The UK High Court's recent decision marks a turning point for commercial landlords trying to reduce empty rates on vacant properties. The court cracked down on artificial tax-avoidance ploys while upholding mitigation methods that involve genuine use of the property.
The UK High Court's recent decision [2025] EWHC 2336 (Ch) marks a turning point for commercial landlords trying to reduce "empty rates" on vacant properties. In plain English, the court cracked down on artificial tax-avoidance ploys while upholding mitigation methods that involve genuine use of the property. This ruling effectively invalidated certain schemes deemed ineffective or abusive, such as the notorious "SPV lease-and-liquidate" strategy, and it reinforced that only real, beneficial occupation can earn business rates relief. Below we unpack the judgment, explore its implications for stakeholders, compare popular mitigation tactics, and explain why compliance-focused solutions like VacatAd are emerging as the go-to approach in this new landscape.
The 2025 High Court Decision – Explained in Plain Language
In this case, two local councils (Wigan and Trafford) challenged a property investor's avoidance schemes designed to dodge empty property rates. The schemes involved granting a short lease of an empty property to a freshly created special purpose vehicle (SPV) company, which would then be voluntarily liquidated (MVL) to invoke a legal exemption for properties owned by companies in liquidation. In theory, as long as the SPV sat in liquidation holding the lease, nobody owed business rates on the empty building. The High Court firmly rejected this ploy. It ruled that these SPV "phoenix" schemes did not transfer liability in any meaningful way – the owner remained the de facto possessor and thus liable for the rates. In the judge's view, paper leases to shell companies with no real occupation were shams and ineffective for avoiding rates. The result: the landlord in question was declared liable for the full business rates bill, and the court issued a clear warning that such contrived arrangements do not work.
Equally important, the judgment highlighted the boundary between abusive avoidance and legitimate mitigation. The judge noted that under rating law, occupation must be actual, exclusive, of some benefit to the occupier, and not too transient. Simply installing a dummy tenant with no intention to use the property fails these tests. By contrast, if a property is occupied – even minimally – for a real business purpose of the occupier, that can count as genuine "beneficial occupation" in the eyes of the law. In other words, the ruling confirms that landlords cannot escape rates by creative legal tricks alone; there needs to be substance behind the occupation. Schemes set up solely to avoid tax, with no independent business use, are likely outside what Parliament ever intended to reward. The High Court's message was confident and clear: if you want the rates relief, put the property to real use – or pay up.
Schemes Deemed "Ineffective" or Abusive
This decision explicitly condemned SPV lease-and-liquidate schemes, calling them out as ineffective. That aligns with a 2021 UK Supreme Court precedent in Hurstwood Properties v. Rossendale BC, which likewise pierced through such "managed insolvency" tactics. In those schemes, owners formed short-lived companies to take on leases and then dissolved them, thinking the rates liability would vanish with the company. Courts have now made it plain that this won't fool the law – the owner who concocted the arrangement stays on the hook.
Other avoidance models have also come under fire. The judgment and recent case law frowned upon certain property guardian arrangements and similar ruses. For example, some landlords license "live-in guardians" in empty commercial buildings hoping to switch the tax to cheaper council tax or to argue the building is occupied. The Court of Appeal in Southwark LBC v. Ludgate House Ltd (2020) found that if the owner retains control and guardians are installed purely as a security service, the owner remains the rateable occupier – meaning the scheme doesn't mitigate business rates at all. In short, merely having people on-site is not enough if they're effectively there on the owner's behalf; such guardian schemes can fail to transfer liability and may even raise legal issues (as Ludgate House illustrated, where 40+ guardians in an office block ultimately left the owner facing the full £3m rates bill).
Likewise, charity leasing schemes have faced scrutiny as potentially abusive if the charity's use is nominal. Landlords have leased vacant space to charities to claim the 80% charitable relief on rates, sometimes with the property hardly being used for genuine charitable purposes. Courts have signalled that form over substance won't fly here either. If a charity occupies a property in name only (for instance, just storing a few items or putting up a sign while the building remains largely unused), authorities can argue the relief is not genuinely applicable. In fact, courts have consistently ruled against schemes where the primary intent is avoiding rates rather than carrying out bona fide activities. The message is that charity arrangements must reflect real charitable use of the premises, not just a tax dodge, or they risk being deemed a sham.
On the other hand, the High Court affirmed that not all mitigation strategies are illegitimate – only those lacking real occupation. Schemes involving actual short-term occupancy for a business purpose emerged as lawful when properly executed. The court in City of London v. 48th Street & Principled Offsite Logistics (2025), decided a few months before the SPV case, upheld a "box storage" scheme as a valid means of rates mitigation. In that model, a specialist company periodically took possession of empty properties for a set time (previously 6 weeks, now ~3 months) and stored goods (boxes) on-site, before vacating. This triggered a new empty-period exemption for the owner. The judge agreed that such intermittent occupation does meet the legal test: it was actual (boxes physically present), exclusive to the company, and provided a benefit – the company was paid to store items and facilitate the rates savings. The fact that the motive was to mitigate rates did not negate the reality of the occupation. As long as the use wasn't trivial or pretended (e.g. leaving trash or "abandoned" goods would not count), the court was satisfied. In effect, the judiciary drew a line: creating a real, if modest, use of the property is acceptable, whereas purely paper arrangements or token uses with no real service or benefit are not.
