One hundred of your prospects

Hello Louis, I saw you hold retail units and restaurants across Hackney.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Louis, I saw you manage a variety of property types, including workshops and premium office spaces in Hackney.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Louis, across Hackney, commercial property like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joey, I saw you acquired a part-built warehouse building near Luton airport.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joey, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joey, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, I saw you hold a commercial and residential portfolio across the South East.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, I noticed your focus on both commercial and residential properties in the South East.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, a commercial and residential portfolio the size of yours in the South East rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you are one of the most active developers across the Northern Powerhouse.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you hold commercial property across Northern England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in Northern England rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sam, I noticed you have completed the purchase of an additional freehold site adjacent to your existing builders' merchant branch in Salfords.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sam, I saw you hold commercial property across Salfords.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sam, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in Salfords were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you developed the Starbucks Drive-Thru in West Bromwich in Autumn 2017.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you hold industrial, leisure, office and retail properties throughout the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, a retail portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sally, I saw you have completed more than 80 developments valued from £2m to £200m in various sectors.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sally, I saw you hold commercial property across Surrey.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sally, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in Surrey rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Vivek, I saw you manage multiple branded hotels in the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Vivek, I saw you hold hotels and residential units across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Vivek, a hotel portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I saw you currently have £60million under construction.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Shrewsbury.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in Shropshire and the West Midlands were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you hold over 825,000 square feet of office and educational accommodation in Bloomsbury.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you manage a mix of offices, retail, educational, and residential spaces across Bloomsbury.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I noticed you have over 1,000 hotel bedrooms available, which makes me think some of your hotel spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I saw you are marketing a greenfield development capable of providing up to 4,000,000 sqft of distribution warehousing.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I saw you hold commercial property across the South West, Midlands and South Wales.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I noticed you are marketing distribution warehousing space, which makes me think some of your units are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Guy, I saw you acquired the bakery's 5 high street outlets and production facility in 2016.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Guy, I saw you hold hospitality and real estate assets across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Guy, with the hospitality and real estate you hold across the UK, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Irma, I saw you manage a multi-asset UK office portfolio.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Irma, I saw you hold office properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Irma, a office portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Olakunle, I saw you are acquiring commercial properties for repurposing or conversion to residential use.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Olakunle, I saw you hold mixed residential and retail properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Olakunle, I noticed you have a portfolio of owned Family Buy-To-Lets, so there is probably some residential space vacant as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Harry, I read in your results that you have a 99% occupancy rate.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Harry, I saw you hold a portfolio of essential healthcare infrastructure across the UK and Ireland.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Harry, with the healthcare properties you hold across the UK and Ireland, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I saw you have a property with 4,631 square feet of space.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I saw you invest in industrial properties across Greater London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I noticed there are 4,631 square feet of space, so there is probably some vacancy as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you manage more than 12 million sq. ft of property across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I noticed your significant holdings in commercial property throughout the north west of England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, across the UK, commercial property like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I read in your results that overall occupancy is 89%.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I noticed overall occupancy is 89%, so there is probably some space being marketed as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you own a Grade 2 listed building.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold office space and residential across Huddersfield.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, there is usually a gap somewhere in an office and residential portfolio spread across Huddersfield. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I saw you acquired the site of the former Swindon College Campus in 2006.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I saw you hold commercial property across Swindon.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, somewhere across the commercial property you hold in Swindon, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roger, I saw the estate comprises a mix of parkland, woodland, and arable land.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roger, I saw you hold arable land and parkland across Suffolk.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roger, with the parkland and arable land you hold across Suffolk, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Marie, I saw you acquired Reed House, a 52,281 sq ft office investment on Broadland Business Park.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Marie, I saw you hold office and industrial properties across Suffolk and Cambridge.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Marie, I noticed you operate a 40,000 sq ft trunk road service area, so some of your industrial spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Matthew, I saw you operate affordable artist studio space in London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Matthew, I saw you hold artist studio space across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Matthew, with the artist studio space you hold across London, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kumar, I saw 115 Golden Lane has a historical significance dating back to 1850.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kumar, I saw you hold commercial property across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kumar, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in London rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I read in your results that the occupancy marginally increased to 94% during the period.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I noticed the occupancy rate increased to 94%, so I guess some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ivan, I saw you hold studios and offices across London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ivan, I noticed your diverse asset mix includes pop-ups, warehouses, and light industrial spaces.