Please don't throw around accusations of victim-blaming like this.
No one is claiming that the victim is at fault. But I do think it's useful information to pass along that it's possible to get notified of things like this before they become big problems.
It's like... it's not my fault if I get mugged at 3am in a part of the city known for being full of violent crime, but I also should have known better than to be walking around in a part of the city known for violent crime at 3 in the morning. Just because I am the victim, it doesn't mean I couldn't have avoided an incident if I'd used common sense.
It's about outcomes and reality: sometimes we have to take on a little extra responsibility in order to make it less likely a bad thing will happen. That's not fair or just, but it's the way the world works.
The problem is the absurdly unjust system that needs monitoring. It's not "just the way the world works", because it doesn't have to be the way that it is, and it should not be the way that it is.
A system that requires constant, complicated intervention to function properly ensures that those with the resources and background to know that they have to exercise constant vigilance against malfeasance will come out ahead over the long run.
In general that's true, but in this particular case I'm not sure it follows. This is a very infrequent occurrence, which is why it made the news. From a societal perspective, further investment in security here is probably a net drag since all those security measures will also apply to every valid sale and there are vastly more of those. The pot of money that pays out to victims of fraud doesn't make those people whole, but it's enough to solve the problem well enough that it's probably reasonably close to a global minimum in terms of total cost across everyone in society. For those that are concerned about the personal risk, being able to do your own monitoring is a nice enhancement.
It is a infrequent yet catastrophic risk however for everyone that owns any land or property in the UK - and it would definitely keep me up at night if I had any property there!
What is unjust? There's (claimed) fraud committed, and it's under investigation. 'Justice has not yet been served', sure, but maybe let 'the system' work before decrying it as 'unjust'?
What would you have be done differently, immediately turf out the new 'owner', who in his eyes paid for it fair and square?
Assuming it's all true, presumably it will be returned to the true owner, the transaction reversed, and the cheated non-owner will have a solid civil case against the defrauder for the inconvenience and expense.
No one is claiming that the victim is at fault. But I do think it's useful information to pass along that it's possible to get notified of things like this before they become big problems.
It's like... it's not my fault if I get mugged at 3am in a part of the city known for being full of violent crime, but I also should have known better than to be walking around in a part of the city known for violent crime at 3 in the morning. Just because I am the victim, it doesn't mean I couldn't have avoided an incident if I'd used common sense.
It's about outcomes and reality: sometimes we have to take on a little extra responsibility in order to make it less likely a bad thing will happen. That's not fair or just, but it's the way the world works.