Ripple Effects: What This Means for Owners, Councils, and Consultants
Property Owners/Landlords
Landlords now have much clearer guidance on what will – and won't – fly when it comes to avoiding empty property rates. The era of "clever" avoidance tricks is fading. Owners who were relying on phoenix companies or dubious leases to escape rates should consider themselves on notice: those methods may not only fail but could land them with backdated bills and legal costs. Compliance and transparency are more critical than ever. The upside is that truly using your empty property, even in a limited way, remains a lawful path to relief. The court essentially blessed good-faith mitigation – so long as you play by the rules (i.e. ensure actual occupation for the required period and a legitimate purpose). Landlords will need to shift from avoidance-minded thinking to use-minded thinking. Many are now exploring partnerships with reputable rates mitigation services that emphasise genuine temporary use (for example, storage, pop-up ventures, or tech installations) rather than contrivances. In practical terms, owners should be prepared for mitigation arrangements to last a bit longer – recent law changes extended the required occupation period from 6 weeks to 3 months to reset an empty relief. This means committing to short-term occupation arrangements that span a quarter-year at a time. The message to landlords: embrace innovative, compliant uses for your vacant space or budget for the full rates – but don't bank on loopholes that no longer exist.
Local Authorities
For councils, the judgment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's a victory – the court sided with authorities in striking down blatant avoidance schemes, potentially unlocking significant unpaid rates revenue. Councils have long been frustrated by owners exploiting technical gaps to avoid rates, and now the courts have backed them up by calling out those tactics as abuse of the system. We can expect councils to feel emboldened to challenge dubious schemes more readily, knowing the courts are receptive to the substance-over-form approach. In fact, multiple authorities had already banded together behind test cases (like the ones in this ruling) to settle the law. Going forward, councils are likely to scrutinise claimed occupations very closely. If an owner asserts that an empty property is occupied (to claim relief), the billing authority may conduct inspections and demand evidence of meaningful use. However, the ruling also implicitly greenlights properly run mitigation – meaning councils will still see some rate-free periods they must honour when owners do it right. This puts pressure on authorities to distinguish legitimate temporary use from sham tactics. They'll be updating their internal guidelines and perhaps lobbying for further legislative reform (as seen in Wales, which considered requiring 6 months occupation for a reset). In short, councils will push harder against avoidance, but they must also respect the "rules of the game" laid down by the courts, which permit cyclical occupation schemes unless Parliament says otherwise.
Business Rates Consultants
The professional advisors and firms that devise rates mitigation strategies are at a crossroads. The High Court's firm stance against artificial schemes means that consultants must adapt or risk liability themselves. Historically, some consultants offered aggressive avoidance models (like setting up SPVs or finding sham charities/tenants). Those advisors now face reputational and legal risks if they continue to peddle disallowed schemes. The smarter move for consultants is to pivot to compliance-first solutions – helping clients implement strategies that will clearly meet the legal test of occupation. This might involve coordinating short-term genuine occupiers (storage providers, interim tenants, pop-up operators, or service installations) and ensuring all documentation, timing, and conduct align with case law. Consultants will also need to stay abreast of evolving laws – for example, advising clients on the new 3-month occupation requirement and any upcoming anti-avoidance rules. The recent judgment gives consultants a clearer framework to advise within. In fact, it arguably professionalises the field: success now depends on creativity and credibility. Those consultants who can deliver innovative yet lawful mitigation (for instance, technology-driven occupation solutions) will thrive, whereas those clinging to loopholes will fall behind. Overall, the emphasis is shifting to transparency, robust evidence of use, and cooperation with local authorities (rather than hiding from them). Consultants who facilitate win-win solutions – helping landlords save on rates while ensuring councils can see real community or business use – are likely to become the preferred choice in this new era.
Old Tactics vs New Strategies: A Comparison of Mitigation Methods
Business rates mitigation has evolved from dubious avoidance ploys toward more genuine short-term uses. Below is a comparative look at the main categories of strategies, from the now-discredited historic schemes to modern, compliance-oriented approaches:
1. SPV Lease-and-Liquidate Schemes (Historic Avoidance)
What it was: An owner creates a Special Purpose Vehicle company, grants it a lease of the empty property, and then immediately liquidates that company (a Members' Voluntary Liquidation). Under rating law, properties owned by companies in winding-up were exempt from rates, so the plan was to let the building sit "owned" by a liquidating shell, effectively sidestepping the tax.
