Full list of empty residential properties
Request received 21 November 2025
I am writing to request information regarding your Empty Homes Register. I am interested in identifying empty properties across the area in order bring these homes back to life.
If possible, I would like to access the full Empty Homes Register or any publicly available list of long-term vacant properties.
Responded 24 November 2025
The Council does hold this information however; we are unable to release a list of our current vacant properties as this would enable them to be identified. We believe that if this information were disclosed this would be likely to have the effect of exposing those properties to a greater risk of being subject to crimes such as vandalism and squatting. Therefore, we consider this information is exempt under Section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (prejudice the prevention or detection of crime).
In respect of those requests that were answered in full or partially and the total refused please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the information as exempt from disclosure under the Act;
b) Claim exempt under sections of the Act:
Section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
c) State why the exemption applies:
31Law enforcement.
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 31(1)(a) is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—(a)the prevention or detection of crime
Section 31(1)(a) says that we do not need to provide information that would be likely to prejudice the functions of law enforcement. We believe that releasing this information would increase the likelihood of:
• Empty properties being lived in by squatters. Squatting in a residential property is now a criminal offence.
• Empty properties being targeted by vandals or graffiti artists and stripped of materials such as roofing, cables or piping, or otherwise vandalised or damaged.
• Empty properties being targeted by criminals or terrorists for example allowing them to hide or store the proceeds of crime, or criminal or terrorist materials.
As Section 31(1)(a) is a qualified exemption, the public interest test will need to be considered. Factors in favour of disclosing
• There are general arguments in promoting the transparency and accountability of public
authorities
• Raising the profile of vacant properties would help encourage public engagement and debate.
Factors in favour of withholding
• There is an inherent public interest in crime prevention. (Voyias and LB Camden EA/2011/0007)
• There is public interest in avoiding the costs associated with squatting, for example, repair, security and eviction costs.
• The negative impact of squatting affects the surrounding community and public authorities involved, not just the individual property.
We believe that the balance of public interest lies in upholding the exemption and not releasing the information.
Review requested 25 November 2025
I have read and understand your concerned response, however by way of reassurance, as you will see I am a company which specialises in property. I can provide before and after photos regarding projects taken on in the past if this would ease any concerns.
I have naturally been in touch with other councils who I am due to meet later this week and early next week for a further chat about how to move forwards on improving the housing issue together, these councils have not
I have viewed the GDPR and whilst you have not directly referred to this, you have made indications with the use of wording such as 'enabling identification' . I understand that giving a list of empty properties may be posed as 'personal information' however, GDPR seems to be very dependent on context. Ownership is publicly searchable and may be personal data depending on re-identification risk. But for example, I could drive the streets within your council envelope, identify the empty properties, contact these homeowners individually anyway with the use of land reg. All this list in doing is decreasing wasted time. I am not looking for the owner's information, just the address that is already public knowledge to any within the passing of an empty property itself. We would always do our due diligence and check the details out on land reg at ALL times.
If it would help, I can even send you our introductory letter that we issue out on first contact, so that you can see, if there is fear of this being a scam, to again ease any concerns.
I note and respond to your comments below:
Factors in favour of disclosing
• There are general arguments in promoting the transparency and accountability of public authorities.
• Raising the profile of vacant properties would help encourage public engagement and debate.
Factors in favour of withholding
• There is an inherent public interest in crime prevention. (Voyias and LB Camden EA/2011/0007). The betterment and reintroduction of a lived in property would surely 'prevent' crime.
• There is public interest in avoiding the costs associated with squatting, for example, repair, security and eviction costs. The betterment and reintroduction of a lived in property would also reduce unnecessary council expense on items such as fly tipping
• The negative impact of squatting affects the surrounding community and public authorities involved, not just the individual property. The betterment and reintroduction of a lived in property would positively promote the area and generate a positive inflation to the surrounding properties.
GDPR deals with the risk of identifiability, but this information request of mine, is neither increasing or decreasing this risk. Therefore, when passing on the empty property address, by itself, it is generally not personal data, therefore does GDPR apply here. For example, passing an address to a contractor to check water/gas/electricity in an empty building, this is not GDPR relevant and yet the information being requested by myself is the same.
