FOI request (FOIR-760234134)

Empty domestic properties

Requested Mon 27 October 2025
Responded Wed 05 November 2025

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I request the following recorded information:

1. A list of domestic properties within the borough area that have been recorded by the council as empty (unoccupied and substantially unfurnished) for a continuous period of 6 months or more, for the period 1st January 2024 to 31st December 2024. Please include, the address (UPRN if available), date first recorded as empty, current status (for example, owner contact attempted, enforcement action, subject to sale), and whether the property appears on any council priority/empty-homes register.

2. Copies of any policies, guidance or internal criteria used to decide whether an empty-homes record is published publicly or withheld.

3. Copies of any relevant public-interest or s31 (prejudice to law enforcement) assessments, redaction logs, or reasons the council relied on when deciding to withhold or redact empty-homes addresses in the last 24 months.

My preferred format is CSV or Excel for dataset items, and PDF for policy/assessments.

Public-interest point and narrow scope:

I request this data because there is a strong public interest in the efficient use of housing stock and transparency about how local authorities are addressing empty properties in the face of housing shortages. The information requested is narrowly defined (one-year period) and will be used for research/monitoring of empty property re-use and council enforcement. If any specific addresses are withheld on the grounds that disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime (s31), please provide a redacted version and supply the specific and contemporaneous evidence on which the council relies to demonstrate the likelihood of prejudice for each withheld item (or explain why a meaningful public-interest balancing exercise supports non-disclosure).

If you consider any part of this request vexatious or ask me to narrow the scope, please contact me and explain which part and why, and which narrower options you would accept.

If you refuse part or all of this request under s31 or any other exemption, please provide:

• The specific exemption relied upon and the full reasoning (not just the exemption name).

• The factual basis/evidence that disclosure would be likely to prejudice prevention or detection of crime (not speculation), and whether the prejudice is immediate or relates to ongoing investigations.

• The council’s public-interest balancing exercise and the factors considered for and against disclosure.

If you withhold the addresses themselves but can provide aggregated data (for example, number of long-term empty properties by ward or postcode sector), please provide that as an interim release.

I confirm I am not requesting personal data for commercial marketing purposes. If any part of the information is personal data, please state the legal basis and consider whether redaction of names, contact details but disclosure of addresses/dates could meet the public interest.

---

Response

1. Information not held.

2. Information not held.

3. Please see the below refusal notice when relying on Section 31 to refuse lists of empty commercial properties.

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 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.