Why it boomed: This was a pure avoidance tactic – no need to actually use the building at all. It gained popularity about a decade ago, allowing landlords of large empty premises to dramatically reduce their rates bills by playing a corporate shell game.
What the courts say now: It doesn't work. The approach has been struck down by the Supreme Court and High Court as an abuse. In the 2021 Hurstwood case, the Supreme Court applied the Ramsay principle (an anti-tax-avoidance rule) to interpret the business rates laws in line with their purpose – meaning courts will ignore contrived transactions that have no purpose other than avoiding tax. The SPV leases were deemed shams, since the SPV never actually occupied or traded, and the real control stayed with the owner. The recent 2025 High Court decision [2336 Ch] has confirmed that these "lease-to-liquidate" schemes are ineffective at law. The landlord remains the liable party for the duration of the supposed scheme. In essence, judges have pierced the corporate veil and called out the substance: an empty building is still empty, and you can't escape rates just by interposing a paper company. These schemes are now largely dead – and any owners still attempting them are taking a huge risk. The prevailing legal view is that if no one is genuinely in occupation, the rates liability cannot be magicked away by creative legal ownership.
2. Live-In Property Guardian Models
What it is: Using property guardians – individuals who live in vacant commercial properties at low cost, ostensibly to secure and maintain them. Companies arrange for a number of guardians (often young professionals or key workers) to occupy an empty office or industrial building under licence agreements. The idea from a rates perspective is twofold: (a) possibly have the building reclassified (or parts of it) as domestic (triggering council tax rather than business rates), or (b) argue that the building is occupied, so it's not liable for empty rates.
Pros and cons: Guardians do provide real occupancy – the lights are on and someone's home – and they can deter vandals or squatters, bringing some practical benefits to the owner. For a while, some owners saw this as a semi-legitimate workaround: you get occupancy, some security, and avoid the punitive empty rates. However, this approach can be complex. Converting a commercial building into living space may require meeting housing safety standards. Moreover, council tax on multiple guardian-occupied rooms can still be costly, and if the building remains one hereditament, authorities might insist on business rates anyway.
Legal status: The courts have grown sceptical of guardian schemes as a rates solution. The key issue is who is in "rateable occupation." In many guardian setups, the guardians sign licences that give them very limited rights – the guardian company (and ultimately the owner) retains control over the building. In the Ludgate House case, the Court of Appeal found that guardians did not have exclusive possession of any part of the property (they could be moved at will, akin to lodgers), so the owner was still deemed the occupier for rating purposes. Essentially, because the guardians were there to perform a service for the owner (property security) and not as ordinary tenants, their presence didn't transfer liability away from the owner. This ruling severely undermined the viability of guardian schemes to mitigate business rates – it signalled that a building full of guardians could still be considered "essentially vacant" for rating purposes. Post-Ludgate, owners can't assume that having guardians will automatically void an empty rates charge; many councils will press the point that unless guardians hold genuine tenancies and take over discrete units exclusively, the owner remains responsible. Moreover, there's an added wrinkle: packing a building with many residents can trigger housing law obligations (like HMO licensing), adding risk and cost. In sum, while property guardianship can be useful for security and may shift a bit of tax liability in some cases, it is no longer a reliable business rates mitigation tool. The courts have effectively warned: if guardians are just an ad-hoc measure to avoid rates without truly handing over occupation, the scheme may fail. Owners considering guardians now do so more for property protection or social initiative, not as a guaranteed rates solution.
3. Storage-Based Schemes
What it is: Using minimal storage or occupation of space to count as re-occupation, thus resetting the empty rate relief clock. A prime example is the strategy of placing boxes, pallets, or goods in an otherwise empty building for a set period. Specialist firms (like Principled Offsite Logistics in a recent case) lease the property for a short term and fill a portion of it with stored items – often things like documents, furniture, or stock in trade. After the required period of occupation (historically 6 weeks, now generally 3 months), the items are removed, and the building goes back to being "empty" – which under law triggers a new 3-month (or 6-month for industrial) rates-free period for the owner. The cycle can repeat as needed, greatly cutting the owner's overall rates burden (often by more than half).
