Business Property Rates Data (Q3 2023)
Case reference FOI2023/01697
Published 27 October 2023
Request
In terms of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000, and subject to section 40(2) on personal data, could you please provide me with your local authority's complete and most-recently updated list of all business (non-residential) property rates data, including the following fields: -
Billing Authority Property Reference Code (linking the property to the public VOA database reference)
- Firm's Trading Name (i.e. property occupant or ratepayer)
- Full Property Address (Number, Street, Postal Code, Town)
- Occupation / Vacancy status
- Date of Occupation / Vacancy
- Reliefs and / or exemption categories (classifications) granted or applied
- Date that reliefs and / or exemption categories granted or applied
- Value of reliefs and / or exemption categories granted or applied (in Pounds)
- Actual annual rates charged (in Pounds)
If you are unable to provide an absolute "Occupation / Vacancy" status, please provide the balance of the information requested.
Please could you also provide a list of definitions for the codes for the Exemptions and / or Reliefs you use.
Response
Herefordshire Council does publish some business rates data on its website and this is available via the following link:
Business rates NNDR dataset extract - Herefordshire Council
This includes billing authority reference numbers, firm trading names, actual annual rates charged and full property addresses, excluding any data considered to be the personal data of third parties.
As such we consider this data to be exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it is available to you via other means. Please take this letter as a refusal notice under S17 of the Act for this part of your request.
Regarding the occupancy / vacancy status of these properties and the date of occupation / vacancy, we consider this information to be exempt under Section 31 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which exempts information if it would, or would be likely, to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. Empty properties are at risk of break in / burglary / trespass. Even if we were to just disclose a list of properties which are occupied, this would, by omission, reveal which properties are currently vacant. I therefore consider that in this instance Section 31 of the Act is engaged.
In reaching this decision I have taken into account the Information Commissioner's guidance on this section and the Information Tribunal's decision in Mr C P England and the London Borough of Bexley v the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/066; 066, 10 May 2007) in which the Tribunal was 'satisfied that Section 31 (1) (a) is appropriate to information, even if the purpose of the collation of the information was not the prevention of crime per se'.
This particular exemption is subject to the public interest test, and accordingly I have taken the following factors into consideration:
The public interest in disclosure:
Disclosing details of empty properties could potentially assist in returning those properties to use if interested tenants were able to use the information to easily identify potential business premises in Herefordshire.
Promotion of the reuse of empty commercial properties could bring significant economic benefits to Herefordshire and in turn the Marches region, by improving opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs, particularly in the current political and economic climate.
The public interest in non-disclosure:
The arguments against release put forward by other local authorities who have received requests similar to this one, have highlighted instances of criminal behaviour being carried out in empty properties, such as squatting, cannabis cultivation, illegal raves, etc. I would agree with the arguments of these councils that releasing details of empty commercial properties into the public domain would be likely to facilitate and encourage criminal activity; providing a list of 'targets' for criminals to focus on. The Information Commissioner also agreed with the arguments set out by Stoke on Trent City Council (FS50538789) who were able to demonstrate a 'real and significant' risk of arson attacks on empty properties in their area.
Crime in Herefordshire is generally low, however, there are issues of rural crime in Herefordshire with 30% of all crime in the county occurring in rural areas. This is particularly an issue from isolated buildings, such as those within farms. These isolated rural premises may not be widely known to be empty by the fact of their isolation.
Indeed, Herefordshire is extremely rural. Herefordshire has the 4th lowest population density in England and the population is scattered across the 842 square miles of the county.
There are numerous reports in Herefordshire of break-ins at occupied premises and issues at isolated buildings, such as within farms, which often have a lack of security. In particular there have been instances of burglary, criminal damage and stripping of assets such as metal / copper pipes. Empty properties in Herefordshire have also suffered arson attacks in recent years. There have also been reports of squatters in non-residential properties. Although squatting in commercial premises is not a crime, there are often wider repercussions such as fraud, criminal damage and risk of theft of electricity. Indeed, the Advisory Service for Squatters (ASS) provides advice on how to squat in properties, indicating that lists of non-residential properties might be available from local authorities. The Voyias Tribunal states that they were 'provided with sufficient evidence in particular in material published by ASS … to satisfy us that squatters do check available lists of empty properties and that release of such a list by another council in response to an FOI request in the past had led to an increase in squatting'.
