Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Why government has to pay for the compensation?

Discussion in 'General Property Chat' started by samiam, 22nd Aug, 2016.

  1. samiam

    samiam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    on my way
  2. FirstTimeBuyer

    FirstTimeBuyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    88
    Location:
    Sydney
    Agree. I fail to see how the government has any responsibility in this incident.
     
  3. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,575
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    • Government is liable as it guarantees the title, there are provisions in the Act which render the Crown liable where the perpetrators of the fraud cannot be identified (hence limitation on who pays the compensation);
    • Purchaser isn't a party as they haven't committed a fraud; &
    • Should be some liability back on the agency and solicitor for not confirming the details of the vendor
     
    samiam likes this.
  4. JDM

    JDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    145
    Location:
    London (ex Brisbane)
    A fundamental aspect of Torrens Title used in Australia is 'title by registration'. That means that upon registration of a transfer of the property you obtain indefeasible title (subject to limited exceptions, of which one is fraud). The reason the fraud exception did not apply in this case is because it was an innocent third party for valuable consideration. The notion of indefeasible title means that the property could not just be transferred back to the original owner so the Government pays compensation.

    If the Government did not guarantee title in this way it would undermine the entire Torrens Title system. In theory a portion of all lodgement fees are meant to be set aside to pay claims such as this.
     
    samiam, neK, Simon Moore and 2 others like this.
  5. Stoffo

    Stoffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Jul, 2016
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree that it is good to see some form of protection in this case for the former owner (even if she is in South Africa, still, she could have been a part of the scam for all the authorities know).

    But as stated above, "liability back on the agency and solicitor for not confirming the details of the vendor" !

    Really, someone emails me and "changes their contact details" and I email/call their old details to CONFIRM ! Let alone A WEEK LATER they decide to sell, how dumb is the agent !!!
     
    samiam likes this.
  6. Westminster

    Westminster Tigress at Tiger Developments Business Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Perth
    I do believe that there is also a case against the agency - I believe their duty of care was massively lacking. As per the last line of the article, this happened twice here in WA and fantastic (although cumbersome) steps where put in place to help prevent it happening. The thefts made national headlines and you'd think other State's agents even if they didn't have compulory changes would bring in their own more robust checks at an agency level.
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/wa-...ams-rears-ugly-head-again-20120219-1tgtr.html
     
    samiam likes this.