Empty homes in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are back in the headlines after RKBC released a list of all the owners. According to the
Guardian newspaper,the list was emailed 'by mistake' and includes the names of
all the owners.
Data Protection breach?
If individuals are named in the list along with the properties they own, then it will consitute a major breach of the accepted Data Protection practice - established in the
Bexley vs. English case several years ago - which is that even the addresses of the empty homes owned by individuals cannot be released, never mind the owners' names. (In the Bexley case, the Tribunal did allow the release of names of companies and addresses of the homes the companies owned).
It is clear from the reporting that - as you might expect - many of the homes are owned by companies. Nevertheless, the
Daily Telegraph, in its version of the story, describes the release as a 'council blunder'. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume that the list did indeed include all the owner details, individuals as well as companies, and, if so, we can expect RKBC's reputation for competence to take another major blow.
Note: The
Mirror is now reporting RKBC's response to what seems to be ackowledged as a data protection breach.
Key points
The
Guardian analysis reveals
- 1652 empty properties listed
- 1197 owners listed (hence the possible query about whether individuals are listed; of course multiple properties can be under the same ownership)
- 603 empty for more than two years
Practitioners will not be surprised to hear that some of the properties visited by Guardian journalists proved to be occupied:
Some of the information in the council’s records appeared to be wrong. A flat belonging to the government of Brunei was listed as having been empty for more than two years. A representative of the high commission said it had been inhabited by staff since its purchase more than three years ago. In another instance, the head of a major bank who was identified as the owner of an empty property answered the door when it was visited by a reporter.
Further reporting
The
Guardian has pursued the story vigorously, with a further piece:
Revelations about empty homes in Grenfell area 'simply unacceptable'. And only the previous day it had another report about empties in the borough:
Empty homes: normal rules do not apply to super-rich in London.
The
Daily Telegraph's story seems to have been lifted from the
Guardian's story without attribution, unlike the
Independent's story, which does credit the
Guardian. The
Daily Mail's story features many pictures of the rich owners listed in the story, and is also clearly derived from the
Guardian's report. At the time of writing, more stories are emerging almost by the minute.
Political points
The
Guardian's reports are well-laced with political commentary. Helen Willliams was at one point quoted as a spokesperson for the Empty Homes Network, but that reference seems already to have been removed. Much of the
Guardian commentary is about the need for more transparency about property ownership, with quotes from sources at '
Who Owns England'.
The historical calls by senior Labour politicians for empty homes to be 'seized' to house Grenfell victims are also being disinterred and pondered.
