House theft

[swill453]

There's an article on the BBC News website about it now https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662

Scott.

[Mike4]

There's an article on the BBC News website about it now https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662

Scott.

Thanks for that link.

Here is the nub of the problem. From your link:

"Once the house was sold to the new owner for £131,000 by the person impersonating Mr Hall, they legally owned it."

It appears to me to be a straightforward case of ID theft or cloning. Once a fraudster has successfully created themselves a clone of your ID, they can do pretty much what they like with any of your assets I suspect. Selling your house is an obvious one. Possibly one's share portfolio, car, holiday home, boat or anything else of value is at risk too.

For a fraudster to sell a house they need access to it to conduct viewings so it needs to be empty, or the fraudster could take a tenancy on it. Or the fraudster could perhaps sell it at auction.

What is not clear to me is whether the LR pay compensation when they have (in good faith themselves) re-registered a house in the name of a fraudster.

[Lootman]

For a fraudster to sell a house they need access to it to conduct viewings so it needs to be empty, or the fraudster could take a tenancy on it.

That is the easy part. You force or otherwise gain entry to the property, whereupon you change the locks. Now you have the keys to facilitate viewings or anything else you want to do.

Little trick i picked up in my squatting days (1977 or so).

[Arborbridge]

Thanks to this thread, I have today set up a property alert on the HMLR. I have also downloaded the change of address form. This is interesting as it asked for a pukker photograph, not just an electronic one.
But though that's a good thing, I note they didn't know what I looked like at my previous address - so the change of address is more rigorous than the original register, I think.

Again, I thank this thread for stimulating some action here! Now I'm wondering about security of ID - it seems remarkably easy for a fraudster to blag their way through the system, whether it's banks, phone companies or DVLA. What the heck is the defence? (Maybe already answered on a different board?)

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

What is not clear to me is whether the LR pay compensation when they have (in good faith themselves) re-registered a house in the name of a fraudster.

100:1 they wouldn't!

[UncleEbenezer]

Thanks to this thread, I have today set up a property alert on the HMLR. I have also downloaded the change of address form. This is interesting as it asked for a pukker photograph, not just an electronic one.
But though that's a good thing, I note they didn't know what I looked like at my previous address - so the change of address is more rigorous than the original register, I think.

Again, I thank this thread for stimulating some action here! Now I'm wondering about security of ID - it seems remarkably easy for a fraudster to blag their way through the system, whether it's banks, phone companies or DVLA. What the heck is the defence? (Maybe already answered on a different board?)

Arb.

Here's an old take on it (you can tell the approximate date from the personnel mentioned)

Yesterday’s news: Government agency loses sensitive data on 25 million people. Not encrypted. Head of agency resigns. El Reg reports something interesting has popped up on ebay.

Meeja gasp in astonishment: how could they? That’s half the country exposed to identity theft and fraud in a single incident. Shock, horror!

But the reality is that this kind of ‘accident’ is becoming a regular event. OK, 25 million at once is not the norm, but losses of six-figure numbers of such records are being reported every few weeks. The culprits are household names, like banks and government agencies. How many such incidents go unreported is unknown. Nor do we know whether this is anything new: what has changed recently is that such losses suddenly became sensitive.

Furthermore, a lot of personal information can be obtained legitimately and cheaply. There are companies who make a business of tracing holders of assets. I’ve recently been contacted by one such about some bonus-shares from one of the Thatcher privatisations, and registered to me at an address I’ve had no connection with since about 1990. My shares are apparently worth about £200, and their finders fee – if I choose to use their service – would be about £20. The fact they can run a business based on that kind of thing demonstrates just how easy it is to trace people!

Conclusion: this is something we’re going to have to live with.

So, how do we live with it? Indeed, why is it a problem in the first place? The idea that we should carefully guard our own personal information is new to those of us with nothing to hide: for example, it’s not so long ago I published my home address on my homepage on the ‘net. Some countries have different attitudes to privacy, and consider some of the information we jealously guard to be public.

