FOI request (FOIR-145906599)
Business Rates - Occupier Data
Requested Wed 25 September 2019
Responded Fri 18 October 2019
Under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000, and subject to section 40(2) on personal data, could you please provide me with a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data for your local authority, and including the following fields:
- Billing Authority Property Reference Code (linking the property to the VOA database reference)- Firm's Trading Name (i.e. property occupant)- Full Property Address (Number, Street, Postal Code, Town)- Occupied / Vacant- Date of Occupation / Vacancy- Actual annual rates charged (in Pounds)
If you are unable to provide an absolute "Occupation / Vacancy" status, please provide the Exemptions and / or Reliefs that a particular property may be receiving.
Please find attached a full valuation list.
Please note it is not possible to give details of actual rates charged. We do not have a report to list the £s charged so would have to check each account manually. If we checked each account at approx. 1 minute per account it would take approx. 60 hours, this would far exceed the time limit set out by the Information Commissioner therefore under S12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000 provides an exemption from the obligation to comply with a request for information if the estimated costs of complying with that request would exceed the prescribed appropriate limit.
We estimate that the costs of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit by a significant amount.
For this reason we feel unable to comply with this request.
Notice of Refusal
Please note that I consider the information you have requested regarding empty properties to be exempt information under S31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act in that disclosure of that information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.
The nature of the prejudice in this case is that the disclosure of the information in question would render the properties question more vulnerable to damage and potential unauthorised occupation and the crime and disorder commonly associated with such occupation. Because it is our policy to refuse disclosure of the addresses of empty properties we are unable to provide direct evidence of a causal link between such disclosure and prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime. We believe, however, that there is evidence that the advertisement of the fact that a property is empty serves to make it vulnerable to damage and potential unauthorised occupation and the crime and disorder commonly associated with such occupation and that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.
The exemption afforded by S31(1)(a) is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.
Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.
We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:
a) furtherance of understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.
b) promotion of accountability and transparency by public authorities in the decision they make and the spending of public money.
c) bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.
d) bringing empty properties back into use.
We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.
We believe that there is no evidence that disclosure would bring any significant proportion of empty buildings back into use. In this respect we would point out that we consider that any disclosure would take no account of the reasons such properties are empty.
Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:
a) that there is no evidence of a wider public (rather than individual) interest in disclosure.
b) that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.
c) that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.
d) that crime associated with empty properties, whether owned by individuals or by organisations, has a substantial detrimental effect upon other individuals in the neighbourhood and wider community.
e) that the motives behind the request (albeit not provided to us) have no relevance since disclosure would mean the information would be in the public domain.
In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.
Freedom of Information