Response 4083817

Response to request for information

Reference

4083817

Response date

10 August 2026

Request

I am writing to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information held by your council. We are a construction and project management company working with homeowners, investors, and developers, and we are researching empty and long-term vacant properties within your local authority area.

Specifically, I would like to request:

• A list of street addresses of properties currently recorded on your council's empty homes/empty property register, or identified as long-term empty (e.g. via council tax records).

To be clear, I am only requesting the street addresses of the properties. I am not requesting the names, contact details, or any other personal information relating to the owners, as I understand this is protected under data protection legislation.

Response

I am unable to release the information requested as the information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 31(1)(a) states that the information is exempt if its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.  The Council has considered the arguments for and against disclosure and has applied the Public interest Test.  The Council's decision is that it would not be in the public interest to disclose information about empty properties as it would be likely to result in criminal activities such as squatting, theft and vandalism.

In refusing your request the Council relies on the Information Tribunal's decision (Case No.EA/2011/0007) dated 22 January 2013 where it was found that the London Borough of Camden was entitled to refuse a request for information about empty properties because the section 31(1)(a) exemption "was engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it

Section 31(1)(a) states that the information is exempt if its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The Council has considered the arguments for and against disclosure and has applied the Public interest Test.  

The Council's decision is that it would not be in the public interest to disclose information about empty properties, as it would be likely to result in criminal activities such as squatting, theft and vandalism

Review

Thank you for your response to my Freedom of Information request regarding the Council's empty property register.

I understand and respect the Council's concerns regarding Section 31(1)(a) and Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would like to clarify the purpose behind my request, as I believe it may be relevant to how the public interest test is weighed in this case.

I am contacting councils on behalf of, a construction and project management company. Our aim is not speculative or commercial data-gathering, but to identify long-term empty properties so that we can engage directly with owners about bringing these homes back into productive use, whether through renovation, refurbishment, or redevelopment. Long-term empty homes are a recognised drain on local housing supply and returning them to use directly supports the Council's own housing and regeneration objectives, as well as reducing the antisocial behaviour and deterioration that often accompanies long-term vacancy in the first place.

With that context, I would ask the Council to reconsider the following points:

• Section 31 is a qualified exemption, meaning it is only engaged where disclosure would be likely to prejudice crime prevention, and even then, it requires a public interest balancing test. I would suggest the public interest in tackling empty homes and increasing housing supply is significant, and that this should be weighed against the crime risk cited.
• If full street addresses are considered too great a risk, I would welcome a narrower disclosure that still allows us to identify target areas without pinpointing individual properties, for example: street name and postcode only (without house number)
• On Section 40(2), I want to reiterate that I am not requesting any information about individual owners, occupiers, or other personal data, only the fact that a property is recorded as long-term empty. I understand this position may already be reflected in the Council's register in an anonymised or address-only format.

I would be grateful if the Council could reconsider the request in light of this context or advise whether a narrower version of the request along the lines suggested above could be met.

If the Council maintains its original position, I would like to request an internal review of the decision, as provided for in your response.

Response

Thank you for your request for an internal review of the Council’s decision to withhold information relating to our list of long-term empty properties. 

I have reviewed the handling of your request, the exemptions applied, and the further points you have made about the purpose of your request and the possibility of a narrower disclosure.
Having completed that review, I uphold the Council’s original decision. The information remains exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and, to the extent that any information would identify or be capable of identifying individuals, section 40(2) also applies.

Section 31(1)(a) applies where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The Council accepts that there is a public interest in empty homes being brought back into productive use and recognises the wider benefits of reducing long-term vacancy. However, disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act is disclosure to the world at large, not solely to the requester or for the requester’s stated purpose.

In this case, the Council considers that releasing information which identifies long-term empty residential properties would be likely to increase the risk of those properties being targeted for criminal activity, including burglary, theft of fixtures or materials, criminal damage, vandalism, arson, unlawful occupation, and associated antisocial behaviour. The risk is not removed by withholding owner or occupier details. The sensitivity lies in identifying which properties are empty.

I have also considered your suggestion that the Council could provide a narrower disclosure, such as street name and postcode without the house number. The Council does not consider that this would sufficiently reduce the risk. In many streets, or within a postcode area, an empty property may be readily apparent from its condition, appearance, lack of occupation, overgrown garden, boarded windows, accumulated post, or other visible indicators. Providing street-level or postcode-level information would therefore still assist a person seeking to identify vulnerable empty properties and would increase the risk of those properties being targeted.

I have reconsidered the public interest test. There is a public interest in transparency, in understanding the scale and distribution of empty homes, and in supporting lawful action to return such properties to use. However, the Council considers that these interests are outweighed by the stronger public interest in preventing crime, protecting property, avoiding harm to owners and neighbouring residents, and not publishing information that would make vulnerable premises easier to locate.

Your explanation of the intended use of the information has been noted. However, the Council must assess the consequences of disclosure generally. Once disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, the information could be copied, republished, used by others, or combined with other publicly observable information. The Council cannot control or restrict onward use by limiting disclosure to a particular requester or purpose.

In relation to section 40(2), I note that you are not seeking the names of owners, occupiers, or other personal data. Nevertheless, information about a residential property may, in some circumstances, relate to an identifiable individual, particularly where there are low numbers of properties in a street or postcode, where ownership is publicly traceable, or where the fact of long-term vacancy is capable of being linked to an individual owner. To the extent that disclosure would reveal personal data, the Council remains satisfied that section 40(2) applies.

For these reasons, the Council’s internal review outcome is that the original refusal is upheld. The Council is not able to provide the requested addresses, nor the narrower street-name and postcode disclosure proposed, because the information would still be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.