This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate
or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is something to be said for going back to the old system.
On 12/03/2025 11:25, The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property >>returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he >>returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County >>Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright possession >>of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate
or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is >>something to be said for going back to the old system.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email alert
system that sends an email if there is any movement on a particular title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale before it >took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale after it had taken
place.
On 12/03/2025 11:42, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2025 11:25, The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the
property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was
ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to
find someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after
his identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when
he returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At
Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall
outright possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land
Certificate or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved
you were the proprietor of the land, but that was abolished
decades ago and now all you need is an office copy of the Land
Registry entry. Maybe there is something to be said for going back
to the old system.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email
alert system that sends an email if there is any movement on a
particular title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale
before it took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale after
it had taken place.
Was that option in place 4 years ago ?
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
On 12/03/2025 11:42, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2025 11:25, The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the
property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was
ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton
County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land
Certificate or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you
were the proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago
and now all you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry.
Maybe there is something to be said for going back to the old system.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email alert
system that sends an email if there is any movement on a particular
title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale
before it took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale after it
had taken place.
Was that option in place 4 years ago ?
Was that option in place 4 years ago ?
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a "squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't really see what he could have done to prevent that happening
Ask a neighbour/friend to keep an eye on the place would be a start ...
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a >"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:08:56 +0000
TTman <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/03/2025 11:42, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2025 11:25, The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the
property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family
was ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to
find someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after
his identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when
he returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At
Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr
Hall outright possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land
Certificate or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved
you were the proprietor of the land, but that was abolished
decades ago and now all you need is an office copy of the Land
Registry entry. Maybe there is something to be said for going
back to the old system.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email
alert system that sends an email if there is any movement on a
particular title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale
before it took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale
after it had taken place.
Was that option in place 4 years ago ?
I believe so, I have had mine in place for some time, I'm sure it's
been longer than that. I'll check later and see if I have any record
of an early message.
It sends regular messages to say that there has been no activity
recently.
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening
Ask a neighbour/friend to keep an eye on the place would be a start ...
On 12/03/2025 11:25, The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property
returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to leave. >>
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County
Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate
or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is
something to be said for going back to the old system.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email alert
system that sends an email if there is any movement on a particular title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale before
it took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale after it had
taken place.
In case anyone here is unaware, the Land Registry has an email alert
system that sends an email if there is any movement on a particular
title.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/property-alert
If Mr Hall had had that in place, he could have stopped the sale
before it took place. As it was, he only heard about the sale after it
had taken place.
And it works! It came up here sometime in the past (perhaps when this
case arose) so I signed up and got an alert when I sold the house.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:13 +0000, The Todal <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property >>returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to
leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he >>returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County >>Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate
or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is >>something to be said for going back to the old system.
If A owns a house and B fraudulently sells it to C who takes out a
mortgage to buy it, what happens to C's mortgage if the house is
transferred back to A? I assume that C is still responsible for the
mortgage but probably not with the wherewithal to redeem it. That leaves
the lender with no security. Does the lender just have to suck that up
and hope that C never defaults on it?
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he >returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly didn't
move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall >outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found >alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there was
no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was no
agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent it
out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence >committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by
messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
If A owns a house and B fraudulently sells it to C who takes out a
mortgage to buy it, what happens to C's mortgage if the house is
transferred back to A? I assume that C is still responsible for the
mortgage but probably not with the wherewithal to redeem it. That
leaves the lender with no security. Does the lender just have to suck
that up and hope that C never defaults on it?
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly didn't
move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there was
no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was no
agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent it
out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by
messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
On 12/03/2025 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article, >>>> he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly didn't
move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall
outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found
alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there
was no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was no
agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent it
out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal
offence committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then
expressed by messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could
(and did) amend its records, and the property has been returned to its
rightful owner.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
You were wrong, as you frequently are.
