Restrict title to fight fraud, Land Registry urges
Property owners are being encouraged to register a restriction requiring a solicitor to certify their identity as homeowner before their property can be sold, in the Land Registry’s latest move against property fraud.
From this month, the Registry’s Form LL restriction will be free for absent property owners. The restriction requires a solicitor or conveyancer to certify they are satisfied that the person selling or mortgaging the property is the true owner. The £50 fee for owner-occupiers to register the restriction will remain.
Empty properties, where the owner is abroad or in a care home, are among the most vulnerable to fraud, according to the Registry, which pays compensation to genuine owners in cases where a registered title has been fraudulently transferred. In 2010, 23 of the 71 claims it paid out for fraud and forgery involved properties with an absent owner, accounting for £2m of £7.3m paid in total.
Chief registrar Malcolm Dawson said: ‘We take the issue of fraud very seriously and work closely with other organisations including the Law Society to do all we can to reduce the opportunities for fraud and to identify and take corrective action when it has happened.’ He said that since September 2009 the Registry had prevented frauds in over 100 applications, involving properties valued at more than £47m.
Meanwhile, new monthly Land Registry transaction figures show that during October 2011, the number of completed house sales in England and Wales fell by 6% compared with the same month in 2010. In December 2011, the agency’s top two customers by number of transactions were licensed conveyancers - My Home Move, with 977 transactions and Countrywide Property Lawyers, with 857. Third in the league table is Stockport firm O’Neill Patient, with 418 transactions. In all, the Registry received over 916,000 applications in December 2011.
Comments
Fighting fraud
Once upon a time we did not have an open land register and copies of the title could only be obtained by a solicitor certifying that he had the owners authority to obtain copies of the register. This problem could be solved instantly by going back to that procedure. Why should the register be open, what business is it of anyone else to see who owns a particular property and what mortgages they have on it?
No one else is entitled to copies of my bank statements, insurance policies,investments etc so why should the be allowed to examine my property title?
The profession warned what would happen when hard Land Certificates were abolished and the dangers of open registers. As usual our concerns were dismissed, fraud increased massively and the Land registry in its usual way puts the onus and expense on the profession to police the system.
Why don't the Land Registry admit for once that they were wrong and close the registers. They could still give the selling prices for property without compromising an owners privacy.
So the risk passes to the
So the risk passes to the solicitors yet again
To fight fraud?
No, just another way for the Land Registry to pass the risk to the poor old lawyer and another way to get some more fees in these tight times with the number of registrations falling.
The requirement on the AP1 to identify applicants was put there as the Registry had egg on its face for not doing similar checks when fraudsters made personal applications. As lawyers we were doing ID checks as part and parcel of the money laundering requirements.
The dogma of allowing the public to do their own transactions and not having changes to the register restricted to properly certified and vetted conveyancers, as I believe is the case in Scotland, means that the system is more open to fraud.
Do like the subtle advertising for bulk licensed conveyancers Premier Property Lawyers and Countrywide Property Lawyers in the LR press release and published doggedly by LG...hello aren't they both on the HSBC panel......silly me.
Whilst agreeing that the LR
Whilst agreeing that the LR is seeking to pass more risk to solicitors, surely it is not "dogma" that a citizen should be entitled to deal with his own property?
Open register and personal applications
No problem with a citizen dealing with their own property through a vetted solicitor, it is all the other citizens dealing with my property that worries me.
With respect, I think you are
With respect, I think you are missing the point.
The free citizen of a free country must be able to deal with his own property himself, without needing to use a third party-much less a third party "approved" by the state.
The state is effectively "corporatising" the legal profession and thus rendering it less independent-indeed its independence is now ephemeral. For the citizen to have to rely on that for the liberty to do what he wants with his property is effectively state control.
It is akin to saying that the citizen cannot represent himself in court, but must use a state accepted representative. In other words the removal of ancient liberties.
Whilst to do so is very convenient for the administrative authorities, it is nevertheless the thin end of a very nasty wedge.
With respect
Well bless me, I did not realise that having a regulated system of property transfer was the slippery slope to a repressive regime. I thought it was to avoid free citizens in free countries having other free citizens making free with their property.
I am not sure that lawyers in Civil Law jurisdictions, who have a greater hold over the transfer of real property, would see themselves as adjuncts of the State.
Anyway what as this got to do with the LR trying to stump up more fees but at the same time taking on no risk but passing the buck (again) to a legal profession that is free from state fetters?
with respect
There is nothing to stop an individual dealing with his own property direct with the LR..If the register is closed then the individual would authorise his conveyancer or anyone he wished to do so to obtain OCE's. What's the problem!
