Thanks for the summary. Everyone looks bad in this story: the police, the solictors, the DVLA, the bank, and finally the law itself which probably hasn't changed for decades if not longer.
A law that says a home can be fraudlently sold to an (innocent) purchaser and thus confers ownership on the purchaser, while the original owner loses ownership is simply not fit for modern times. Even if Mike Hall receives compensation, he's still lost his home and the contents in the home.
Will the compensation match the purchase price of the house and the contents in the home? And what of the innocent house buyer who bought the property? Surely it would make more sense to return the house to the original owner, and for compensation be paid to the house buyer.
A law that says a home can be fraudlently sold to an (innocent) purchaser and thus confers ownership on the purchaser, while the original owner loses ownership is simply not fit for modern times. Even if Mike Hall receives compensation, he's still lost his home and the contents in the home.
Will the compensation match the purchase price of the house and the contents in the home? And what of the innocent house buyer who bought the property? Surely it would make more sense to return the house to the original owner, and for compensation be paid to the house buyer.