I think you applied Norman's Law and assumed that the Land Registry
would have to rectify its records in favour of the rightful owner,
whereas I quoted case law which perhaps you didn't understand or weren't interested in, showing that it is within the discretion of the judge in
each case and in the reported case, the judge refused rectification. But
I did of course make it clear that the judge considers the circumstances
of each case.
Sorry that you're claiming an illusory victory. It isn't the first time
that has happened.
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title,
but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article, >>>> he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a
"squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in
the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained
the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly didn't
move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall
outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found
alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there was
no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was no
agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent it
out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence
committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by
messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner.
What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner
objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Your assertion was that the Land Registry could do so of its own volition, which was incorrect.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
Funny spelling of wrong, there.
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >>
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence >>> committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by
messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend >>> its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner.
What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it
without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner
objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the First Tier >> Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has >falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that."
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence >>>> committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by
messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend >>>> its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner.
What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it
without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner
objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the First Tier >>> Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash it. And >>> either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if >>> they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has
falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that."
Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was precisely why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply
being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:01:20 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:13 +0000, The Todal <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property >>> returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to
leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County
Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate >>> or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is
something to be said for going back to the old system.
If A owns a house and B fraudulently sells it to C who takes out a
mortgage to buy it, what happens to C's mortgage if the house is
transferred back to A? I assume that C is still responsible for the
mortgage but probably not with the wherewithal to redeem it. That leaves
the lender with no security. Does the lender just have to suck that up
and hope that C never defaults on it?
Whilst I appreciate the simplicity of the question, I would like to point
out that traditional house sales tend to involve two sets of solicitors - each acting for their own client. So what culpability would they have in
such a matter ?
(From personal experience and a letter I still have, the answers seems to
be that they aren't actually responsible for anything ever. But that's
just me.)
On 12/03/2025 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:01:20 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:13 +0000, The Todal <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the
property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was
ordered to leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton
County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land
Certificate or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you
were the proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago
and now all you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry.
Maybe there is something to be said for going back to the old system.
If A owns a house and B fraudulently sells it to C who takes out a
mortgage to buy it, what happens to C's mortgage if the house is
transferred back to A? I assume that C is still responsible for the
mortgage but probably not with the wherewithal to redeem it. That
leaves the lender with no security. Does the lender just have to suck
that up and hope that C never defaults on it?
Whilst I appreciate the simplicity of the question, I would like to
point out that traditional house sales tend to involve two sets of
solicitors -
each acting for their own client. So what culpability would they have
in such a matter ?
(From personal experience and a letter I still have, the answers seems
to be that they aren't actually responsible for anything ever. But
that's just me.)
I thought that pretty much the first thing the buyer's solicitor does is
to determine who owns the property and whether they are entitled to sell
it. They clearly failed to do this properly, so I would have thought
they would be liable.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:15:12 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/03/2025 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
I thought that pretty much the first thing the buyer's solicitor does is
to determine who owns the property and whether they are entitled to sell
it. They clearly failed to do this properly, so I would have thought
they would be liable.
Well you'd think. However, according to the solicitors that handled our purchase, they can't be expected to check *everything*. Apparently that's
on us. And so we had to cover the 10 years unpaid ground rent when the freeholder came knocking.
Bitter ? 23 years on you bet I am.
On 2025-03-13, Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:15:12 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/03/2025 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
I thought that pretty much the first thing the buyer's solicitor does
is to determine who owns the property and whether they are entitled to
sell it. They clearly failed to do this properly, so I would have
thought they would be liable.
Well you'd think. However, according to the solicitors that handled our
purchase, they can't be expected to check *everything*. Apparently
that's on us. And so we had to cover the 10 years unpaid ground rent
when the freeholder came knocking.
Bitter ? 23 years on you bet I am.
"We don't check everything" is all very well, but if they didn't check "unpaid debts under the lease" it seems like they didn't check
*anything*!