Effectiveness: This scheme has been controversial but, importantly, it has been upheld in court when done correctly. A body of case law over the past decade – from the Makro case (where storing a few pallets in a warehouse was deemed sufficient occupation) to the 2021 Public Health England v Harlow case (where moving crates of files in and out was ruled valid) – established that even slight or partial use of a property can qualify as rateable occupation so long as the occupation meets the legal criteria. The key is that the occupier (the storage company or whoever) intends to use the space and gains some benefit from it, however minimal. Courts have taken a "morally neutral" stance: an occupier's motive of saving rates does not void the occupation, as long as the occupation is real. In the City of London v. Principled Offsite Logistics (2025) case, the High Court reaffirmed this principle, rejecting the council's argument that putting boxes in a room solely to avoid tax was an abuse. The judge noted that Parliament was aware of these schemes and chose not to outlaw them, instead only extending the occupation period required. He found that the storage of boxes did constitute actual occupation – the company was using the property for its business (providing storage services) and thus the legal definition of "occupied" was satisfied. It didn't matter that the boxes' only purpose was generating a rates exemption later; what mattered was that each day the boxes were there, the company had exclusive use of that space and an intention to occupy (the items weren't abandoned or unrelated). As a result, such storage-based schemes are still viable, albeit now requiring a longer occupation period (3+ months). They must be done by the book: the occupying entity should have a legitimate lease/licence, actually move goods in, and document the occupancy thoroughly. If done sloppily (e.g. leaving junk or not truly taking possession), councils might challenge it. But when properly managed, "intermittent occupation" strategies have a strong track record in court. For owners, this is good news – it's a proven method to achieve significant savings legally. The downside is it typically involves paying a fee or profit-share to the specialist company and coordinating the logistics of moving items in and out. Still, compared to paying full rates on an idle building, this approach can be a lifesaver. It has effectively forced councils to concede that if you can find some meaningful interim use for your property, however small, you are entitled to the relief – an outcome repeatedly confirmed by judges and much preferable to unlawful avoidance.
4. Charity Leasing Arrangements
What it is: Leasing or licensing the empty property to a charitable organisation so that the premises is occupied for charitable purposes and thus qualifies for charity rate relief (usually 80% off the rates). Often the charity pays a nominal rent (or none at all), and the property owner might even donate funds to the charity to offset the remaining 20% rates, making it cost-neutral for the charity. The owner saves 80% of the rates they'd otherwise owe, at the cost of effectively "renting" the building to the charity.
Challenges: In principle, this can be a legitimate arrangement – many genuine charities do use otherwise-vacant shops or offices for storage, offices, pop-up thrift stores, food banks, and so on, benefiting both charity and owner. However, abuses emerged with "charity" schemes where the charitable use was minimal or merely a facade. Some cases surfaced where properties were occupied by charities that did very little with the space (e.g. a charity might store a few boxes of pamphlets in a huge warehouse just to claim occupancy). Local authorities grew wise to this and have contested such setups, arguing that the property was not "wholly or mainly" used for charitable purposes – a requirement for the relief. If a court finds that a charity's presence is nominal and primarily to help the owner avoid rates, it can disallow the relief.
Legal status: There isn't a single landmark Supreme Court case on this issue, but multiple instances in the lower courts and tribunals have sent a cautionary message. For example, in Public Safety Charitable Trust v. Milton Keynes (2013), a charity installed small wireless transmitters in empty properties to broadcast public messages and claimed charitable use; the High Court found this use was de minimis and not sufficient to count as "occupation for charitable purposes," so the full rates were payable. Similarly, councils have won cases where the charity did not meaningfully occupy the premises on a day-to-day basis. The courts tend to look at the substance: Is the charity actually conducting its charitable activities from the property in a substantial way? If yes, the relief is earned; if not, it's effectively a tax dodge. The recent emphasis on "primary intent" supports this – if the primary intent is avoiding tax rather than delivering charitable work, the arrangement could be voided. That said, genuine charity arrangements remain acceptable. If, say, a charity that provides community services truly uses an empty store as a drop-in center or a training facility, that's legitimate beneficial use and relief applies. Many councils themselves prefer to see empty units used by charities (for community good) rather than lying idle or hosting sham occupiers. The key is transparency and genuine use: owners should ensure any charity occupation is well-documented, with clear charitable activities taking place. It's wise to avoid "charity" deals with shell charities or those suggested by middlemen that promise guaranteed relief without clear use – those are red flags. In summary, charity leasing can be a win-win but only when it's authentic. Post-2025, one can expect harsher scrutiny: an owner who tries to game the system by nominal charity deals could find themselves challenged in court and, if the facts show no real charitable use, stuck paying full rates (and possibly accused of fraud in extreme cases). Thus, while still a tool in the toolbox, charity relief schemes must be approached with caution and integrity.
5. Technology-Led Intermittent Occupation (VacatAd's Model)
What it is: A cutting-edge approach exemplified by VacatAd, which uses technology to provide intermittent beneficial occupation without altering the property. In practical terms, VacatAd installs a small "plug-and-play" device on the premises that creates a public Wi-Fi network and digital advertising platform. This device needs only a power outlet and possibly an internet connection. Once active, it turns the vacant property into a hub providing free internet access to the surrounding community and displaying targeted local advertisements. The property is thus occupied for a set period (typically 13 weeks, just over the 3-month threshold now required) by VacatAd's service. After that period, VacatAd removes the equipment and the property can enjoy a fresh empty rates exemption. The cycle can then repeat as needed, similarly to storage schemes but with high-tech flair.
Why it's innovative: Unlike storage or guardians, no physical alterations or human presence is required – the device is non-intrusive and installation is extremely simple (literally plugging in a unit). There's no mess or significant space taken up, and the owner can continue marketing the property to real tenants during the process (VacatAd can vacate on short notice if a tenant is found). The model directly addresses community needs by boosting connectivity – a clear social benefit. Importantly, the technology provides real-time monitoring and data, allowing VacatAd and the owner to prove the occupation and usage to authorities with concrete evidence (e.g. logs of Wi-Fi usage, uptime, etc.).
