Property and Assets and Buildings

The request was refused by Sunderland City Council.

Dear Organisation,

I would like to know a full list of Vacant Properties held by your organisation and any of its subsidiaries.

If possible their market value for sale or to let, whether they would be considered for a community asset transfer, if not then whether they are for sale or to let. In a clear and easy to read format. It would be supportive if the property is for sale or to let that it is listed on here too: https://e-pims.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/gove... and that you inform us of this intention or such listing in the request.

In the previous case in Voyias v IC and LB Camden (EA/201v1/0007), the requesters asked for substantially similar information, and the judge favoured disclosure. I appreciate the circumstances here are quite different, but the same principles should apply.

I understand there is a risk that your empty properties would be targeted by squatters should this the list of empty properties be public, but this is a very slim risk. The prejudice to law enforcement should be real, likely and substantial, as per Hogan v the ICO and Oxford City Council. I can assure you that my request is not sent in order to cause trouble for the authority, it is predominantly for my own research, with publication as part of campaigning materials. I am concerned at the sale of public assets, not a not an advocate for their illegal occupation. I would also say that I cannot imagine the disclosure of this list of properties to significantly affect a squatting problem that pre-existed my interest in the organisation. Overall the prejudice to law enforcement is very slim, and not severe. Since 12 months will be the time that this information will be released onto this site, unless others request this information separately. The requester is not liable for any issues that may arise in between or after.

It is in the public interest and transparency that this information is made publicly available under the public sector duty under the equality act allowing people to know of this information and make use of it under the Community Asset Transfer scheme and under the Human Rights Act Article 11 enabling the community to gather and make decisions on the allocation of such assets.

Yours faithfully,

Viran Patel

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

2 Attachments

 

Re: Your request for information concerning:

 

Property Assets and Buildings

 

The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any
event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to
consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure.

 

I will contact you again soon in connection with your request.

 

Please quote the reference below if you contact the Council regarding this
request.

 

Customer Request Number:  18-08-31

 

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D3FCC2.ACA7A800      
[2]cid:image002.jpg@01D3FCC2.ACA7A800

 

 

 

show quoted sections

OCEFOI, Sunderland City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Viran Patel

 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  I can confirm that the Council does hold this
information, as detailed below.

 

I would like to know a full list of Vacant Properties held by your
organisation and any of its subsidiaries. If possible their market value
for sale or to let, whether they would be considered for a community asset
transfer, if not then whether they are for sale or to let. In a clear and
easy to read format. It would be supportive if the property is for sale or
to let that it is listed on here too:
[1]https://e-pims.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/gove...
and that you inform us of this intention or such listing in the request

 

We can confirm that the Council does hold information on unoccupied
Council owned properties, however this information is being withheld under
the 2000 Act. The exemptions which apply to this information are: Section
31 (1)(a) Law Enforcement, Section 38(1)(b) Health and Safety and Section
43(2) Commercial Interests.

 

Section 31 (1) (a) creates an exemption from the right to know if
releasing the information would or would be likely to prejudice the
prevention or detection of crime. It is the Council's view that disclosing
the information would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention of
crime in that releasing the addresses of unoccupied  commercial and
residential properties would make it easier to identify those properties
and therefore increase the likelihood of acts such as criminal damage,
theft of fixtures and fittings, arson, break-ins, drug misuse,
prostitution, vandalism as well as anti-social behaviour related to empty
properties which have been squatted, being committed at the same. In the
circumstances it is the Council’s opinion that the exemption is engaged.

 

The exemption available under section 31 (1) (a) is one of the exemptions
which is subject to the public interest test.  Therefore even when, as
here, the Council considers the exemption is engaged it must then go on to
consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

In carrying out this balancing test the Council has considered factors
which both favour disclosure of the information and factors in favour of
maintaining the exemption.

 

Factors in favour of disclosure of the information you have requested
include:

* The possibility that this would lead to a reduction in the number of
empty commercial and residential properties;

* Raising the profile of the issue in order to encourage public debate;
and

* Providing local residents with the opportunity to challenge the Council
on its policies and activities relating to the issue.

 

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption include:

* The strong public interest in avoiding likely prejudice to the
prevention of crime.

* The public interest in avoiding damage to property;

* The efficient use of police resources;

* The potential for indirect consequences of crime, for example the impact
on neighbouring properties of crimes perpetrated on the empty properties;
and

* The impact of crime on individuals, the council and corporate bodies.