On 13/03/2025 10:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence >>>>> committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by >>>>> messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend >>>>> its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner. >>>>What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it >>>> without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner >>>> objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash it. And >>>> either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if >>>> they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means. >>>>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has
falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that."
Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was precisely >> why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply
being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
The ownership of the property in fact never changed, so you're wrong.
It was *always* Mr Hall's. The transactions themselves did not need to
be unwound because none of them was a genuine transaction. They were
void ab initio. In the eyes of the law, they simply did not exist.
We were told that the Land Registry corrected its incorrect register
entry as to title, but we have not been told whether that was as a
result of court action or in fact as an administrative matter. It could
have been the latter unless you have proof to the contrary.
On 13/03/2025 10:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminalWhat I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it >>>> without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
offence
committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by >>>>> messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did)
amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner. >>>>
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner >>>> objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the
First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash
it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands
Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means. >>>>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has
falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that."
Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was
precisely
why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply
being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
The ownership of the property in fact never changed, so you're wrong.
On 12/03/2025 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:01:20 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:13 +0000, The Todal <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening. >>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property >>>> returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to
leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County >>>> Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate >>>> or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all >>>> you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is
something to be said for going back to the old system.
If A owns a house and B fraudulently sells it to C who takes out a
mortgage to buy it, what happens to C's mortgage if the house is
transferred back to A? I assume that C is still responsible for the
mortgage but probably not with the wherewithal to redeem it. That leaves >>> the lender with no security. Does the lender just have to suck that up
and hope that C never defaults on it?
Whilst I appreciate the simplicity of the question, I would like to point
out that traditional house sales tend to involve two sets of solicitors -
each acting for their own client. So what culpability would they have in
such a matter ?
(From personal experience and a letter I still have, the answers seems to
be that they aren't actually responsible for anything ever. But that's
just me.)
I thought that pretty much the first thing the buyer's solicitor does is
to determine who owns the property and whether they are entitled to sell
it. They clearly failed to do this properly, so I would have thought
they would be liable.
On 12/03/2025 18:34, The Todal wrote:
On 12/03/2025 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that article, >>>>> he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a >>>>> "squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really see >>>> what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in >>>> the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view it. >>>>
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained >>>> the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly
didn't move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr
Hall outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found
alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there
was no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was no
agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent it
out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal
offence committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then
expressed by messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could
(and did) amend its records, and the property has been returned to
its rightful owner.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
You were wrong, as you frequently are.
I think you applied Norman's Law and assumed that the Land Registry
would have to rectify its records in favour of the rightful owner,
whereas I quoted case law which perhaps you didn't understand or
weren't interested in, showing that it is within the discretion of the
judge in each case and in the reported case, the judge refused
rectification. But I did of course make it clear that the judge
considers the circumstances of each case.
You also said:
"This provision means that when B is registered as the proprietor of A’s estate, B becomes the owner, irrespective of the fact that the fraudster
had no right to transfer it."
From Mr Hall's case, it is certainly not. As I rightly said.
Sorry that you're claiming an illusory victory. It isn't the first
time that has happened.
'Illusory'? I don't think so.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:53:23 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 10:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was precisely >>> why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal offence >>>>>> committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by >>>>>> messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) amend >>>>>> its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful owner. >>>>>What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just revert it >>>>> without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner >>>>> objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means. >>>>>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has >>>> falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that." >>>
being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
The ownership of the property in fact never changed, so you're wrong.
It was *always* Mr Hall's. The transactions themselves did not need to
be unwound because none of them was a genuine transaction. They were
void ab initio. In the eyes of the law, they simply did not exist.
And that is precisely where you are wrong.
We were told that the Land Registry corrected its incorrect register
entry as to title, but we have not been told whether that was as a
result of court action or in fact as an administrative matter. It could
have been the latter unless you have proof to the contrary.