Legal footing: VacatAd's approach is firmly grounded in the legal concept of beneficial occupation. By broadcasting free Wi-Fi and ads, VacatAd is deriving a business benefit (advertising revenue or platform growth) and providing a service to the public. This is not a sham; it's an actual use of the property for the purpose of the occupying company's business, satisfying the "beneficial to the occupier" test. Each day the device operates, VacatAd is in exclusive occupation of a portion of the property (even if it's just the space the device sits in and its Wi-Fi signal footprint) for its commercial aims. The courts have indicated that even a small physical use can qualify, so long as it's intentional and not trivial – VacatAd's service clearly meets that bar, as it's delivering tangible outputs (internet connectivity and advertising) and is not just pretending to occupy. Moreover, VacatAd's model was developed with the latest case law in mind. It aligns with precedents like Makro and Principled Offsite – but arguably with even more bona fide purpose, since the Wi-Fi service has inherent community value, unlike boxes which "serve no commercial purpose save rates mitigation." VacatAd has reportedly achieved a 100% success rate in securing rate relief for clients using this method, with no failed cases to date. In practice, councils presented with VacatAd's occupation have accepted it as meeting the criteria (likely because challenging it would be an uphill battle given it checks all the legal boxes of occupation). The transparency of the model also helps – VacatAd handles all notifications to the council and provides evidence of the occupation up front, which fosters trust and preempts disputes.
In summary: Technology-led intermittent occupation is emerging as the new gold standard for rates mitigation. VacatAd's model showcases how leveraging tech can create a win-win: the owner saves money legally, the occupier (VacatAd) runs a useful service, and the local community benefits from free Wi-Fi and support for local businesses through advertising. It's a far cry from sneaky shell companies or pet snail farms (yes, someone tried a snail farm ploy to claim agricultural rates exemption – it was quickly deemed a sham by the courts!). The tech approach is clean, ethical, and robust against legal challenge. As the business rates landscape shifts toward demanding genuine use, solutions like VacatAd's are perfectly tuned to the new expectations.
Legally Defining "Beneficial Occupation" After the Ruling
One of the most significant outcomes of the recent court decisions is the clearer legal lens on "beneficial occupation". Post-ruling, it's worth distilling what this term means, because it's the crux of which schemes survive scrutiny.
To be rateable, an occupation must generally satisfy four elements (often called the Laing Properties tests): actual, exclusive, beneficial (to the occupier), and not too transient. The 2025 judgments reaffirm and refine how these apply in practice:
Actual occupation: There must be some physical presence or activity in the property. It doesn't have to be 24/7 or involve the whole building – using even a part of the premises can suffice. But it cannot be a mere token presence; an empty promise of future use or a symbolic gesture won't count. In plain terms, something has to be happening on the property (boxes stored, devices broadcasting, people working or living there, etc.) during the period in question.
Exclusive occupation: The occupier must have control of the space and be able to exclude others from it. This is where many guardian schemes faltered – the guardians had no exclusive possession of any specific area. By contrast, a company that leases a property for storage or tech use has the legal right to control access to that area for the lease term, meeting the exclusivity requirement. Post-ruling, it's clear that if the original landlord retains general control (as with guardians or sham leases), the occupier is not truly exclusive and thus not the ratepayer.
Beneficial occupation (for the occupier): This is the heart of the matter. "Beneficial" means the occupation serves some purpose or value for the occupier – it benefits them in their own business or objectives. Crucially, the courts have adopted a "morally neutral" standpoint here: the benefit can be as simple as enabling a future tax relief for the occupier (as with PHE storing its files to later get a void period). The High Court stated that an occupier's purpose can indeed be to obtain a future rates exemption, and that still counts as a benefit to the occupier. What doesn't count is if the supposed occupier has no independent purpose at all – for example, an SPV with no business, created only on paper, has no real "benefit" from sitting empty. Post-2025, genuine beneficial occupation is defined by intent and use: the occupier must intend to occupy (not just create a semblance) and use the premises in a way that furthers their own interests (business or charitable), even if indirectly. If the occupation is purely for the benefit of the owner (and the occupier is a stooge), or if the "use" is so insignificant it's essentially nonexistent, it won't meet this test. The courts gave examples: leaving abandoned goods in a property is not beneficial occupation, nor is occupation that's only about the upkeep of the property itself (that would benefit the owner, not the occupier). On the flip side, running a community Wi-Fi device does benefit the occupier (VacatAd) by advancing their business model, and storing goods benefits the storage company by fulfilling a contract and earning fees. The lens now is: is the occupier doing something of value to them (or their cause, if a charity) on the premises? If yes, it's beneficial occupation.