The purpose of sharing this information is justified and in the public interest (when the house of potential disarray, which may be physically detrimental to a neighbouring house, is brought back and upgraded from its once former glory). This request is therefore under article 6(1)(f), a legitimate Interests and the information asked for is proportionate to the benefit.
It is also not the council's statutory duty to reduce empty homes, improve housing availability and regenerate areas especially at times when we are suffering a large population burden, and therefore this could qualify as a public interest task, under article 6(1)(e).
Also, on another note, reoccupied homes also increases the council revenue once it becomes taxable again.
I therefore implore you review my request and reconsider, not only for those seeking a home, but for those living near a disturbed empty home, or the owners of said house that just need support and do not know where else to go.
Review responded 18 December 2025
Section 31(1)(a) of FOIA states that: Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice- (a) the prevention or detection of crime’. For a prejudice-based exemption, such as section 31, to be engaged, three criteria must be met:
• Firstly, the actual harm which the public authority alleges would, or would be likely, to occur if the withheld information was disclosed.
• Secondly, the public authority must be able to demonstrate that some causal relationship exists between the potential disclosure of the information being withheld and the prejudice which the exemption is designed to protect.
• Thirdly, it is necessary to establish whether the level of likelihood of prejudice being relied upon by the public authority is met – i.e. disclosure ‘would be likely’ to result in prejudice or disclosure ‘would’ result in prejudice.
Actual harm
The disclosure of the information may facilitate or encourage criminal activity.
There is a clear public interest in protecting society from the impact of crime and avoiding damage to property.
The victims of crime can be both individuals and organisations.
The impact of crime is not confined to its immediate victims. A request for the addresses of empty properties provides the opportunity to consider the wider repercussions of crime in more detail, for example, fraud, criminal damage, illegal occupation, risk of the theft of electricity, unlawful practices, arson attacks etc. The list could be used to target properties. Buildings could be stripped of valuable materials and fixtures.
As well as the financial costs of crime, there are also social costs, criminal damage reduces the quality of life in the area; neighbours would live in fear of further crime being committed.
If disclosed, the information could be used by squatters and could make properties more vulnerable to illegal activities or antisocial behaviour which is not in the interests of owners/residents nearby.
It is also appropriate to consider the cost of removing those illegally occupying properties.
There are potential financial costs to local taxpayers arising from such crime.
Estate agents/letting agents advertise properties on websites, adverts etc. but not all properties they advertise would indicate whether they are vacant.
In case law, in Yiannis Voyias v Information Commissioner and the London Borough of Camden (EA/2001/0007 23 January 2013) the First Tier Tribunal upheld the council’s decision to withhold the addresses of empty residential properties under section 31(1)(a).
Causal Relationship
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. Therefore, the council believes that there is a causal relationship between the disclosure of the addresses of vacant properties and prejudice to the prevention of crime. The council points to the decision in Voyias as evidence that both the Tribunal and the Commissioner have previously accepted the likelihood that a disclosure of such information would lead to an increase in squatting and criminal activity in residential properties. It is concluded that its decision is therefore that a disclosure of this information would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime.
Disclosure resulting in prejudice the prevention of crime
Prejudice would be likely if the information were to be disclosed. Disclosure of this information would present a real and significant risk. Disclosing the empty property list widens the list of information on potential properties which might be used for criminal purposes. Whilst we note your argument that some empty properties may be clearly identifiable as empty when you drive past them, some are not easily identified as empty. To provide a full list of empty residential properties would provide confirmation of all empty properties in the district, which would, as previously stated, open them up to potential crime.
With reference to your explanation of your company and your premise behind your request, a FOI request is a request for public information and release of information under FOI is release to the world at large. Public authorities are not allowed to take account of the identity of the person making the request, or their motives, when deciding what information will be disclosed in response to an FOI request.
Regarding the Council’s statutory duty to reduce empty homes, this subject was discussed at our Full Council committee meeting which held on the 20th of November 2025. Please see: Council Decision List detailing the discussion and decisions.