One of the earlier BBC reports indicated that legal action was in the
offing:
As well as Mr Hall fighting to regain ownership, the BBC has learned that
over a year later, the new owners are contesting Mr Hall's appeal to have
the house transferred back into his name, which may result in a legal
tribunal before any decision is made.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-63392025
And a subsequent report does, indeed, refer legal action having taken place:
On Tuesday at 14:13 GMT, following two years of court battles, Mr Hall
said "justice has been done" after his name was once against listed as
owner of the house on the Land Registry.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67356354
Note that both of these articles predate the more recent county court action to evict the unauthorised tenants. Note also that the the first article refers to having the house "transferred back", which implies a subsequent transfer rather than merely negating the original transfer.
I don't know if anyone can identify the property from the media photos of
it, but if we can get an address then it would be possible to check the Land Registry transaction history for it.
On 13/03/2025 15:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
I don't know if anyone can identify the property from the media photos of
it, but if we can get an address then it would be possible to check the Land >> Registry transaction history for it.
I'm not sure that will clarify anything, but let's see.
On 13/03/2025 11:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/03/2025 10:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal
offence
committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by >>>>>> messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and did) >>>>>> amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful
owner.
What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just
revert it
without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new owner >>>>> objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the
First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash >>>>> it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands
Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any means. >>>>>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1
November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown has >>>> falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off
with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change that." >>>
precisely
why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply
being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
The ownership of the property in fact never changed, so you're wrong.
Ah, I can see where you're going wrong. It doesn't matter who owns the property and the concept is most unhelpful, the only thing that does
matter is the title.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:23:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/03/2025 15:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
I don't know if anyone can identify the property from the media photos of >>> it, but if we can get an address then it would be possible to check the Land
Registry transaction history for it.
I'm not sure that will clarify anything, but let's see.
It will show whether the original transfer away from Mr Hall was
subsequently deleted, or whether there was instead a second transfer in the other direction.
Transfers do get deleted occasionally, usually where the Land Registry has made a data entry error. For data integrity, a deleted transfer isn't actually removed from the data, instead it's updated to show a "deleted" status. So you can still see them, meaning it's possible to see where an error has been made and then corrected.
On 12/03/2025 20:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2025 18:34, The Todal wrote:
On 12/03/2025 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/03/2025 12:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-12, Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be
happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
It was discussed here in november 2021, but from reading that
article,
he then left it empty again until 2023 and when he turned up found a >>>>>> "squatter" family was living there ... seems a bit careless?
They're not squatters, they're a family that entered into a tenancy
agreement with, presumably, the fake property owner. I don't really
see
what he could have done to prevent that happening, short of camping in >>>>> the street outside the property and warning anyone who came to view
it.
It's not clear why it took so long to get possession after he regained >>>>> the title, but perhaps he was being nice to the innocent family who
were getting kicked out. It says in the article that he feels sorry
for them, although I'm not entirely sure why given they apparently
got 18 months' occupation rent-free.
According to the article linked to in the original post here:
"Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when
he returned again in 2023 he found a family living there."
We don't know the exact time-line but the Land Registry clearly
didn't move with the speed of lightning.
"At Luton County Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr
Hall outright possession of the home in 14 days."
Since he'd been out of the property since 2021, I expect he'd found
alternative accommodation so the house was no longer his primary
residence and he would therefore have had to follow the normal
procedures for eviction of squatters which, as we all know, take far
longer than they should, exacerbated even more by the backlog in the
courts, still, as a result of the Covid pandemic.
They got 18 months rent-free (if they did) presumably because there
was no valid rental agreement by which they were bound. There was
no agreement with Mr Hall, who wanted the property back, not to rent
it out, and there was of course no legally valid agreement with the
fraudster who purported to rent it to them.
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal
offence committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then
expressed by messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry
could (and did) amend its records, and the property has been
returned to its rightful owner.
Sorry to have been right yet again.
You were wrong, as you frequently are.