 

Having considered the above, the Council is of the view that the factors
in favour of maintaining the exemption outweigh the factors in favour of
disclosure and therefore the balance of the public interest test is
greater in maintaining the exemption available under section 31(1) (a) of
the 2000 Act.

 

Section 38 (1) (b) of the 2000 Act provides an exemption from disclosing
information if such disclosure would, or would be likely to, endanger the
safety of any individual. As outlined above it is the Council’s opinion
that to release the addresses of unoccupied properties would make it
easier to identify those properties and therefore increase the likelihood
of criminal offences being committed at the same. The Council therefore
asserts that the disclosure of the information would or would be likely to
endanger

a) the safety of Council officers, police officers and the property owners
should they have to deal with any such criminal acts and

b) the owners of neighbouring properties and local residents that is
likely to arise from the increase in crimes at the higher end of victim
impact.

The Council's opinion is that the exemption is therefore engaged.

 

The exemption available under section 38 (1) (b) is again one of the
exemptions which is subject to the public interest test. As with the
section 31 (1) (a) exemption, the Council has gone on to determine whether
the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information. In short the Council has
considered if the harm that would be likely to be caused to any individual
by the disclosure would be greater than the public interest in its
disclosure.

 

The 2000 Act does not list the factors that would favour disclosure,
however the Information Commissioners Office has suggested that among the
factors that would weigh in favour of disclosure are:

* Furthering the understanding and participation in the public debate of
the issues of the day;

* Promoting accountability and transparency by public authorities for
decisions taken by them;

* Promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public
money;

* Allowing individuals, companies and other bodies to understand decisions
made by public authorities affecting their lives; and

* Bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.

 

The Council has considered each of those factors but in this instance does
not believe any of them would be greater than the harm that would be
likely to be caused to any individual by disclosure of the information in
question. The Council is therefore of the view that the balance of the
public interest test is greater in maintaining the exemption available
under section 38(1) (b) of the 2000 Act.

 

Section 43 (2) of the 2000 Act provides an exemption if disclosure of the
information would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests
of any person (including the public authority holding it. Release of the
remaining unoccupied commercial and residential properties would make it
easier to identify those properties and therefore increase the likelihood
of squatting and crimes associated with squatting. Where this occurs there
would be a consequential delay in letting of the properties, pending
eviction and there would be a loss of income to the Council coupled with
the cost of eviction and clearing of the property in each case. In the
circumstances the Council's opinion is that the exemption available under
section 43 (2) is engaged.

 

The section 43(2) exemption is another of the exemptions available in the
2000 Act which is subject to the public interest test. Factors in favour
of disclosing the information include:

* The possibility that this would lead to a reduction in the number of
empty commercial and residential properties;

* Raising the profile of the issue in order to encourage public debate;
and

* Providing local residents with the opportunity to challenge the Council
on its policies and activities relating to the issue.

 

However factors in favour of maintaining the exemption include:-

* A detrimental impact on the rental income and/or commercial revenue of
the council where there was a delay in letting unoccupied premises which
had been squatted;

* An increase in costs to the Council as a result of the need to take
eviction proceedings as well as clear and/or repair properties which had
been squatted.

 

The Council accepts that releasing the information may achieve the factors
identified above which favour disclosure of the same. However the Council
has balanced this against the factors which favour maintaining the
exemption. The Council is of the view that the detrimental impact on its
income and commercial revenue as well as the  increased costs arising out
of the need to recover properties impact on its budget and in turn the
amount of money which is available to provide services to the residents of
Sunderland. In the circumstances the Council has concluded that the public
interest in favour of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the same.

 

Therefore, in accordance with 17 of the Freedom of Information of Act 2000
this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for the remaining addresses of
unoccupied Council owned properties.

 

I hope this is satisfactory.  If, however, you are dissatisfied with our
response to your request for information, you can ask for the decision to
be reviewed in reply to this letter, however any request for review must
be submitted within 40 days of the date of this freedom of information
response.  The review will be removed from the Directorate and coordinated
by the Council’s Information Governance Officer.   A request for review
should be directed, by email to [2][Sunderland City Council request email],
by post or by hand addressed to; Information Governance Officer,
Governance Services, Civic Centre, PO Box 100, Sunderland SR2 7DN.

 

You are of course entitled to apply to the Information Commissioner at any
time, although the Commissioner will not usually investigate until the
public authority’s internal review procedure has been concluded.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Steve Hanratty

Business Development Manager

Economy and Place Directorate

Sunderland City Council

Tel No: 0191 5617808

[3]www.sunderland.gov.uk

[4]cid:image001.png@01D10A50.558C3B10

 

 

show quoted sections