Theft of Your Home

[GeoffF100]

Here is a sobering article, "Could fraudsters steal your home from under your nose?":

https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/fraud-steal-your-home/

I have signed up to the Land Registry Property Alerts Service, which is free. You can check the register for £3, but I have not done that. I have the solicitor's letters from when I bought the house, and Zoopla shows that as the last sale. It is generally recommended that we check our files with the three credit reference agencies at least once a year.

[mc2fool]

Previous thread on the matter: viewtopic.php?p=454449#p454449

[Mike4]

Here is a sobering article, "Could fraudsters steal your home from under your nose?":

https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/fraud-steal-your-home/

I have signed up to the Land Registry Property Alerts Service, which is free. You can check the register for £3, but I have not done that. I have the solicitor's letters from when I bought the house, and Zoopla shows that as the last sale. It is generally recommended that we check our files with the three credit reference agencies at least once a year.

As far as I could tell last time I looked closely at this, the Property Alerts Service is no help at all, beyond telling you after the fact that your house has already been nicked.

I think the best protection is to keep a mortgage running so rather than pay off a mortgage completely which leaves one rsther exposed to this fraud, leave say a balance outstanding of £500 or £1,000 and pay on an interest-only basis. Consider it an insurance premium.

[Arborbridge]

Here is a sobering article, "Could fraudsters steal your home from under your nose?":

https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/fraud-steal-your-home/

I have signed up to the Land Registry Property Alerts Service, which is free. You can check the register for £3, but I have not done that. I have the solicitor's letters from when I bought the house, and Zoopla shows that as the last sale. It is generally recommended that we check our files with the three credit reference agencies at least once a year.

Although this is by now well known, it is as well to have a reminder every so often, so thanks for flagging it up again. The whole thing reveals a great flaw in the Land Registry - or at least a misunderstanding which we, the public, have about it. Their POV is that they don't exist to check and investigate, only to register what they have been told by a solicitor or other professional body.

It is also worrying that the timescale for objecting is so short - there must be many retired folk who go on long trips abroad and couldn't "pop back" to check the post every couple of weeks. Three weeks is nothing if you are visiting children in NZ! And who would trust a tenant in a BTL to inform you of letters arriving? Over the years, I might hear about some post arriving, but usually not until I call in to see the tenants for a check up.
In fact, I know of only one tenant who was/is proactive in texting me if a letter arrives in my name.

Safeguards are to keep the mortgage or get a charge for a loan against the property ( to a relative, for example), register additional alternative contact addresses and email addresses with the land registry, or get a solicitor to put a covenant on the property saying that it cannot be sold without another relative being informed or agreeing.

Anything you can do to make it less easy would encourage a fraudster to look elsewhere, but I don't see any real defence against incompetent, slapdash or criminal solicitors. Even the mortgage isn't 100% sound as demonstrated by Barclays last year. They made a huge error in taking off the charge from about 40,000 properties and "closing" the mortgages. It caused so much work that the LR set up a separate team to deal with it.

And the property alerts might help, but they are often several weeks or months after the search event they are reporting.

Arb.

[1nvest]

Here is a sobering article, "Could fraudsters steal your home from under your nose?":

https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/fraud-steal-your-home/

I have signed up to the Land Registry Property Alerts Service, which is free. You can check the register for £3, but I have not done that. I have the solicitor's letters from when I bought the house, and Zoopla shows that as the last sale. It is generally recommended that we check our files with the three credit reference agencies at least once a year.

As far as I could tell last time I looked closely at this, the Property Alerts Service is no help at all, beyond telling you after the fact that your house has already been nicked.

I think the best protection is to keep a mortgage running so rather than pay off a mortgage completely which leaves one rsther exposed to this fraud, leave say a balance outstanding of £500 or £1,000 and pay on an interest-only basis. Consider it an insurance premium.

Not sure, but believe that changing from joint-tenants to tenants-in-common flags a restrictive covenant on the property i.e. requires a solicitor to verify your identities for any transaction to occur which in turn I guess imposes a liability upon that solicitor in the event of fraud.

[Mike4]

As far as I could tell last time I looked closely at this, the Property Alerts Service is no help at all, beyond telling you after the fact that your house has already been nicked.

I think the best protection is to keep a mortgage running so rather than pay off a mortgage completely which leaves one rsther exposed to this fraud, leave say a balance outstanding of £500 or £1,000 and pay on an interest-only basis. Consider it an insurance premium.

