[JumpCrisscross]

> AT THE MOMENT, while the 'new owner' is listed in the Land Registry as owning it, and the 'old owner' isn't, the 'new owner' temporarily legally owns it

Not an expert on British law, but I don't think this is the case. The new owner owns it.

Not temporarily. Fully, permanently and properly. The previous owner was fraudulently deprived of it, and can likely get damages from the parties who signed off on the conveyance. But I don't think they have the right to reverse the transaction against the new owner's will.

[so_throwaway]

If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?

[JumpCrisscross]

> If you're not an expert on British law what makes you feel able to make such a confident and surprising claim?

The hubris of an internet commenter?

Also, it's not surprising. It's unusual for a common law country. But in most jurisdictions, particularly those on statutory law, if the buyer is unrelated to the fraudster and is in possession, the register cannot be altered [1].

This comes, in most places, out of the land registry being a reaction to protracted property disputes. (Often violent.)

[1] https://www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-propert...

[mdoms]

This is Hacker News. Confidently espousing on subjects we know little about is what we do.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Pretty sure it's not specific to HN. Any social media has this behavior.