Chamberlain Dr. Peter Kane MA, MSc, CPFA

Gavin Chait

Telephone 020 7332 1300 Email peter.kane @cityoflondon.gov.uk

Our ref FOIA/ChaitMay2016

Date 10th May 2016 By e-mail

Dear Mr Chait,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 –Request for Internal review

I write further to your request for an internal review on 11th April 2016 of the City’s response on the same date to your original request of 14th March.

In your original request you asked for an: “up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data for your local authority, and including the following fields: - Billing Authority Code - 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)”

We refused part of your request under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as some of the information was accessible by other means and part under Section 31 as we considered that disclosure would present a likely prejudice to the prevention and detection of crime.

I have now had opportunity to review the decision and consider the points you have made in your request for a review.

Section 21

We refused part of the request under Section 21, as part of the information requested, i.e. the billing authority code (BA reference) and full property address are public information available on the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) website. This is factually accurate and I should again refer you to the Valuation Office Agency website for all sorts of information about rating hereditaments. The link is again attached for ease of reference.

City of London PO Box 270, Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ Switchboard 020 7606 3030 www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

Page 2 of 5

http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/advanced;jsessionid=53d181bb10cec88e918ee4ac7a114683f62 846a65c6f36ca1d72e43ead02b2b3.e38SbhqNch4Pe3aSbhf0

You say that you wish to cross reference property on the VOA website but are unable to do that without the billing authority code and that this code is a code that the billing authority has but not the VOA. This is not correct as I believe that what you are calling the billing authority code is the BA reference. This is the unique identifying number of all rated properties and is supplied to the VOA by billing authorities. This number is the same on the VOA website as in billing authority records.

Section 31(1) (a)

The remainder of your request was refused as we believe that identifying empty property puts that property at risk from crime and we referred you to the case of Mr. Yiannis Voyias v the Information Commissioner and Camden EA/2011/0007 where non-disclosure of details of empty properties was upheld.

I have reviewed the decision and reiterate part of the decision in that case which states that “the relatively small weight that the public interest in disclosure bears does not, in our view, come close to equalling the public interest in preventing the categories of crime we have identified in this decision. Accordingly the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Council was therefore entitled to refuse to disclose the information requested by the Appellant.” I would also refer you to the decision in a case involving Stoke on Trent City Council in 2014 (FS50538789) where the complainant requested information on empty commercial properties. The Information Commissioner decided that the addresses of empty properties should be exempt from disclosure. He said that “the Commissioner accepts that 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. He therefore accepts that there is some casual relationship between disclosure of the withheld information and the prevention of crime. Moreover, the Commissioner is satisfied that the resultant prejudice which the Council believes would occur is one that can be correctly categorised as one that would be real and of substance.”

You say that empty premises would be known to residents in the community and so they are already in the public domain. That may be true of some premises but in the “square mile” of the City of London the vast majority of non-domestic properties are offices and it would not generally be known whether particular floors are empty when parts of buildings are occupied. In any case, as explained in our response of 11 April, we have to manage a request under the FOIA as if any disclosure were a fully public disclosure, ie to the world at large and not just to an immediate neighbourhood.

You also state that there is no data to validate our concern in disclosing the information. However, there is evidence that illegal occupation has happened and that it could do so again. I believe that, particularly bearing in mind the protests in the City and surrounding areas in recent years, there is a strong public interest in protecting all property from unlawful occupation or damage. Non disclosure would not prevent the protestors from exercising their right to protest lawfully. Page 3 of 5

Although the campsite at St Paul’s Cathedral was removed, the threat to buildings in the City remains. The evidence is that illegal occupation has happened and that more action has been considered. If there were to come to light after an event evidence that information from rating records had been used, it would be too late to retrieve the situation. We have a responsibility, acting reasonably, to consider the disclosure of ratepayer information within this context.

The movement no longer post details of planned occupations on their website. However, you may be interested in press reports previously where large City ratepayers and the City Corporation were both clearly targeted and I would also refer you to comments on the website. These are attached at Annex 1. At the time of one of the occupations, the website stated that the motivation and intention was to occupy property belonging to the companies that crashed the global economy and that they hoped that this occupation of (UBS building) would be the first in a wave of public repossessions. Both empty and occupied property has been targeted at various times. Hence we believe that bearing in mind the protests in the City and surrounding areas in recent years specifically about particular City organisations, there is still a strong public interest in protecting all property from unlawful occupation or damage. If there were to come to light after an event evidence that information from rating records had been used, it would be too late to retrieve the situation. We have a responsibility to all ratepayers not to disclose information about them which might lead to damage to their property. We do not believe that any public interest is served simply by releasing ratepayers’ names and stating whether or not property is occupied. Having considered your request further in conducting my review, I also believe that this information is exempt under Section 31 (1) (d) of the FOIA; this provides that information is exempt from disclosure if such disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of any tax or duty. If information regarding ratepayers of commercial properties were to be disclosed, it is entirely possible that a criminal act or acts might follow. In the event it is likely that the assessment or collection of any tax or duty in the guise of non-domestic rates could be prejudiced. Occupation of commercial premises that may well follow from the information being released is likely to prejudicially affect the collection of both unoccupied and occupied non-domestic rates for the subject premises. While there is a public interest in making available public sector information, whether to allow that information to be exploited commercially by the public or to promote the transparency and accountability of public bodies, in this case the public interest weighs against disclosure as there is a strong public interest in ensuring the most efficient and effective collection of local taxes which are directed to supporting local public services in a difficult economic environment where available public sector funds are much reduced. Business rates help fund local services not only in the City but nationally and at a time of restricted finances, a reduction in collection would adversely affect the public purse. Additionally if ratepayers are unable to trade because of damage to their property, less national tax such as VAT or income tax would be available to central Government.