Disclosure of a list of empty properties may provide a 'shopping list' for interested parties, some of whom may have adverse intentions or intend to squat. As outlined in the Information Commissioner decision notice FS50538789 it is 'clearly logical to argue that the disclosure of a list of empty properties would provide those intent on committing crimes associated with such properties an easy way to identify them'. Similarly a decision notice by the First Tier Tribunal (EA/2018/0033) also concluded that the 'provision of a ready-made list makes it easier to commit crime: it enables criminals to avoid the significant effort of researching and compiling the information in relation to each potential target'. Therefore we have concluded that the possibility of crime is real and would be more likely to occur as a result of the information on empty properties being disclosed and subsequently, that public money would be used to detect and prosecute such crimes.
There is a huge difference between empty properties that are visible in city streets and empty properties in rural areas, which are not located in sites visible from streets and highways, which may not be widely known to be empty by the fact of their isolation, and where there are less people able to notice the fact that they are empty.
In extremely rural areas like Herefordshire, it is less likely that opportunistic or organised criminals would happen across a property located in an isolated area, decide to observe it over a period of time to see whether it is empty and therefore a suitable target for criminal activity, compared to empty commercial properties located in city centres, where it is more likely that such a property is visible and potentially identifiable by the high concentration of population that surrounds it each day. If the rural property did have neighbouring, occupied, properties in its vicinity, its occupants would either stand out in such a sparsely populated area, and it is more likely that such activity would either be confronted by residents or reported to the police. However, if the information were available in the form of a list, this would negate the need to drive around rural areas attempting to spot empty properties, or undertaking potentially risky surveillance to see whether the property is occupied or not; with a list the potential criminals could be confident that the property was empty as the information would be recently provided, reducing the need to carry out observations. Therefore we would conclude that publishing a list detailing which commercial properties in the area are currently empty would aid criminals in their endeavours.
The impact of crime can be substantial. Costs would be incurred by owners for any damage caused to their property or to re-secure their property, and insurance premiums could rise as a result. In the region 39% of rural people fear crime, and the perception of crime could result in anxiety for those with empty properties, particularly if the fact that their property was occupied was made publicly available.
We have previously sought advice from West Mercia Police and Hereford & Worcester Fire Service following receipt of information requests on empty properties and they have advised that the release of this information would leave properties vulnerable to crime. The council cannot discount the opinion of the police and the fire service, who have significant local knowledge and experience of dealing with these matters. This is especially the case because as outlined in Section 17 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, the council must 'do all that it reasonable can to prevent … crime and disorder in its area (including anti-social behaviour) adversely affecting the local environment'.
Although release of the requested information could be beneficial to the local economy, I would advise that the Local Enterprise Partnership's Growth Hub already provides a great deal of free advice and assistance to businesses currently in the area or looking to relocate to the area, including providing a commercial property register of properties available to rent / buy in the area (although it does not necessarily state whether that property is vacant or not).
In view of the real and substantial risk which the release of the information could cause, the rural nature of Herefordshire and the economic assistance already freely available to businesses interested in the area, in this instance the public interest in non-disclosure of the requested information outweighs that in disclosure. Please take this letter as a refusal notice under S17 of the Act.
We also consider details of empty properties in Herefordshire to be exempt under Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which exempts information which has been provided in confidence. The property owners provide details of their properties to the council for the purposes of calculating rates or reliefs. There is a general common law principle of tax payer confidentiality, as states in R (Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & another) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2016) (UKSC 54) 'where information of a personal or confidential nature is obtained or received in the exercise of a legal power or a furtherance of a public duty, the recipient will in general owe a duty to the person from who it was received or to who it relates not to use it for other purposes'. As such the information requested has the necessary obligation of confidence. There is only a limited public interest in the disclosure of the information, as set out above, and consequently we have concluded that there is insufficient public interest in disclosure to outweigh the importance of the general common law principle of taxpayer confidentiality. Such an argument is supported by the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (EA/2018/0033). Please take this letter as a refusal notice under S17 of the Act.
