Empty Homes Network

Home » Forums » Other Issues » FOI, data protection etc

Camden FOI decision

Submitted by SLi on 9 September, 2011 - 08:48

I've just read the decision notice given by the Information Tribunal.

It stated that Camden should release addresses of empty properties where a non-individual has a material interest. I would easily interpret this to mean residential properties owned by organisations. However, would this also include properties where there is a mortgagee? Are these also properties where a non-individual has an interest?

Any thoughts or am I being really dense?

‹ Working with Community Groups - Identifying Long Term Empties FOI and data protection ›
Forums

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

CAMDEN FOI - No change

Submitted by Nick P-G on 12 September, 2011 - 10:09.

 Su,

I don't see a vast difference between the IC decision re Camden and Bexley. The latter stated that we could/should disclose info on homes owned by non-individuals, Camden the same, but with reference to ‘interest’.

What seems to have been very, very different about the two cases is that the Camden case attracted press and blogger furore because the FOI originally came from a squatter group. Heavens above.

We won’t be changing what we release. We will still release details of homes owned by non-indivs as indicated in CT records (roughly 160 of the 550 LTEs). If I had to trawl through the remaining 390 to find mortgagee interests too, the exercise would be too costly to justify. I'd need to Land Reg all 390 and check with mortgagees where one shows up. No way, Jose.

Nick P-G

Reading BC

01189373091

mortgagee info not available to council

Submitted by David Gibbens on 13 September, 2011 - 11:02.

Apart from anything else, it would be wrong in principle for a Council to have to release information based on other  informaion it did not hold.  I don't see how you could be expected to release info you don't have that's not what FOI is about.

In fact this was reflected in the FOI request, which specified that the properties should be those where  "a non-individual is listed as either being the owner or having a material interest".

David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)

You're ahead of the lawyers Nick

Submitted by David Gibbens on 24 September, 2011 - 18:43.

I see that the major article in Inside Housing's Legal Section this week was about the Camden case, with the lawyer Emma Duke suggesting that this was a "a new rulilng ...[that] could open the floodgates to squatters".  

Message to Inside Housing readers: if you want to get  accurate information about empty homes issues, subscribe to the Empty Homes Network!

David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)

Thanks Nick

Submitted by SLi on 12 September, 2011 - 11:32.

That's exactly what I was worrying about. I'm glad you are taking a business as normal approach too

FOIAct

Submitted by Emma Kumar on 12 September, 2011 - 12:30.

We're planning on sticking to our usual system as well - no addresses of residential empties (they can seek commercial properties through commercial routes anyway - those owners are generally looking for tenants so the addresses are not a secret!).  This is on basis of prevention of crime as comfirmed by our Community Safety Group which includes Police and Fire Service reps.  We also rely on the fact that people can work with us to identify a property if they want one through our Investors List etc.  so we are not trying to hide anything - if people sign up to the investors List - their details are sent to owners on a regular basis.

 

Emma Kumar

Brighton & Hove

Camden FoI

Submitted by DTurner on 10 October, 2011 - 11:51.

Hi all,

A thought has occurred, but could a 'landlord' that owns a number of properties, say in excess of 5, be then 'classed' as a 'non individual' for the purpose of interpreting this decision?

If the properties were in the name of the individual, but part of a much larger property empire, how does that affect the situation?

Thanks 

Dave Turner

Greenwich EPO

Dave Turner

EHO Greenwich.

Probably too much work to release

Submitted by David Gibbens on 10 October, 2011 - 18:10.

HI Dave - a fair question and I don't know the answer. Presumably the answer might be different according to whether the homes were owned via a company or by him personally.  But I don't think there would necessarily be an obligation to release the information, because the work involved to identify such individuals might be considered excessive. 

David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)

Thanks David, I'll look into

Submitted by DTurner on 12 October, 2011 - 10:06.

Thanks David, I'll look into that with CT and await the legal advice from the W Mids.

 

Dave

Dave Turner

EHO Greenwich.

FOI

Submitted by MSmith on 12 October, 2011 - 09:37.

Dear all at our latest West Mids Forum this was highlighted and the general response seems to be that council tax departments should be the source to reply ,,that said  ive contacted our Governance officer in Birmingham who has sent it to our Legal department  for a ruling for me  which I will share asap,

 

Thanks M, will await you

Submitted by DTurner on 12 October, 2011 - 10:06.

Thanks M, will await you outcome and see what my CT team say.


D

Dave Turner

EHO Greenwich.