mc2fool wrote:Mike4 wrote:CliffEdge wrote:So if I rent your flat, change my name to yours, sell the flat and pocket the money, I haven't committed a crime? The law really is an ass.
I don't think anyone is saying this. The point I think you might be missing is once the LR are fooled into changing the proprietor entry on the register, that new person is the legal owner notwithstanding the fraud. The LR could not possibly work otherwise.
Yes it is done by someone committing a crime, but once done (by whatever means), it is irreversible.
That's not so clear. Going back to Angela again...
"How do you get your property back?
Despite Angela being a victim of crime it was not straight-forward to resolve. Firstly, the Land Registry saw it as a civil matter. And rather shockingly, it said the ‘current registered proprietor’, the fraudster, would need to be asked if she objected to Angela’s name going back on the register. She was also warned that if the scammer had objected, they would have had to negotiate who rightfully owned the house. It could even have ended up at the Lands Tribunal. In Angela’s case there was no objection and she was told the house was hers again in February."
Ok, so it was reversed in that case, it seems 'cos the fraudster blinked, but it's difficult to imagine that if taken to the Lands Tribunal the court would unconditionally side with the fraudster, irrespective of any evidence; if that were the case then the Lands Tribunal wouldn't even have been mentioned.
So the fraudster was not arrested and charged with a crime? Unbelievable. The law really is an ass.