FOI request (FOIR-781501970)

Business Rates FOI - 5th January 2026

Requested Mon 05 January 2026
Responded Tue 13 January 2026

---

Response

NOTICE OF REFUSAL 

The Council has considered your request and have decided against the release of the requested information. This is because the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement. Disclosure of this information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.Section 31(1)(a) is a qualified exemption, and therefore is subject to the Public Interest Test. Section 31(1)(a) provides an exemption where prejudice could be caused to allow potential fraudsters to use the information to identify business entities which were entitled to claim credits on their accounts. Once such a business had been identified, there would be a number of avenues open to the fraudsters to seek to obtain funds.  

When using this exemption, we are required to undertake a public interest test.

The matters which were considered in applying the public interest test are as follows 

Consideration in favour of disclosure: 

• Withholding the information could be perceived as the council attempting to retain monies that belong to the public. It is in the public interest to be open and transparent about our use of public funds. 
• It is also in the public interest to provide some transparency regarding the records we hold in respect of the administration of business rates.
• This could be of interest to the minority of people who are due a refund but have somehow failed to receive the notifications that money is due to them. 

 Consideration in favour of withholding the information: 

• There is a public interest in ensuring that monies from the public purse, such as rebates on business accounts, are not fraudulently claimed and also a public interest in not making it easier for fraud to be committed. 

• Our current verification procedure for refund claims is simple and cost effective. Disclosure of the requested information would result in additional verification processes needing to be implemented, at additional cost to the public which appeared disproportionate to the benefits that would accrue from disclosure. 
• The additional verification procedures would also be likely to slow the verification process, resulting in detriment to the genuine ratepayer which would be contrary to the public interest. 
• In relation to any new verification processes that might be needed, these would be likely to require the production of additional documents by those claiming a rebate which would place a new administrative burden on the majority of those legitimate claimants that did not currently exist. This would be compounded by the fact that the level of scrutiny of those documents would be higher than at present, given the increased suspicion that some of the claims (and associated documents) might well be fraudulent. The result would be that a new verification process would be likely to slow the rate at which credit balance claims could be considered and refunded, causing delay in all refunds and the likelihood of complaints, which would further burden our limited resources. 
• Disclosure of the requested information would result in the need to implement disproportionate steps and additional expense to the public purse to counter an increased fraud risk that does not exist at present. 
• The cost consequences of a successful fraudulent claim would: have incurred the cost of paying out to the fraudster; remain liable to the legitimate rate payer for an equivalent amount, raising the prospect of paying out twice; and be faced with the cost (legal and incurrence of internal management time) of seeking to recover the funds wrongly paid to the fraudster. 
• It would not be in the public interest to expose it to such potential costs and expenses, given that they would be funded from the public purse. 

We believe that there is a higher interest in not releasing this information in that it would not be in the public interested to disclose information that would aid individuals to commit crimes, or put additional burden on Council staff,  therefore this response serves as a refusal notice. 

We understand that this information does not meets your requirements and we would like to assure you that Hastings Borough Council are adhering to our obligations under you Freedom of Information Act 2000.