Professional squatter scams

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have personal experience of an attempted scam.

A property, part of an estate for which I was executor, was rented out without my knowledge, deposit & rent collected by the scammer and tenant installed.

Thankfully the tenant moved out again fairly quickly & without fuss.

It was not a pleasant experience.

In terms of risk however, that was one instance over several decades; I would not see it as a major concern.
 
The OP is concerned that, because it is (apparently) happening more frequently in other places - he mentions Spain and the US - it might happen more frequently in Ireland too.

I think what drives this is not how often it happens in other places, but how easy it would be for it to happen in Ireland.

In Spain there are a fair number of properties used as second/holiday homes that belong to people who live outside the country. The owners, in many cases, have no, or very limited, network or connections in Spain. Many of these properties are unattended and unvisited for periods of months, and many of them are surrounded by other similar properties, or by holiday lets, etc. so there aren't any neighbours who know the regjular residents, who would note unusual activity at the property, or who would keep a (formal or informal) eye on the place.

It follows that this kind of scam might happen more frequently in Ireland if those or similar conditions become more common in Ireland - properties that aren't regularly used for significant periods of time, that belong to people who don't have much in the way of local connections, and that are located in areas where the neighbourhood network is relatively weak.
 
TomEdison said:
Are they? As far as they're concerned they've paid a deposit and the first month's rent, and they've got a receipt and a tenancy agreement to prove it. Against that they've got some bloke they've never seen turning up on the doorstep and insisting that he is the true owner of the property. And he doesn't even have a key to the property!

Patfert1 has it. The properties that get embroiled in these scams are usually not someone's primary residence. They are properties that are temporarily vacant for one reason or another - part of an estate in administration, soneone's holiday home, an air bnb property, whatever - particularly properties that, for the time being, nobody is paying much attention to. It's much easier to occupy propeties like that for long enough to run this scam, and they are much more likely to be in a condition where they can plausibly be rented to an innocent third party.

So in such a case the people actually in your property genuinely haven't committed any crime - they are innocent victims of the scam, like yourself. (And, even if they are not, it may be hard to establish that fact, much less prove it.) The guards are not going to arrest them, or forcibly remove them. You try to get them to leave by agreement; if that fails, you head off to court.

An even more disturbing variant on the scam has been run in Australia, where fraudsters not merely rent out but actually sell properties. They take control of an unoccupied property; by means of forgery or identity theft they assume the owner's identity; they sell the property at arm's length for market value to an innocent third party. The property concerned might be, e.g., a house left vacant while the owner is working abroad, so there are weeks or months to pull off the scam. Once the transfer to the third party is registered, he gets good title — registration is conclusive as to title. The defrauded true owners are left seeking compensation from the land registration authoity, or trying to chase the fraudster to recover the sale proceeds, but either way they don't get the house back.
Click to expand...
They dont have anything at all from the owner of the property, who is the only one with the power to take a deposit from them and give them a receipt. Just because someone else falls for a scam doesnt mean you should take their place as the victim. You fell for nothing, so its not on you.
 
They don't have anything at all from the true owner of the property. But in the situation that you describe, where you turn up, unexpectedly find them there, and call the guards, the guards have no way of knowing, on the spot, that you are the true owner of the property. Why would they place such reliance on your claim to be the true owner that they would run the risk of a false arrest claim? They won't. Also, the occupiers may have, e.g., a tenancy agreement purporting to be signed by you, or by someone on your behalf. It may of course be a forgery but, on the spot, the guards have no way of knowing that.

In the medium term, you'll likely get your property back. But, on the spot, the guards don't know the things you know and, if you think about it, they have no reason to take your unsupported word for it.

And, remember, they're not concerned with resolving disputes about who has the better right to occupy the property. That's not their function. They're concerned with whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom. It may be true that the people in occupation have fallen for a scam while you didn't, and you may feel that this gives you the moral high ground. But falling for a scam is not a crime.
 