The basic problem, as we hear it reported, is one of fraud:

Ring, Ring.

“Hello, this is Gordon Brown, of 10, Downing Street, SW1. I’d like a £50K loan for a flashy new car.”

“Yes Mr Brown. Your credit rating says that’ll be fine. We’ll need you to answer a couple of personal questions so we know it’s really you. What is your mother’s maiden name?”

[… cut …]

“OK, that’s all in order. When do you need the money?”

“Immediately, please. And since I’m away from home until the end of next week, can you send it to me c/o the Mended Drum, Ankh Morpork?”

“Yes sir, that will be fine.”

Apparently that kind of thing really does happen. Enumerating the problems with it is left as an exercise for the reader.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is not really who has access to information, but rather why do we allow basic, widely available or low-security information to be so profitable? It all smells of the race to the bottom, wherein companies put generating new business and market share above the quality, and in this case security, of that business.

The exception to that is tokens such as passwords and PIN numbers, and how to use strong ones, use them securely, remember them, and not re-use the same tokens for multiple different purposes. Public-key technology can indeed solve that (and without the need for a massive central identity database), but that’s another topic.

[mc2fool]

There's an article on the BBC News website about it now https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662

Thanks for that link.
:
What is not clear to me is whether the LR pay compensation when they have (in good faith themselves) re-registered a house in the name of a fraudster.

From the link:

"The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year."

Which is not to say they will, just that they have.

[Mike4]

There's an article on the BBC News website about it now https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-59069662

Thanks for that link.
:
What is not clear to me is whether the LR pay compensation when they have (in good faith themselves) re-registered a house in the name of a fraudster.

From the link:

"The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year."

Which is not to say they will, just that they have.

Indeed, and that is about 25 houses if the average house value in say £140k, which seems a very small number of frauds, hence my question. If they pay out when neither the rightful owner nor the LR has done anything wrong, then fine. But I suspect the LR only pay out when they make an administrative mistake, not when there is outright fraud.

[mc2fool]

Thanks for that link.
:
What is not clear to me is whether the LR pay compensation when they have (in good faith themselves) re-registered a house in the name of a fraudster.

From the link:

"The Land Registry paid out a total of £3.5m in compensation for fraud last year."

Which is not to say they will, just that they have.

Indeed, and that is about 25 houses if the average house value in say £140k, which seems a very small number of frauds...

Maybe £140K if you live in Luton. Nationwide it's £264K. https://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ukhpi

The afore-linked-to 2019 HOA article gives a couple of figures, although clearly they don't provide a complete picture. What they do say is:

"And while it’s not new, it’s on the rise. In the year to April 2017, victims lost £24.9 million to this type of scam, according to the Land Registry. This is a leap from £7.2 million in 2013." and
"Since 2009, HM Land Registry has prevented 279 fraudulent applications, representing properties valued in excess of £133,431,543."

While this is clearly a complete nightmare to those it happens to, from those figures (even if increased lots since) it's also clearly a pretty rare event, given the number/value of houses in the country. Not much consolation if it does happen though....

[Clitheroekid]

I know of two cases where people have had their houses stolen, and in both cases what happened was that they rented the house to a tenant with false ID.

The tenant then changed their name to that of the owner (it's pathetically easy to change your name - you just sign a one page piece of paper and there are no legal restrictions at all).

They then got themselves a new passport and driving licence (also absurdly easy) and of course they could easily produce genuine utility bills as they actually lived in the house. They then put the property on the market, but told the agents they wanted a `discreet' sale, i.e. no awkward ads on Rightmove or `For Sale' signs.

The agents duly introduced buyers, the fraudsters instructed solicitors and easily passed the AML checks, the house was sold, the money banked and transferred (in both cases to Dubai, the fraudulent banking capital of the world). The fraudsters disappeared, and that was that - until the owners started querying why the rent wasn't being paid ...

