Chamberlain Peter Kane MA, MSc, CPFA

Ms Sara Ahmed [email protected] Telephone 020 7332 1300 Email peter.kane @cityoflondon.gov.uk

Our ref FOIA/Stevens/0215

Date 16 February 2015

Dear Ms Ahmed

Freedom of Information Act - Review

I write further to your request for an internal review on 22nd January 2015 of the response to your original request and the City’s acknowledgement of the same date.

In your request you asked: “Please can you provide me with the following information under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000:-

(a) List all non-domestic properties and their addresses

(b) The names and addresses of the Rate payers referred to above for each property and their correspondence address (if different from the property address)

(c) The billing authority reference for each property

(e) The date the rateable occupier first became liable for the business rates”

We supplied the information requested in (a), (c), and (e) but refused part (b)

We have now had opportunity to review the decision.

We refused part (b) under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as we considered this information to be exempt under Section 31 of the Act. Regarding this exemption, you say that other councils have supplied the information and ask the city to reconsider where the ratepayers are not individuals. Clearly it is not possible for the City Corporation to comment on decisions made by other local authorities or their interpretation of the FOIA.

I have considered firstly the exemption under Section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA, that information is exempt from disclosure if such disclosure would prejudice the “prevention or detection of crime”. Although illegal has not happened in the City for a while, it has happened and the evidence is that it could do so again. The movement no longer posts details of planned

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

Page 2 of 4

occupations on its 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 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. As was said in our response e-mail, 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.

Secondly, I reviewed the exemption under section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA applied to your request that provides that information is exempt from disclosure if such disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of any tax or duty, if as a result of disclosing ratepayers’ names, property was damaged, the rateable value of the property would be reduced and hence the amount of business rates collected would be 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.

As said in our original response, 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).

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

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the has managed your enquiry under the FOIA, please make your complaint in writing to email address: [email protected]. For a link to the CoL’s FOI complaints procedure, please visit the following page: www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL’s FOI Complaints Procedure, 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/

Page 3 of 4

The FOIA applies to the City of London as a local authority, police authority and port health authority.

The City of London holds the copyright in this email. The supply of it does not give a right to re- use it in a way that would infringe that copyright, for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies to the public or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the material may be reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the copyright owner.

Yours sincerely

Dr Peter Kane Chamberlain

Page 4 of 4

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 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 ’, 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)