Not too transient: The occupation must last for a sufficient time to count – historically more than a fleeting moment. Case law had set a loose benchmark of at least 6 weeks. Now, the law itself has stepped in to specify a minimum period for resetting relief: 6 weeks was the old rule, now it's 3 months in England for new exemptions. So practically, "transient" means anything less than 6 weeks wouldn't have counted before; going forward, any mitigation occupier will need to plan on around 3 months to ensure the relief (and to satisfy the updated statutory requirement). The High Court's recent rulings didn't overturn this notion – if anything, they underscored it by referencing the regulatory change. A weekend pop-up shop, for example, won't restart your empty rate relief; it's too transient. The occupation should be stable enough to be a meaningful interval. In legal terms, if you can demonstrate an uninterrupted occupation for the legislatively required period (13 weeks to be safe), you're in solid territory.
In summary, "beneficial occupation" post-2025 means a bona fide use by an occupier for its own ends, carried on for a realistic duration, with the occupier controlling the space as needed. The courts have essentially told landlords: "We don't care if your underlying motive is to save on rates – just give us an occupier who is actually using the property for something worthwhile (however small), and we'll call that occupied. Otherwise, it's empty and you pay." This clear delineation now defines the playing field for all mitigation strategies.
VacatAd: Compliance Meets Proof – A Model Built on Case Law
Against this tightened legal backdrop, VacatAd's model stands out as not only fully compliant but also proven in practice. It directly embodies the lessons from case law while adding its own layer of reliability. Let's break down why VacatAd's approach is a perfect poster child for the post-2025 ideal of rates mitigation:
Rooted in Existing Case Law: VacatAd's strategy was crafted with the legal precedents in mind. The idea of using a property to broadcast Wi-Fi and ads for a period is essentially a modern twist on the Makro/Intermittent Occupation cases. It takes the concept of "slight occupation + intent = valid" that was upheld in Makro and PHE v Harlow and gives it a 21st-century upgrade. By providing a service (Wi-Fi) from the premises, VacatAd ensures the occupation is unquestionably beneficial to the occupier, paralleling how storing goods was beneficial to the storage company in earlier cases. Moreover, VacatAd likely drew from the Franses v Cavendish principle (from property law, cited in the 2025 judgment) which warns that an intention that exists only conditional on obtaining a benefit is suspect. VacatAd avoids this by actually implementing the occupation (installing and operating the equipment) – it's not a conditional plan; it's an executed action, much like Principled Offsite physically placing boxes to manifest intent. In short, every element of VacatAd's occupation model can be mapped to a judicially approved concept: actual presence (device installed), exclusivity (VacatAd controls the device and its function), beneficial use (running a commercial/community service), and non-transience (13 weeks on-site). This alignment with case law principles gives VacatAd a rock-solid foundation. It's the opposite of testing a grey area – it's operating squarely within the bright lines the courts have drawn for acceptable schemes.
100% Track Record of Success: Perhaps the most compelling proof is in the pudding – VacatAd boasts a 100% success rate to date in securing empty rates relief for its clients. Every property that has gone through VacatAd's 13-week occupancy has qualified for the subsequent rate-free period, with no council successfully challenging the arrangement. This is a strong endorsement that VacatAd's model holds up under scrutiny. The company confidently guarantees this success, explicitly stating that each of its tenancies is arranged to meet all legal tests (exclusive, actual, beneficial, non-transient) such that relief is assured. While past performance is not a legal precedent, the fact that no VacatAd case has ended up in court (or if it did, none has lost) indicates that local authorities, when presented with VacatAd's thorough approach, have conceded its validity. In an industry littered with schemes that sometimes work or carry legal risks, VacatAd's unblemished record is a standout. It suggests not only confidence in the model but also a level of due diligence and precision in execution that keeps disputes to a minimum. Part of this success likely stems from VacatAd's transparency – they handle communications with councils, make sure the occupation is well documented, and don't try to hide the motive. This forthright approach builds credibility with authorities, who can see that the property is being used in a beneficial way, even if temporarily. Ultimately, the combination of legal soundness and proven outcomes means landlords can engage VacatAd with peace of mind that they're not venturing into a tax grey area, but rather leveraging a court-sanctioned method.
In essence, VacatAd took the letter and spirit of the law and built a service model around complying with it – and it shows. By referencing and respecting existing case law, and by delivering a perfect record of relief claims, VacatAd demonstrates that it's possible to mitigate business rates without fighting the law, instead working with it. This is exactly the direction the landscape is moving: from cat-and-mouse avoidance games toward compliant, transparent solutions.