One factor in both cases was that the owners lived a long way from the property - in one case they lived abroad - so hardly ever visited it. But even if they had, everything would have seemed to be in order right up to the day of completion.

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

The basic problem is that it's far too easy to change your name. There need to be much more stringent restrictions on doing so.

But another problem that's cropped up in the last few years is that very high quality fake ID is incredibly easy to obtain nowadays, and you can buy fake passports / driving licences / birth certificates etc on the internet without having to go anywhere near the dark web. I've seen some of it, and it's impossible to identify it as a fake unless you're an expert. It would certainly fool a solicitor / estate agent, and it evidently satisfies banks as well, judging by the number of fraudulent accounts that are being set up.

[Lootman]

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

I was not remotely aware that there was any obligation to inform the LR that you do or do not live in a property that you own. I have owned a number of properties where I never lived.

Whilst I can see why such a notice might provide some level of protection against such fraudulent activity, I still have a problem with the idea that I am supposed to notify any branch of the government about where I do or do not live.

[mc2fool]

I know of two cases where people have had their houses stolen...

And the final end results were ... ?

[Mike4]

I know of two cases where people have had their houses stolen...

And the final end results were ... ?

And in particular, what measures can one take to guarantee one doers not fall victim oneself?

P.S. Thanks CK for your comments above.

[Arborbridge]

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

I was not remotely aware that there was any obligation to inform the LR that you do or do not live in a property that you own. I have owned a number of properties where I never lived.

Whilst I can see why such a notice might provide some level of protection against such fraudulent activity, I still have a problem with the idea that I am supposed to notify any branch of the government about where I do or do not live.

I didn't read that as CK saying there was an obligation (although ther may be, I don't know) - only that it was good sense to do so. I wonder if your horror of being tracked by the government would over-ride your good sense?


Arb.

[Mike4]

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

I'm struggling to grasp how this makes any difference.

Will the LR conduct further enquiries if a house is being sold where the owner lives at a different address? Would they not just accept at face value the instructions of a solicitor who has been fooled by an ID thief?

What enquiries could the LR make which would reveal the fraud when an ID thief is selling someone's house?

[swill453]

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

I'm struggling to grasp how this makes any difference.

Will the LR conduct further enquiries if a house is being sold where the owner lives at a different address? Would they not just accept at face value the instructions of a solicitor who has been fooled by an ID thief?

What enquiries could the LR make which would reveal the fraud when an ID thief is selling someone's house?

I presume that if they have the owner's address on their records as X, but the house has been sold by someone at address Y, they might at least contact address X before going ahead.

Scott.

[mc2fool]

Another key factor was that in both cases the owners had lived in the houses prior to letting them, and hadn't notified LR of their change of address (a very common error) so that there was nothing to alert LR when they received an application.

I'm struggling to grasp how this makes any difference.

Will the LR conduct further enquiries if a house is being sold where the owner lives at a different address? Would they not just accept at face value the instructions of a solicitor who has been fooled by an ID thief?

What enquiries could the LR make which would reveal the fraud when an ID thief is selling someone's house?

Methinks the clue is possibly in the afore-linked-to HOA article

"Angela contacted the Land Registry, who told her a solicitor had verified a woman as her when she went to him to transfer the property. Last October an application to register the transfer was sent to the Land Registry. And notice of the application was sent to Angela three days later giving her three weeks to respond. However, she never received it – so the Land Registry approved the fraudster’s application."

CK, is it not possible (or practical) to make an arrangement with a trusted party, e.g. your solicitor, for them to have a charge over the property in the Charges Register, as a proprietor (to the tune of 1p or similar), and then have a standard mortgage style no disposition without their written consent restriction referring to that charge in the Proprietorship Register?

I suppose then the fraudsters could also try faking being your solicitor (hopefully more difficult?), and I doubt anything is perfect, but avoiding being the low hanging fruit can only help.

[CliffEdge]

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.

[Mike4]

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.

[mc2fool]

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.