Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


@Anonymous Commented on: 3 February 2017 09:51 GMT:

"..Rayner, the buyer's solicitor probably did check that the seller had good title.
For the sake of argument, say you get a contract with the name Michael James on the contract, and Michael James on the title provided by the seller, you would have assumed that the seller's solicitor has taken out all their checks under know your client. But what if it was a different Michael James who instructed the seller? Say they rented the property, changed the name at Deed Poll and changed his passport, driving licence, council tax and all other bills to be the same name as the owner. How much more due diligence can you carry out.
From this case, it appears that the names were exactly the same, as the fraudster changed his name to be the same as that on the title. The buyer's solicitor was found liable because he didn't raise an enquiry asking for the seller's solicitor to confirm/undertake that they have taken reasonable steps to identify the seller. For me, this has now made the job as a buyer's solicitor all the more harder. ..."

At last some common sense. I understand exactly what you are saying. It looks then as if MDR unfortunately sent the monies off to the Seller without having to clear mortgages on the title and the seller appeared to be in possession. An error anyone literally could have made.

Of course with Unregistered Conveyancing one had to prove a good route of title . That would have been the last Conveyance at least 10 (I think) years old .......

And they say we move forward ..... Mmmmmmmm .....

Your details