VacatAd's Key Differentiators in the Post-Ruling Era
With the business rates mitigation game now favouring compliant innovation, VacatAd rises to the top by offering a solution that is not only legal but also simple, safe, and socially positive. Here are VacatAd's major differentiators that set it apart from both old-school avoidance schemes and other mitigation services:
Plug-and-Play Simplicity: VacatAd's approach requires virtually no effort or alteration on the part of the landlord. The technology is a self-contained unit that needs only a standard power outlet to start providing Wi-Fi coverage. There's no construction, no fit-out, no on-site staffing – meaning no disruption to the property. You can literally plug it in and let it do its job. This simplicity is a far cry from, say, moving crates in and out or accommodating live-in guardians. It's hassle-free and fast to deploy, ensuring landlords can start a mitigation period quickly. And because it's plug-and-play, VacatAd can also pack up and leave on short notice if the owner secures a long-term tenant – offering maximum flexibility to the landlord's leasing efforts. You keep marketing your property while VacatAd runs in the background, with confidence that VacatAd can vacate whenever you need (often within days).
Zero Property Alteration: With VacatAd, there is no need to modify the building at all. No partitions, no cabling infrastructure beyond perhaps an internet line (and even that can be wireless). The device is non-invasive – it doesn't damage walls or floors, and leaves behind no trace once removed. Compare this to some other strategies: guardians might require basic living amenity installations; storage might involve pallets that could scuff floors or require insurance for goods; pseudo-agriculture schemes (like absurd snail farms) could involve live creatures or special fixtures – all potentially problematic. VacatAd's solution is gentle on the property – your building stays exactly as it is. This is crucial for owners of prime commercial spaces who don't want any alterations that might deter prospective tenants or violate insurance and safety regulations. VacatAd's device sits quietly and leaves quietly, preserving the property's condition. That makes it an attractive option for landlords who are understandably protective of their asset.
Social and Community Benefit: Unlike sterile schemes that do nothing for the locale, VacatAd generates positive externalities. By broadcasting free public Wi-Fi, it provides a service to anyone in the vicinity – shoppers, residents, passers-by – who can get online at no cost. In today's world, connectivity is almost a public utility, and VacatAd turns an empty building into a temporary digital hotspot. This can be a boon in areas with poor internet coverage or for individuals who can't afford mobile data. Additionally, VacatAd's platform displays targeted advertising for local small businesses, effectively giving community businesses affordable exposure. This means the vacant property starts contributing to the local economy by promoting nearby shops and services. There's also potential for tie-ins with local charitable or civic messaging (e.g. public service announcements over the Wi-Fi splash page). All of this translates into a narrative of social value: the property isn't just sitting idle – it's actively benefiting the community during VacatAd's occupancy. Local authorities and the public generally view this far more favorably than opaque avoidance maneuvers. In fact, the social benefit aspect can enhance the owner's reputation as a responsible corporate citizen, turning the avoidance stigma into a community partnership story.
Real-Time Monitoring and Transparency: VacatAd provides a real-time dashboard for property owners, showing the status of the occupancy period, Wi-Fi usage stats, and other relevant metrics. This means owners are kept fully in the loop with what's happening in their building. The system likely includes motion-sensitive security cameras as well, so the property is monitored against intrusions while VacatAd is in place – a bonus security service. From a compliance perspective, the monitoring data is gold: it's evidence that can be shared with councils to prove active use (e.g. X number of Wi-Fi sessions served this week, etc.). VacatAd also takes charge of all dealings with the local authority – they notify the council when they move in, provide the necessary details, and similarly inform when they vacate. This proactive communication ensures everything is above board. For the owner, this hands-off transparency is a relief – no nasty surprises, no hiding behind technicalities. "Zero surprises" as VacatAd calls it. The owner can demonstrate to anyone (be it auditors, board members, or journalists) that their rates mitigation is fully legitimate and openly managed.
Legal Alignment and Compliance: VacatAd prides itself on being fully aligned with current laws and regulations. They continuously track the legal landscape (and likely had input from legal professionals in designing their service). This means they adapt to changes – for example, when the law changed to require 3 months' occupation, VacatAd adjusted its model to a 13-week cycle to ensure compliance. They prepare all the necessary legal paperwork (leases/licences) in a way that satisfies the authorities. By having a team of legal and industry experts (as hinted in their materials, the founders have a background in this niche), they ensure no corner is cut. Essentially, VacatAd pre-vets its approach against the kind of challenges councils might raise, closing any loopholes or gaps before they become an issue. This is a stark contrast to some avoidance schemes where the attitude was "try it and hope it doesn't get challenged." VacatAd doesn't gamble; it follows the letter of the law, so both they and the client can be confident in the outcome.
Cost-Effectiveness ("Pay Only When You Save"): VacatAd's model is structured in a performance-based fee way – in their words, "pay only when you save." Typically, this implies that VacatAd's fee is a portion of the actual rates savings achieved, and if for some reason the savings don't materialize, the client isn't out of pocket. This is hugely attractive to landlords worried about throwing good money after bad on mitigation. It aligns incentives: VacatAd is motivated to successfully deliver the relief, and the owner sees immediate net gain (since the fee comes out of the savings). Moreover, the initial assessment is free and quick – VacatAd will evaluate a property and estimate potential savings within 24 hours. This low-risk, contingency-style pricing makes the decision a no-brainer for many: if it works, you share the benefit; if it doesn't, you haven't paid. Compared to traditional empty rates (100% cost with no benefit) or even some other schemes that charge flat fees upfront, VacatAd's model is very cost-efficient. You only pay when you're genuinely cutting your rates bill. For budget-conscious landlords, especially after a tough economic period, this can be a lifeline. It turns rates mitigation from a speculative expense into a guaranteed ROI.
