FOI request (FOIR-514848857)

Business Rates

Requested Thu 11 May 2023
Responded  Thu 18 May 2023

In accordance with the provisions specified within the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I hereby request the following information.

All information requested relates to Business Rates.

This request for information falls within the parameters of the Act but if you require clarification on any of the points above or should you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please provide a list of all live business rates accounts with a 2023 list Rateable Value, including the following fields:

1. Property Reference Number (also known as Billing Authority Reference Number) of the property on which the charge is made. Please note that this is not the Rate Demand or Rate Account Number.

2. Current rateable value

3. Account holder name

4. Property address

5. The date the current ratepayer became liable for the business rates - we do not require any historical account liability dates only the current ratepayers liability start date

6. Whether a property is empty or occupied

We do not require any personal information or sole traders.

Please provide the information in an electronic, spreadsheet format ideally excel. The Act requires that a response be provided within a period of 20 working days from the date hereof.

Response

Please see attached our response to your Freedom of Information request.

Please note the Property Reference Number relates to the property, not the account number for the customer. This reference is available on the internet, for example the gov.uk website regarding a property's rateable value.

Notice of Refusal

Please note that I consider the information you have requested regarding empty commercial 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 in 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.

Attachments

• FOIR-514848857_FOIR-514848857_2-FOI514848857_(2)_NDR_Full_List.xlsx
• FOIR-514848857_FOIR-514848857_1-FOI514848857_(1)_NDR_Exemptions.xlsx