Regarding reliefs and / or exemptions categories granted or applied, the dates of these and the value of reliefs and / or exemptions we consider these details to be exempt under Section 31 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because Herefordshire Council, like many other local authorities, have recently been subject to related criminal offences. The risk of fraud with reliefs / discounts is a known issue and remains a long term risk.
As such we consider that the prejudice being claimed through the use of this exemption is 'real, actual or of substance' i.e. it is not trivial and there is a causal link between disclosure and the prejudice claimed.
This exemption is subject to the public interest test, and accordingly I have weighed up the reasons for and against disclosure as follows:
Reasons for disclosure in the public interest:
Openness and transparency regarding the reliefs / exemptions a specific property may be in receipt of.
Reasons against disclosure in the public interest:
Disclosure the fact that some properties are in receipt of some reliefs / exemptions would make it possible, by comparing this information against other published datasets, to work out (by their omission) which properties are empty, information which we consider to be exempt for the reasons set out above.
Disclosing details of other types of relief / exemptions that a property may be in receipt of would open our business rates system to abuse and criminal activity. In the past details of reliefs / exemptions were published on our website as part of the business rates datasets which are available there and disclosed in response to Freedom of Information requests. However, fraudulent claims have recently been made against the council. It is highly likely that publishing / disclosing the information requested above would aid criminals by providing vital information which makes the commission of such fraud much easier. Disclosure would increase the risk and rate at which we are targeted. The requested information could be used to facilitate future fraud attempts, such as rating agency or business impersonation.
Those with criminal intent could use the information to hijack a company's identity, allowing them to pose as that company to the council in order to claim monies, set up a fraudulent account in the name of the company or pose as the council or ratings agency to approach a company with relevant details of their accounts, such as the amount they pay and the reliefs they are entitled to, to acquire further confidential information from them, such as that company's banking details.
Fraudulent activity costs the council - money is paid out to fraudsters, the council is liable for any legitimate claims (i.e. payment could be made twice), and there is also a cost associated with seeking recovery of funds paid to fraudsters. Potential losses to the council itself and to the public purse extend far beyond this particular matter when mosaic or precedent effects are taken into account. Such costs are not in the public interest.
There is a general public interest in knowing the total amounts of relief / exemptions claimed by businesses but not in knowing the details of the amounts claimed by individual businesses, in conjunction with information about them which is already in the public domain such as the rateable value of the property or the hereditament address. Disclosure of the details for individual businesses does not advance the general public interest in this type of information, and is data which each owner would already know about their business.
As only the businesses concerned know this type of information about their business this helps to act as a safeguard when they contact the council. If a business does contact the council to discuss their business rates account there are enhanced verification systems in place and extra fraud awareness training has been given to all officers working in business rates.
If we were to disclose the requested information, releasing this to the world at large (which disclosure under Freedom of Information would essentially do), further additional checking processes would need to be introduced to mitigate against fraud, as the safeguard set out above would have been removed. Such disclosure, as we have experienced, increases the risk and rate in which we are targeted for fraud because the risk of fraud substantially increases each time it is disclosed into the public domain. Not only would this lead to additional costs, but it would result in delays in legitimate refunds or account queries and lead to complaints regarding slowness. If legitimate claims were delayed this would not be in the interests of the businesses concerned.
Taking the above into consideration, I find that the balance in non-disclosure of the requested information outweighs the balance in disclosure. Please take this letter as a refusal notice under S17 of the Act.
A list of the different reliefs / exemptions which can be applied can be found via the following link: Business rates relief and exemptions - Herefordshire Council
Documents
This is Herefordshire Council's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.