Community and PR Value: Beyond the technical "social benefit," there's a reputational win for landlords using VacatAd. In an era where companies are expected to demonstrate social responsibility, choosing a mitigation strategy that has community upsides (free Wi-Fi, supporting local business) puts the landlord in a positive light. It's a far cry from being named-and-shamed for avoiding tax. In fact, a landlord could openly publicize the partnership: "While our store is vacant, we're partnering with VacatAd to provide free internet to the community." That's good PR. It shows the landlord is not just sitting on an empty asset or using shadowy tactics, but proactively doing something useful locally. This kind of community value creation is unique to models like VacatAd's. It helps reframe business rates mitigation from a selfish act to a mutually beneficial arrangement. In the long run, such goodwill can only help in dealings with councils and the public. A council might be far more amenable to a VacatAd-style relief (where residents literally benefit) than to an opaque scheme that gives nothing back. So, VacatAd's approach can reduce friction with authorities compared to traditional avoidance. It's effectively aligning the landlord's interest with the community's interest, which is a smart and sustainable strategy.
In combination, these differentiators make VacatAd a powerful solution in the post-ruling environment. It hits the sweet spot of maximising savings and minimising risk, all while doing genuine good. For landlords who have seen one scheme after another fall foul of the law, VacatAd offers something refreshingly different: a fully above-board method that works and feels right.
Conclusion: A New Era of Compliance and Transparency – Why Landlords Should Adapt Now
The landscape of business rates mitigation has decisively shifted. The High Court's 2025 ruling – alongside other recent judgments – has drawn a hard line between avoidance gimmicks and authentic occupancy solutions. The writing is on the wall for landlords: compliance and transparency aren't just buzzwords, they're the only reliable path forward if you want to reduce your rates liabilities.
In practical terms, this means landlords must be very discerning about how they mitigate empty rates. Schemes that may have been whispered about a few years ago (shell companies, dubious charities, token "tenants") are now likely to backfire – either immediately through legal challenge, or eventually as the law catches up. The cost of being caught out is high: not only paying the owed rates with interest, but also potential penalties and reputational damage. The age of cat-and-mouse avoidance, with councils chasing ever-more-elaborate dodges, is waning. We are entering an age of "if you want relief, earn it."
For landlords, this is actually an opportunity in disguise. By embracing genuine short-term uses of their properties, owners can transform a vacant liability into something positive – at least temporarily – and still get the financial relief. It may require a bit more planning and partnership, but it's a far more sustainable strategy. Authorities are likely to reform business rates further in coming years (the pressures on the system are huge), but whatever changes come, having a track record of compliance will put landlords in a stronger position to take advantage of legitimate reliefs and maybe even influence policy.
Transparency is now critical. Landlords should be upfront with councils about what they're doing – invite the council to inspect the property during any claimed occupation, provide evidence, and demonstrate that it's not a sham. This cooperative approach can prevent disputes or quickly resolve them. Remember that many councils have also grown more sophisticated; they know the difference between a ruse and a reasonable scheme. Showing good faith goes a long way. In the spirit of the High Court rulings, being transparent essentially means having nothing to hide – because your mitigation is by the book. If you feel nervous about explaining your scheme to a council or a judge, that's a sign you might be on shaky ground.
This is why VacatAd is uniquely positioned to support landlords in the current climate. VacatAd embodies exactly what the courts and authorities have been signalling: a mitigation method that is open, honest, and mutually beneficial. By partnering with VacatAd, a landlord automatically aligns with the new paradigm – they're not avoiding rates in the dark, they're earning relief in the light. VacatAd handles the heavy lifting (literally and figuratively): they install the tech, liaise with the council, monitor everything, and ensure all legal criteria are met. The landlord can rest easy knowing the scheme has been vetted through actual practice and is backed by a 100% success record. If challenged, VacatAd's approach holds up with clear evidence and legal justification.
In conclusion, the High Court's 2025 decision and its ripple effects have ushered in a "compliance-first" era for empty property rate mitigation. Landlords who adapt quickly by pivoting to transparent, bona fide solutions will save money and sleep better at night. Those who cling to the old dodges risk financial and legal pain. The smart move now is to partner with innovators like VacatAd that have proven there's a better way. By doing so, landlords not only safeguard their bottom line through guaranteed savings, but also turn an otherwise idle asset into a force for community good – all fully in line with the law. This alignment of interests – landlord, law, and community – is the future of business rates mitigation. And with VacatAd's help, that future is here and now, ready to be seized by savvy property owners.