There is none at present. It
There is none at present.
It was Greybeard who suggested that for a citizen to be able to deal with his own property himself is "dogma", and that the answer was for all property transactions to have to be done by "a vetted solicitor".
In answer to his latest comment, there is nothing wrong with having a regulated system-there is everything wrong if those regulations were to prevent the citizen himself from acting in accordance with those regulations.
Regrettably, he does not understand the point-although the Civil Law systems do seem to be having some difficulty at present with the concepts of liberty and sovereignty.
The problem is when the
The problem is when the individual dealing with his own property direct with the LR is an individual who is not dealing with his own property but some other individuals property. Ask Croydon Land Registry how it works it cost them millions.
So
Clearly, this is passing to solicitors the risk of mis-certifying. That being so, what guidance does the Society wish to give to the profession about the steps which should be taken before certifying that the person in question is the true owner?
DNA
Would it not be a good idea if there was the ability to record a registered proprietors DNA, a simple hair sample might suffice. But this might be more in the bailiwick of the BMA than the Law Society. A strong case for biometric ID cards allied to ones registered title.
This is a joke isn't it?
This is a joke isn't it?
First Countrywide managers of HSBC conveyancing panel, now this?
Will the Government please get involved , and will the Law Society please do something about HSBC panel lawyers who so far for this writer are living out the fear we had on hearing the news.
Lawyers to certify home owners ID before they can sell?
You have a lawyer already certifying ID of a Seller and a Buyer on the AP1, so if fraud gets by, it gets past the lawyer already.
So the Land Registry must mean to help THEM with the fraudsters who attend in person. Why are solicitors able to read a forged passport any more than the Land Registry.
You tackle fraud as follows:
1. the Government need to regulate Conveyancing as a legal service that must only be open to qualified practitioners - only Licensed Conveyancers, Legal Executives and Solicitors. Barristers if we must - and like the rule about dealing with a non-qualified being an offence, it is similarly the case that each lawyer must be satisfied that their counterpart on each occasion is qualified.
Solution - you rid us of the ill-trained
2. Consider how large a firm you saddle up with from the point of view of a lender avoiding fraud. Larger the conveyancing outfits, the large scale will mean lower quality work is produced. To gain such quantity, work can be attracted by offering a low fee, or with high back hand payments passing, and outfits are then pressured to make up for this lost revenue by cutting corners or having low skilled workers with not enough sense to spot fraud (because they are too busy)
Solution - Lenders will benefit from higher quality as well as the Land Registry
3. From a Lenders position on fraud - Lenders must insist that a partner signs the Certificate of Title
Solution - making it less likely to have rogue employees of a Firm
4. Again - The Certificate of Title should have extra boxes to confirm:
- ID has been received to CML standards
- the owner of the property has owned it for more than 12 months
- that the borrower has not instructed to sub-sell it.
Solution - reminds conveyancers of the important parts of the CML to do with possible fraud
In response: 1. What do you
In response:
1. What do you mean by "conveyancing"?
The typing, setting in hand the searches, checking the title, raising enquiries, raising requisitions, drafting the transfer (the precedents being forms available on the net where you just fill in the blanks)-what? There is no real definition-so which bit has to be done by a "qualified practitioner"?
In any event the "drafting" such as it is for heavens sake, of the transfer can only be done for profit by a qualified practitioner-it isn't of course.
2. So large firms don't produce quality. This will be a bit of a surprise to the clients of the magic circle-no doubt they'll go elsewhere from now on!
3.No, no partner ever said to his trusted secretary "sign the COT will you-just do it in my name". How would the lender know? Are they going to have the partners signatures on file and check them? No-because they don't care. Provided the COT is signed in the name of the firm the PII is valid and will cover the lender-they don't want the trouble of checking signatures on COTs-they just want to carry on with their irresponsible lending with no problems as to who signed the COT.
4. OK- apart from wanting the seller to have owned it for 12 months. Well, tough luck if you need to sell your property quickly after having bought it.
Still, nice try!
National Estate Agents sell average conveyancing?
Oh "Anon 19.29" we need people like you to make us all feel superior. Keep up your work.
1. What does first Anon mean by "conveyancing"?
It should be dealt with by qualified staff, as too many of the public are give idiots for the same price as a solicitor. Your quote of what conveyancing entails is just how the factory chumps deal with it - which is why defects still appear with the deeds.
2. Large conveyancing volume outfits have set method of working so if the method is low standard, its all low. How many clients come to me bad mouthing certain national brand agents for referring useless conveyancers...even the Agents say they are useless too but their Head Office demand it goes to them. Yet Lenders use the same useless ones - good luck with the fraud and mistakes argument.
