expect the valuer and anybody else along the line who should have queried the price

What valuer? I suspect it was bought for cash. No valuer.

At the very least, I would expect the valuer and anybody else along the line who should have queried the price and circumstances but didn't to be publicly named and exposed - and ideally struck off.

A house generally only gets valued by the mortgage lender. If it was bought cash then there wouldn't have been a valuation.

It certainly does seem like an awful lot of holes lined up, ie a lot of people must have been careless for this to come off. I wonder how many of these people were paid to look the other way. Seems to me you might come up with some scheme like this precisely because you had contacts in say, the DVLA, so you could be certain of some of the stages going smoothly.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

It certainly does seem like an awful lot of holes lined up, ie a lot of people must have been careless for this to come off. I wonder how many of these people were paid to look the other way. Seems to me you might come up with some scheme like this precisely because you had contacts in say, the DVLA, so you could be certain of some of the stages going smoothly.

I disagree. I think it’s just a mix of laxness and general carelessness alongside a fraud. Many organisations can be just a bit incompetent too. It may be that the fraudster had tried to do the same method with other properties that didn’t come off.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

If a fraudulent purchase doesn’t go through a solicitor buyers can and do lose the properties. This particular purchase went through a solicitor and it is their failings that caused the original owner to lose their property - they will be compensated.

Well, in that case, I think the solicitors should be investigated by the police for the reasons that I gave.

If we're going down the road of saying 'compensation due: end of matter', what's to stop any thief/fraudster/act of gross professional misconduct from trying their luck, with no repercussions other than having to pay back what they stole/mishandled on the occasions when they get caught?

Would it not ring a big bell flashing a sign saying 'GUILTY' if they have to pay compensation equivalent to the true value of the house? If they insist that the sale price was a realistic market value - and thus that's all the compo they expect to pay - they're just condemning themselves for their incompetence (assuming they weren't in on the fraud in the first place). Never mind compensation for all of his possessions and priceless sentimental things that can't be replaced, and his own mental suffering from all this.

At the very least, I would expect the valuer and anybody else along the line who should have queried the price and circumstances but didn't to be publicly named and exposed - and ideally struck off.

I also still think that, regardless of the solicitors' shocking misconduct, the buyer should be made to answer why they believed it all above-board and not at all fishy to be paying half the market value for a house that was never marketed. I cannot see how they are a completely innocent party in this.

I know that plenty of people do agree sales without ever marketing the property, but they would invariably get independent professional advise as to a fair price, and only severely reduce this if selling to a family member or similar. Even these 'buy your house instantly' companies, who profit from desperate people, wouldn't expect to pay less than 50% of the value.

If the purchasers are / have colluded with the fraudster and it can be proven as a criminal offence then the original owner will get the property back plus compensation from the solicitor plus compensation from Land Registry.

But as this was published in the media then criminal involvement on the new owners’ part isn’t suspected. So it is probably a fundamental failing with the solicitor and land registry & the original owner will probably get back the true market cost of the property (not the price the new owners paid) + compensation.

I know several people to whom this happened. It’s not that unusual in London where properties are unoccupied (one was even mortgaged) and half got their properties back while the other half received the equiv of 150% of true market value + compensation. In one case my friend got both. So the legal system does take this type of crime seriously.

Who judges if a house is significantly below market value, though? Who judges its value? My house may appear to be worth ££ on first glance, but I know it doesn’t have building regs approval or planning permission for all sorts, plus it has rising damp, ancient electrics etc.

True - there's a decent margin for concerns like that, but surely not 50%? Bearing in mind that the biggest part of a property's value is the bare land itself.

I'll bet, if there were care home costs potentially involved (or even if the owner was simply above a certain age), questions would be asked if a house was sold at less than 50% of the expected market value for the area and type of house.

What valuer? I suspect it was bought for cash. No valuer.

A house generally only gets valued by the mortgage lender. If it was bought cash then there wouldn't have been a valuation.

That's a good point, actually; but I would still expect the conveyancing solicitor to ask the question as part of their lengthy due diligence checks. Apart from anything else, they are required to cover the possibility of money laundering - which a house sold to a non-family-member for less than half-price could well be a contender for - and also potential tax implications.

The buyer may have been a FTB, but they still have to verify for stamp duty liability, even if it turns out to be zero that's due. Even as a non-legal person, my instant thought would be to wonder if they were paying half the price through the official channels and the other half in a brown envelope.

What's the point of the lengthy conveyancing process for a property in the first place if rudimentary checks and questions aren't asked? I find it amazing that somebody in the business of conveyancing never even thought to question the price of a house that the man or woman in the street would instantly think seemed suspiciously low.

Another rather extreme way to potentially protect yourself against this happening and likely leave you with lots of other irritating and challenging circumstances further down the line would be to leave a small percent of your house's value to a charity in your will. Once you're on their books, they put it on their watch list and would almost certainly monitor any sale and prices thereof.

Obviously, if you haven't died, they don't get to cash in yet - but it's in their explicit interests to track you and your property wealth, once they have that bequest in their balance sheet, and I wouldn't put it past them to get in touch and query it with you; after all, if you sell your current house for less than half its value, you'll have a lot less with which to buy any future houses, including your last one before you die, on which they stand to gain X%.

Or if you are older you could do an equity release scheme. A proportion of your house will then belong to the equity release company.

This is a mistake in the solicitors part and they should be held accountable. I remember selling our house we had to provide ID in person so they could verify us along with picture ID. Unless the ID was fake. Sounds scary. Reminds me of those that leave properties empty for years and come back to find squatters have moved in. If you are leaving your property empty for weeks or months on end make sure you have someone available to keep doing checks to ensure your property is safe.

Or if you are older you could do an equity release scheme. A proportion of your house will then belong to the equity release company.

That would lead to far fewer tears than a percentage-based charity bequest, which I most certainly wouldn't recommend. I doubt you'd find an ER company willing to lend you a tenner, just for admin purposes, though!

I've signed up for the alert but not totally sure what you'd then do if there was strange activity?

@AshGirl

I work in the property sector and this is more common than you think. The fraudsters are very organised and sophisticated. Land Registry have put a lot of measures in place to try to combat frauds but if you have a property which is empty or let out, is mortgage free and relatively valuable you should absolutely sign up for the Land Registry alerts as soon as possible.

I’ve worked in mortgage fraud for a big bank. It’s fascinating!