Additionally I believe that ratepayers’ details in so far as they relate to individuals and sole traders constitute personal data and are exempt under Section 40 (2) of the FOIA which states that personal data is exempt if its disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles contained within the Data protection Act (DPA). This is an absolute exemption, not subject to the public interest test. This was considered in the Stoke on Trent case referred to above where the Commissioner stated that the data “constitutes personal data as it identifies or could be easily used, to identify living individuals” and that “in light of the expectations of the various data subjects, Page 4 of 5

and the potential consequences of disclosure, the Commissioner agrees with the Council that disclosure… would be unfair. Thus such information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of Section 40(2)”

You have explained in some detail the purpose for which you require the data. However, the FOIA is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind” and a public authority is compelled under the FOIA to consider any disclosure made under the Act as a disclosure to the world. The Information Tribunal has stated that “Disclosure under [the] FOIA is effectively an unlimited disclosure to the public as a whole, without conditions” (Information Tribunal Appeal Decision EA/2006/0011 & 0013 of 8 Jan 2007). This has also been referred to by the Information Commissioner (eg Information Commissioner's Decision Notice FS 50294078 of 28 April 2010). Therefore I would have to consider any disclosure to you as being a disclosure to the public as a whole.

You may also be interested to know that the City assists businesses to find suitable office accommodation in the City and City Fringe through its City Property Advice Team (CPAT). Based on the criteria of the business, CPAT produces free reports of available properties in the market with details of agents to contact. A link to CPAT on the City website is below. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/commercial-property/city-property-advisory- team/Pages/Finding-premises.aspx

You go on to ask for a list solely of occupied property which you could then reconcile against the VOA Rating List. However, in supplying the addresses of occupied property, we would indirectly be allowing access to the addresses of empty property. As you know, the rating records are based on the VOA Rating List which contains all property, not distinguishing between empty and occupied. Hence it would be possible to identify empty property as a property not on both lists could be assumed to be empty.

You ask us to consider the public interest in economic development and improving opportunities for entrepreneurs. This has been considered but as explained above it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Having reviewed your request and the reasons for not supplying information, I confirm that the original decision is upheld.

If you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Tel: (01625) 545700. Website: http://www.ico.org.uk/

Yours sincerely

Dr Peter Kane Chamberlain

Page 5 of 5

Annex 1

Extracts form comments on Occupy London’s website, the press and other media

I would refer you to comments on the Occupy London website and reported in the media regarding the motivation and their intention to occupy "property belonging to the companies that crashed the global economy" and that they "hope this [occupation of UBS building] is the first in a wave of public repossessions". Both empty and occupied property has been targeted at various times as evidenced in the following extract from The Times on 30th November 2011: “Police arrested 20 people today after they stormed an office in the West End, the Met confirmed tonight. The activists from Occupy London - the anti-capitalist protesters camped outside St Paul’s Cathedral - said they were “targeting” Mick Davis, the chief executive officer of mining company Xstrata. A group of around 60 activists entered Panton House, in Panton Street - which houses offices of Xstrata - this afternoon. Some of them gained access to the roof, where police officers moved in to clear them.” Subsequently, on 21st January 2012, there was an attempt to occupy Roman House in the City. The following is an extract from the BBC's website: 'The Occupy London protest group says it has taken over a fifth site in London. Up to 20 demonstrators moved into Roman House, on Fore Street, Barbican, in the City of London, in the early hours of Saturday, an Occupy spokesman said. Since October the protest group has "occupied" Finsbury Square, an empty office building owned by the Swiss bank UBS in Sun Street, east London, and the empty Old Street Magistrates Court. A statement on Occupy London's website said it had "publicly repossessed Roman House". In the same month on 28th January, there was an attempt to occupy a building in Leadenhall Street. The BBC website reported that “Three people have been arrested after demonstrators from the Occupy London movement briefly took over another building in the financial district. Protesters entered a site in Leadenhall Street, in the City, which they said belonged to a defunct Iraqi bank. City of London Police said on Friday night three people had been arrested on suspicion of trespassing on diplomatic premises but others had left earlier … A spokesman said the group decided to occupy the new site as protesters were being forced to move out of another empty bank building in central London - premises on Sun Street belonging to UBS. The bank was granted a possession order for the building on Thursday afternoon. ‘It is likely this will be the new home for the Bank of Ideas’, an Occupy London spokeswoman said earlier on Friday. ‘This is about public repossession’…..”

St Paul’s Cathedral was again targeted in October 2012. “The traditional solemnity of St Paul's Sunday evensong was disrupted when four members of the Occupy London movement, which camped outside the cathedral for four months, chained themselves to the of the pulpit ... to mark the anniversary of the start of the Occupy camp outside St Paul's, accusing the cathedral authorities of colluding with banks and failing to help the poor”. (Guardian on-line 14th October 2012)

The Occupy Website still contains a specific section headed “City of London” demands and there is a live link to the “Occupy Everywhere Toolkit”