3. How would the lender know? Well, it's called fraud, when signature is accompanied by name and position. Welcome to the UK Law, "Anon 19.29".
"No-because they don't care" - that comment misses other Anon's point. If they care, then they get Partner to sign every time.
4. OK- apart from wanting the seller to have owned it for 12 months. Well, tough luck if you need to sell your property quickly after having bought it. That is fine, you write in with circumstances, as you do now when under 6 months
Do you know any conveyancing at all?
"Nice try" - What are you, 7 years old?
In response 1. No definition
In response
1. No definition of conveyancing then? You're going to need one to have it carried out by qualified people. The list set out was obviously a precis.
The point being made was that "conveyancing" is a catchall word for a process-not all of that process requires legal training. Much of it does not-just common sense. The legal bit is the recognition of problems with title, replies to enquiries, etc. Co-ordinating contracts, getting the monies on time, sending it etc. is pure administration.
2. "if the method is low standard, its all low"-but it isn't all low standard is it? Some volume firms produce very high quality work.
3. Your comment doesn't answer how the lender would know, nor does it address the point that the lender doesn't care because it is covered by the PII. The legal profession is still living in the era when the lenders were effectively professionals. Nowadays they are simply salesmen-provided they make a profit they quite simply don't care.
4. Yes, by all means write in-get a reply sometime if anyone at the lender will make a decision.
No. I know nothing at all about conveyancing because yes, I'm seven years old so I don't know it all!
Fraudster
Imagine I am a fraudster (I'm not, by the way). You have not dealt with me before. I come to your office and present various false documents to persuade you that I am the owner of a particular property. I ask you to register a restriction against the property in form LL. You do so.
After a respectable period (say, a couple of months), I come to see you again. I tell you that I've decided to sell the property. You know me from our previous dealings, so you act for me in the sale.
I never owned the property and the whole thing is a mortgage fraud. The lender looks for someone to sue and chooses you.
What was the point of the form LL?
In response
Here we go again, denigrating what we do. "Any one off the streets to could do a half decent job, it is only form filling "......no they would not and no it isn't. We are dealing with peoples lives and a screwed up title causes more anguish for our clients than it does for their lender. Reaching for an indemnity policy instead of getting the problem sorted out only assists insurance companies and enables the bulk conveyancer to move onto the next file.
Trying to convince every one that buying or selling a property can be done on a production line does nothing but play into the hands of the conveyancing factories. Buyers and sellers want to be treated as individuals, not like a tin of baked beans..
If we do not value what we do why are we doing it? Getting clients to come back to you and recommending you to their friends and family is priceless, so we must be doing something right.
Letting institutions like HSBC and Countrywide to use their muscle to bully us and grab an even bigger slice of the conveyancing market under the cloak of “consumer choice” when they are in fact reducing it to 43 firms, is the slippery slope. So let’s have some respect for ourselves and what we do and assist the Law Society by writing to your MP and let him or her know how you feel and that you will not take it lying down
Whilst agreeing with the
Whilst agreeing with the sentiment you express, you must surely realise that some of the conveyancing does not require a legal qualification-any more than some medical procedures require a doctor or even a nurse.
In conveyancing, the legal part is the title and suchlike and is the most important part-it is that for which we are paid legal fees. Pretending the whole thing requires qualified people is not helpful-the client knows better.
There has always been some element of "production line"-it is not a haphazard process. Again to pretend otherwise is not helpful. It is the skill attaching to the bit which actually requires legal knowledge which should be emphasised-and marketed properly.
Of course solicitors are notorious for denigrating each other "they are useless etc."-this is not an attitude found in any other true profession. It is not helped by the Law Society constantly harping on about the errors some make, and allowing referral fees was disastrous.
Your posts are muddled. The
Your posts are muddled. The public don't know best as they don't know what should be on offer. My Team offers HHS best conveyancing service in the Country. No seriously, they do. But how do I get the public to realise?
Until then, they are fobbed off to average, non-qualifieds playing with the law and making legal mistakes with people's houses - but oh well, the greedy Estate Agent who recommended these useless conveyancing outfits made loads of money, as the gross revenue of the conveyancers were high.
Joke's on the Government for losing the quality of it's legal process, and the public whose property deeds are unbeknown to a vast majority, sitting with gross errors.
Haphazard process
I am not sure how one could effectively market the legal knowledge/skills of conveyancing solicitors in circumstances where conveyancing continues to be the biggest single source of negligence claims against solicitors.
Of course, that may well be
Of course, that may well be because it is the single biggest activity of solicitors. Most of the population will not require the services of a solicitor for anything else.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not know what the actual figures are, and would be interested to know, if they are available.