Not sure, but believe that changing from joint-tenants to tenants-in-common flags a restrictive covenant on the property i.e. requires a solicitor to verify your identities for any transaction to occur which in turn I guess imposes a liability upon that solicitor in the event of fraud.

That seems a good idea too if you aren't the sole proprietor. Forces the fraudster to steal the ID of all the tenants in common, doubling up the work at least!

[GeoffF100]

"Protect your land and property from fraud":

https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud

"Put a restriction on your title

You can stop HM Land Registry registering a sale or mortgage on your property unless a conveyancer or solicitor certifies the application was made by you.

Your conveyancer or solicitor may charge you for providing a certificate if one is required by a restriction on your property."

As mc2fool observed on the previous thread linked above, solicitors should be doing that anyway. My only risk factor is not having a mortgage, so perhaps I should not be too paranoid here.

"Land Registry’s register of title is protected by state guarantee. Someone who has been damaged by an error in the register is likely to be repaid out of public funds."

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/pr ... erty-fraud

Perhaps that is little reassuring too.

[GeoffF100]

If you read the Property and title fraud Joint Law Society and HM Land Registry note referenced in the second link of my last post, it is clear that solicitors should be thoroughly checking identity.

[UncleEbenezer]

If you read the Property and title fraud Joint Law Society and HM Land Registry note referenced in the second link of my last post, it is clear that solicitors should be thoroughly checking identity.

Meanwhile in the real world, it's a box-ticking exercise. And a right pain!

[GeoffF100]

If you read the Property and title fraud Joint Law Society and HM Land Registry note referenced in the second link of my last post, it is clear that solicitors should be thoroughly checking identity.

Meanwhile in the real world, it's a box-ticking exercise. And a right pain!

The important question is what additional checks will you get if you put a restriction on the title?

[Arborbridge]

"Protect your land and property from fraud":

https://www.gov.uk/protect-land-property-from-fraud

"Put a restriction on your title

You can stop HM Land Registry registering a sale or mortgage on your property unless a conveyancer or solicitor certifies the application was made by you.

Your conveyancer or solicitor may charge you for providing a certificate if one is required by a restriction on your property."

As mc2fool observed on the previous thread linked above, solicitors should be doing that anyway. My only risk factor is not having a mortgage, so perhaps I should not be too paranoid here.

"Land Registry’s register of title is protected by state guarantee. Someone who has been damaged by an error in the register is likely to be repaid out of public funds."

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/pr ... erty-fraud

Perhaps that is little reassuring too.

But when it happens, it's an uphill struggle to do anything about it, so the requirement is to think of actions to take which make this fall back position unecessary. You can imagine the emotional stress and elapsed time required to get any satisfaction from a "state guarantee".

Arb.

[didds]

But when it happens, it's an uphill struggle to do anything about it, so the requirement is to think of actions to take which make this fall back position unecessary. You can imagine the emotional stress and elapsed time required to get any satisfaction from a "state guarantee".

Arb.

This. 1000%. (yes, I know....)

I wouldn't trust any guarantees promised by any UK government.

As a random example, exhibit #1 is Imber, 1943

[Arborbridge]

But when it happens, it's an uphill struggle to do anything about it, so the requirement is to think of actions to take which make this fall back position unecessary. You can imagine the emotional stress and elapsed time required to get any satisfaction from a "state guarantee".

Arb.

This. 1000%. (yes, I know....)

I wouldn't trust any guarantees promised by any UK government.

As a random example, exhibit #1 is Imber, 1943

Vide also the post office scandal. Very different, I know, but even when governments say they are going to "sort it" forthwith as a matter of urgency, look what chaos and delay follows.

[Clitheroekid]

Not sure, but believe that changing from joint-tenants to tenants-in-common flags a restrictive covenant on the property i.e. requires a solicitor to verify your identities for any transaction to occur which in turn I guess imposes a liability upon that solicitor in the event of fraud.

This is a misunderstanding. Such a change should be accompanied by an application to place a `restriction' (a restrictive covenant is an entirely different thing) on the proprietorship register.

All the restriction says is that a sole joint owner can't give a valid receipt for the sale proceeds, so it's notice to any prospective buyer that the property is owned by tenants-in-common. If it was owned by two joint tenants and one of them died the survivor could give a valid receipt, as the dead one's share would have passed to the survivor automatically.

However, the restriction makes no difference at all to the need or otherwise for identity evidence.