Report comment

Well said Ms Mather.

As to the land registry report the judgment records:

"Unfortunately, this coincided with the discovery of the fraud. On 10 November 2014 the Land Registry contacted MMS saying that it was making periodic checks in an attempt to provide greater security for the register, and asked MMS to confirm the steps it took to establish the identity of Mr Haeems, and to provide copies of any evidence of identity retained by it. On 17 November 2014, having received the information requested, the Land Registry informed both MMS and MdR that it was unable to link Mr Haeems to the address given on his driving licence, and given the high value of the Property, it wished to make contact with him as a precautionary measure."

It looks almost accidental. In the bogus vendor case, I seem to recall that an LR clerk thought it odd that the real vendor was registered as living at another address and rang him up. So no clicking computers.

However, you flag up a plethora of real problems.

I agree that if the s. 61 judgment is upheld - and if so the innocent purchaser loses his hard earned with the attendant lawyer bashing - something constructive will have be done. We've both thought of a mutual fund.

May I suggest another. An additional sum shall be added to the LR fee to cover these losses. Negligent or dishonest conveyancers could be third partied into reducing its outlay.