• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Be Careful Working Away"

Collapse

  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by GJABS View Post
    Maybe it is the original owner who is the real fraudster? He could have set up a clone of his own details, including a "fake" bank account, his end game being a payout from the solicitor's insurance.
    Blimey, you should write detective novels. That would have made a great denouement in the last couple of pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    You saying a man of the cloth is involved in criminal activity ?
    Every murder mystery I ever did has a priest or vicar

    Leave a comment:


  • GJABS
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    You saying a man of the cloth is involved in criminal activity ?
    The perfect cover

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by GJABS View Post
    Maybe it is the original owner who is the real fraudster? He could have set up a clone of his own details, including a "fake" bank account, his end game being a payout from the solicitor's insurance.
    You saying a man of the cloth is involved in criminal activity ?

    Leave a comment:


  • GJABS
    replied
    Maybe it is the original owner who is the real fraudster? He could have set up a clone of his own details, including a "fake" bank account, his end game being a payout from the solicitor's insurance.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Gibbon View Post

    Good Shout!, beat me to it, I'm still getting alerts about old properties ( I know I should delete), but they give you fair warning of anything untoward about to happen.
    Yeah I never remove any so I get informed when past houses get sold again which is vaguely interesting as an excuse to be nosy online.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoctorStrangelove
    replied


    Ah, dear dead days beyond recall when he was still funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gibbon
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Seems quite an audacious attempt given how long it takes a sale to go through.

    A good time to remind people about this notification service - it will ping you of anything happening to the addresses you enter: https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/
    Good Shout!, beat me to it, I'm still getting alerts about old properties ( I know I should delete), but they give you fair warning of anything untoward about to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • mattster
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    I can't see any point in trying to steal official ownership of a property in this day and age, as in the present case, besides squatting

    It seems a completely daft crime, as it is almost bound to come to light and the real owner or their successors in title reinstated and the fraudster prosecuted with ample evidence readily available.
    The fraudster in this case seems to have been the one who "sold" the house to an unsuspecting buyer and has since made off with the cash. Right or wrong (ok, wrong), I can still see the point of this from the criminal's perspective.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    ... the fraudster prosecuted with ample evidence readily available....
    Step 1. Identify the fraudster.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    I can't see any point in trying to steal official ownership of a property in this day and age, as in the present case, besides squatting

    It seems a completely daft crime, as it is almost bound to come to light and the real owner or their successors in title reinstated and the fraudster prosecuted with ample evidence readily available.

    It's been much the same for hundreds of years, even when life was more uncertain and absent owners harder to trace, and long before the Land Registry was around, because if/when the true owner turned up they only had to request an Assize of novel disseisin to get their land or property back and they were usually successful.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Seems quite an audacious attempt given how long it takes a sale to go through.

    A good time to remind people about this notification service - it will ping you of anything happening to the addresses you enter: https://propertyalert.landregistry.gov.uk/

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    I would imagine that if someone stole your car but had a contract of sale, which you were tricked into signing and a plausible story that the police might just say it was a civil matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    If I buy a stolen car via a dealer its not mine. Why would a house be?
    I suspect you do get your house back, but it's somewhat more complicated due to it being legally determined by the land registry. A car is different, you still legally own it.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    The laws governing it are different.
    yes and I suggested they should change. See previous posts.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X