TomEdison said:
They don't have anything at all from the true owner of the property. But in the situation that you describe, where you turn up, unexpectedly find them there, and call the guards, the guards have no way of knowing, on the spot, that you are the true owner of the property. Why would they place such reliance on your claim to be the true owner that they would run the risk of a false arrest claim? They won't. Also, the occupiers may have, e.g., a tenancy agreement purporting to be signed by you, or by someone on your behalf. It may of course be a forgery but, on the spot, the guards have no way of knowing that.

In the medium term, you'll likely get your property back. But, on the spot, the guards don't know the things you know and, if you think about it, they have no reason to take your unsupported word for it.

And, remember, they're not concerned with resolving disputes about who has the better right to occupy the property. That's not their function. They're concerned with whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom. It may be true that the people in occupation have fallen for a scam while you didn't, and you may feel that this gives you the moral high ground. But falling for a scam is not a crime.
Click to expand...
I think you are being a bit dramatic now. You know full well that the gardai are able to tell who own the property and who doesnt and if the owner tells them they never saw the people now occupying their house they will be the ones they believe. All the occupiers have is a fake lease with a fake name and a description different person than the owner standing with the gardai in front of them.

We are in the realms of people who will tell you the earth is flat and keep furnishing you with proof they got off a website to website somewhere that proves its flat.
 
The guards can find out from Tailte Eireann who is the owner of any property, but checking property registration details isn't the kind of thing they normally do on a callout. And, it's possible that since you've come back from holidays you're carrying your passport, so you can establish that you are, at the very least, a person with the same name as the registered owner, if they do in fact check the register. But the occupiers may have a letting agreement which has your name on it, or the name of someone said to be your agent. The guards are not in the business of determining whether that's a forgery, and certainly that's not a determination they will make on the spot.

Remember, the guards don't care who owns the property. They care whether an offence is being committed and, if so, who committed it, and they care about whether there is a breach of the peace, or the threat of one. In the scenario we have here, neither you nor the occupiers have commited any offence. A disagreement or misunderstanding over the right to occupy property is not a breach of the peace, unless it becomes violent. If they think it's going to be become violent, the person they are most likely to arrest is the person they think is going to resort to force, not the person they think is "in the wrong" in the property dispute.

Bottom line: the role of the guards here is not to determine who has the better right to occupy the property, and to restore the property to that person; that's the job of the courts. The role of the guards is (a) to investigate any criminal offences that may have been committed, and to arrest and charge those responsible, and (b) to keep the peace and avert threats to the peace.

Clearly somebody has to go to a hotel for the night, or go and stay with a friend or whatever. And, honestly, in the scenario you paint, it's much easier for you to do that. You've already got a bag packed, for one thing.. Even if the occupiers accept that they've been scammed and that they have to leave, they need time to get the kids out of bed and dressed, pack up their stuff, etc. If they e.g. offer to leave in the morning, the guards are likely to suggest to you that that's a very reasonable approach to dealing with the fallout of a fraud for which neither you nor they are responsible, and maybe you could go and stay with the married sister in Rathfarnham for the night?
 
I think the lesson to take from this is the need to think about how to avoid having this scam happen to you, rather than just glibly assuming that the guards will sort it out for you if it ever does.
 
TomEdison said:
I think the lesson here is to think about how to avoid having it happen to you, rather than just glibly assume the guards will sort it out for you if it ever does.
Click to expand...
Anybody with a house who is going abroad for a year or two has a difficult choice:

1. Rent it out with all the paperwork and complications that entails, and risk not being able to get the house back when you return due to an RTB supported overholding tenant or another 'temporary' eviction ban.

2. Leave it vacant and risk squatters.

I'd take the second risk actually. Security cameras, timed lights, an alarm, good locks, encouraging friends and family to stay in the house for short breaks, hiring an EA to call once a week, things like that should massively reduce the risk of squatters. You can do far less to mitigate the PRS risks.
 
