A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 6 octubre 2017
Property fraud is on the rise. The most common scam is where an imposter poses as the owner of the property. The buyer is left with liability for a mortgage for a property they have no right to and may seek to recover losses from the conveyancing solicitors involved in the transaction. This scenario has been considered in three recent cases.
The focus in this case was on the scope of duty owed by a seller’s solicitor to a defrauded buyer.
P&P purchased a residential property from a Mr Harper. Owen White & Catlin LLP (“OWC”) acted for Mr Harper. Having completed identity checks, OWC was satisfied that Mr Harper was the owner of the Property. Following completion it transpired that Mr Harper was an imposter posing as the rightful owner. By that stage, the purchase monies had been sent overseas and Mr Harper was untraceable.
P&P brought a claim against OWC alleging breach of warranty authority, negligence and breach of trust. The court dismissed all three counts. P&P were left with no remedy.
Dreamvar purported to purchase a property from a fraudster impersonating the true owner of the property, Mr Haeems, but by the time the fraud was discovered (by the Land Registry) the purchase monies had been paid to the imposter and dissipated overseas. Dreamvar brought claims against its own solicitors, Mishcon de Reya (“Mishcons”), and the seller’s solicitors, Mary Monson Solicitors Limited ("Mary Monson"), on the same grounds as the P&P case.
Mary Monson relied heavily on the P&P decision and, although Mary Monson admitted that their checks on their seller’s identity were insufficient, they escaped liability as no duty was owed to Dreamvar.
The claims in negligence against Mishcons were dismissed because the court found that there was no general duty to warn of identity fraud and no special circumstances.
On the breach of trust allegation, however, the Judge found that the completion monies were held on trust and that it was an implied term of the retainer that Mishcons would only release the monies for a genuine completion. There had been no genuine completion here and so the sale contract was a nullity. This allegation, therefore, succeeded.
Whilst the Judge found Mishcons to have acted reasonably, they were refused relief under Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925, because Mishcons was in a better position to absorb the consequences of the breach of trust, compared to Dreamvar, as the solicitors were insured for such events.
Mr Patel owned a property which was managed by his brother whilst he lived overseas. A fraudster agreed to sell the property to a Mr Feingold. The fraudster said that he wanted a quick completion because he said he was unwell. The transaction involved a sub-sale by Mr Feingold to Freddy's Ltd.
The solicitors acting for Freddy's Ltd identified numerous problems in relation to planning issues. They advised Freddy's Ltd not to proceed, but following negotiations and a lower price, completion of the sale to Feingold and the sub-sale to Freddy's Ltd took place.
The fraud then subsequently came to light.
Freddy's Ltd was the owner of the property under the Land Registration Act 2002. Mr Patel therefore applied to rectify the register to restore himself as the registered owner. In order to succeed in the application, he had to show that Freddy's Ltd had caused or substantially contributed to the mistake by lack of proper care. The Claimant argued that Freddy's Ltd had failed to check the title of the seller, Mr Feingold, and failed to make proper enquiries of the occupiers of the property.
The Judge held that the solicitors acting for Freddy's Ltd had not contributed to the mistake as the solicitor had been alive to the risks and had taken great care.
The Judge also confirmed the comments in both P&P and Dreamvar that it is not normal professional conveyancing practice for a purchaser's solicitor to check the identity of the seller. Mr Feingold's solicitor had tried to do this, but their request for identification documents had met with short shrift from the fraudster's solicitors.
As the fraud was discovered after the Transfer was registered and the purchaser of Freddy's Ltd had obtained good title, they suffered no loss. The defrauded seller (Mr Patel) would have a claim for an indemnity from the Land Registry.
Both P&P and Dreamvar have been granted permission to appeal and it is hoped the circumstances where relief will be granted under section 61 will be clarified. Nonetheless, it is worth considering the implications of these decisions and the steps conveyancers can take to avoid the risk of identity fraud.
The appeals will be followed with interest.
+44 (0)117 918 2240
+44(0)117 918 2049
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6900
José María Pimentel, Sara Toribio
Laura Wiseman, Mark Bailey, Georgia Court
Anthony Carrington, Helen Mason
David Williams, David Johnson
Emma Fuller, Jade Batstone, Daniel Miller
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
Charlotte Le Maire
Peter Allchorne, David Williams
Sara May, Mark Ashley, Liam Riley