I think you applied Norman's Law and assumed that the Land Registry
would have to rectify its records in favour of the rightful owner,
whereas I quoted case law which perhaps you didn't understand or
weren't interested in, showing that it is within the discretion of
the judge in each case and in the reported case, the judge refused
rectification. But I did of course make it clear that the judge
considers the circumstances of each case.
You also said:
"This provision means that when B is registered as the proprietor of
A’s estate, B becomes the owner, irrespective of the fact that the
fraudster had no right to transfer it."
From Mr Hall's case, it is certainly not. As I rightly said.
Please refrain from repeately asserting incorrect law. Maybe you should
do some research, rather than relying on what I assume must be your
pendulous gut.
On 13/03/2025 14:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2025 11:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/03/2025 10:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 08:29:20 +0000, Norman Wells <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12/03/2025 18:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:23:37 +0000, Norman Wells
<[email protected]> wrote:
Anyway, just as I predicted in November 2021 in the 'No criminal >>>>>>> offence
committed?' thread here, and contrary to the views then expressed by >>>>>>> messrs Todal, Parker and Goodge, the Land Registry could (and
did) amend
its records, and the property has been returned to its rightful
owner.
What I actually said was that the Land Registry couldn't just
revert it
without a court order. Which Mr Hall obtained, and the title was
subsequently reverted. What I actually said was:
It can be reverted by means of a court order, but if the new >>>>>> owner
objects to the order then it will need to go to at least the >>>>>> First Tier
Tribunal for a ruling on whether to uphold the order or quash >>>>>> it. And
either party can then appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands
Chamber) if
they want to. So it's not a quick and easy solution, by any >>>>>> means.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Well, let me quote some of what you absolutely wrongly asserted on 1 >>>>> November 2021:
"The original owner has been defrauded. A person or persons unknown
has
falsely claimed to be him in order to sell the property and make off >>>>> with the proceeds. The current owners have good title."
"The current owners are the owners. The fact that they
(entirely innocently) bought the property from someone who had
fraudulently misrepresented himself as the owner does not change
that."
Neither of those statements was incorrect. Far from it. That was
precisely
why it needed a court to unwind the transactions, rather than it simply >>>> being an administrative matter for the Land Registry.
The ownership of the property in fact never changed, so you're wrong.
Ah, I can see where you're going wrong. It doesn't matter who owns the
property and the concept is most unhelpful, the only thing that does
matter is the title.
Who owns the property is absolutely central. It's the reason Mr Hall
could get the error in the Land Register corrected.
And 'legal title' is merely 'the means or right by which one owns or possesses property'. Mr Hall acquired legal title to his house by
buying it. He never relinquished it. He owned it throughout.
This is rather worrying - one wonders how often this might be happening.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygv79n8x1o
quote
A reverend whose house was sold without him knowing has had the property returned to him nearly four years on, after a family was ordered to
leave.
Rev Mike Hall returned to his Luton home from Wales in 2021 to find
someone impersonating him had sold it on for £131,000, after his
identity was stolen.
Land Registry eventually put his name back on the title, but when he
returned again in 2023 he found a family living there. At Luton County
Court on Monday, Judge Elaine Vignoli granted Mr Hall outright
possession of the home in 14 days.
unquote
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land Certificate
or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you were the
proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and now all
you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe there is something to be said for going back to the old system.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:25:13 +0000, The Todal wrote:
In the old days, to sell a house you had to produce the Land
Certificate or Charge Certificate, a paper document that proved you
were the proprietor of the land, but that was abolished decades ago and
now all you need is an office copy of the Land Registry entry. Maybe
there is something to be said for going back to the old system.
Wonder how they managed to transfer the property? Surely the solicitors
who handled the conveyancing must be liable for their part in the fraud.
Or is there a way round that? Can you draw up your own sale? i looked at
my own deeds, and its quite a short doc, if i was to reproduce it just
with different names and dates when i want to sell, get it witnessed,
would it be legal?
Would save a bundle on conveyancing fees.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:02:08 |
| Calls: | 12,108 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,256 |