If your property is on the Land Registry you can register for alerts on the website so that if there are any changes to the folio (eg attempted title reregistration) you will get an email.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But is there a danger of becoming totally paranoid with threads like this?
Click to expand...
I think it is a symptom of a loss of confidence that the state will protect property rights.

Normally, you can just assume that the rightful owner will prevail and there is no need to worry about weird cases. That the guards would just wash their hands of the issue isn't really something people would think would happen.

Recent activity by the government with regards to the rental sector calls that into question.
 
LarryScott said:
I think it is a symptom of a loss of confidence that the state will protect property rights.
Click to expand...
I think that is what it is.

If the squatters manage to end up before the RTB, whose story will be believed? Landlords are criminals until proven otherwise.
 
Greenbook said:
I think that is what it is.

If the squatters manage to end up before the RTB, whose story will be believed? Landlords are criminals until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
Who would register their squatters with the RTB :)
And, so far at least, squatting isnt under the RTBs control.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Don't need to be a registered tenant to bring a dispute to RTB.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the squatters say they are tenants and report the landlord to the RTB for an alleged attempted illegal eviction. The RTB will, of course, believe the 'tenants' and the landlord is now embroiled with the RTB. The RTB may refuse to deal with him unless he registers the 'tenancy' and pays the penalties for not doing so earlier.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen, but it is one possible scenario.

Keep in mind of the squatter can get the RTB to accept jurisdiction over the issue, they probably have two or three years in situ before the landlord will eventually get them out.
 
Greenbook said:
Exactly, the squatters say they are tenants and report the landlord to the RTB for an alleged attempted illegal eviction. The RTB will, of course, believe the 'tenants' and the landlord is now embroiled with the RTB. The RTB may refuse to deal with him unless he registers the 'tenancy' and pays the penalties for not doing so earlier.

I'm not saying this is guaranteed to happen, but it is one possible scenario.

Keep in mind of the squatter can get the RTB to accept jurisdiction over the issue, they probably have two or three years in situ before the landlord will eventually get them out.
Click to expand...
So you are going to put your key in the door and find a stranger in your house and then the RTB are going to come out with flashing lights to sort out the situation. The RTB no say whatsoever here, not matter how much they might want to. The RTB are simply not involved.
I would be calling the gardai and telling them that there are strangers in my house, remove them or I will.

Imagine someone being able to walk into your house and say someone rented it to them so now you have to let the RTB decide if you did or not. Preposterous. Not going to happen.
 
JamieB_ said:
I would be calling the gardai and telling them that there are strangers in my house, remove them or I will.
Click to expand...
This is a hypothetical scenario, so anything could happen. I'm only setting out a possible scenario. Of course, this might not happen at all. Once the guards turn up, they might get rid of the squatters or the squatter might flee themselves.

But it is possible that you call the guards and the guards do not do anything in the belief that it is a civil matter. The squatters swear they are tenants, show a lease and say you are trying to illegally evict them. The guards leave.

If the squatters know what they are up to, they will contact the RTB, say the tenancy is unregistered and that you tried to evict them. The RTB will of course believe the 'tenants' and that'll put the whole thing into orbit for a couple of years.

Another poster on here who knows his legal rules says that you could take the squatters to the Circuit Court separately from the RTB, but the whole thing is a mess for the owner one way or another.
 
Greenbook said:
This is a hypothetical scenario, so anything could happen.
Click to expand...
I think for me this discussion has only highlighted the fact that the Law is not black and white and common sense doesn't always shine through

But if I found my self in a situation where I had to leave my home unoccupied for an extended period of time I would be quite happy to do so,
as I feel with all the advancements in technology especially in home security I'd know if something untoward was going on within minutes.
And failing that I'm sure either of my direct neighbours who I would have informed of my absence would only be too delighted to contact me if something were amiss
 
@Cervelo I think that is the answer to it, very strong security. The squatters would have to break in and if you have footage of that happening, a record of alarms going off etc., that would convince the guards and should even the convince the RTB eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top