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ivan, somewhere across the studios and offices you hold in London, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Beverley, I saw you developed a new trade counter and builders' merchant development on approximately 4 acres.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Beverley, I saw you hold commercial property across the Midlands and North West England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Beverley, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in the Midlands and North West England rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Arshal, I saw you recently acquired a retail warehouse scheme, “The Quarter”, in Walsall.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Arshal, I saw you hold residential apartments and retail units across Walsall.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Arshal, with the residential apartments and retail units you hold across Walsall, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, I saw you manage a portfolio of residential and commercial properties across the South Lakes and the Western Peninsula.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, I saw you hold commercial properties across the South Lakes and the Western Peninsula.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, a residential and commercial portfolio the size of yours in the South Lakes and the Western Peninsula rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you create high-end commercial spaces across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold residential and commercial properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jay, I saw you have a freehold function and events venue spanning over 10,000 sq ft.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jay, I saw you hold commercial property across Kidderminster.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jay, I noticed you have a freehold function and events venue available for use, so some of your space is probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nigel, I saw you own and manage commercial properties in Norfolk.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nigel, I noticed you have spaces available from 450 to 5,200 square feet.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nigel, I saw you have commercial properties available for lease, and if that is still the case some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kevin, I saw you completed the acquisition of a site in Letchworth.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kevin, I saw you hold commercial property across Letchworth.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kevin, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in Letchworth were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, I saw you are marketing Quantum Works, a 25,000 sq ft multi-let trading estate on Enville Street, Stourbridge.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, I saw you hold multi-let industrial estates across the Midlands.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, I noticed you are a multi-let trading estate, so there is probably some space available as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alison, I saw you hold commercial property focused on long term valuation creation.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alison, I noticed your involvement in healthcare investments alongside your real estate activities.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alison, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I saw you have invested in over £500 million of commercial property since 2001.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, with the commercial property you hold across the UK, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello John, I saw you hold commercial property across Europe.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello John, I noticed your focus on real estate investments primarily in Europe.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello John, somewhere across the commercial property you hold in Europe, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you hold 1.5M sq ft of lettable commercial real estate across the Midlands, London & Wales.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Lye.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, across the Midlands, commercial real estate like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you invest in stand-alone retail, leisure and industrial property across London and the South East.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I noticed your focus on various types of commercial property in London and the South East.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I would be surprised if every one of your retail, leisure and industrial properties in London and the South East were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, I saw you fully let Leicester Distribution Park.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty units, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, I saw you hold industrial and logistics properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Julie, somewhere across the industrial and logistics you hold in the UK, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you purchase high-yielding commercial property assets.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you hold a mix of residential and commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, there is usually a gap somewhere in a residential and commercial portfolio spread across the UK. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mirza, I saw you purchased a former care home property in Sarisbury Green.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mirza, I saw you hold residential and commercial property across London and the South East.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mirza, across London and the South East, residential and commercial like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ray, I saw you offer premium short and mid-stay accommodation across Warwickshire and the West Midlands.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ray, I saw you hold residential properties across Warwickshire and the West Midlands.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ray, a residential portfolio the size of yours in Warwickshire and the West Midlands rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I saw you have accommodation available for tenants, with options ranging from 140sqm to 5,575sqm.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Willand, focusing on a family-owned business park in Devon.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Tim, I noticed you have accommodation available for tenants, so there is probably space being marketed as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jimmy, I saw you are marketing modern industrial and trade counter units at Newhall Business Park.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jimmy, I saw you hold industrial units across Yorkshire.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jimmy, I noticed you are marketing units ranging in size from approximately 2,500 to 10,750 sq ft, which makes me think some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Stuart, I saw you completed the acquisition and subsequent sale of London's second largest house, Grade-II listed Witanhurst.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Stuart, I saw you hold residential property across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Stuart, a residential portfolio the size of yours in London rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, I noticed your occupancy ratio of 99.4%.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Richard, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Bicester.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I noticed you manage a 444-acre future mobility estate in Oxfordshire.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Daniel, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in Oxfordshire were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sarah, I saw you own commercial and industrial property incorporating more than 90 individual units across 60 acres.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sarah, I saw you are actively seeking industrial and commercial investments in the North of England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sarah, I noticed the property comprises approximately 27 acres and 300,000 sq ft, so I guess some of that space is probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you are transforming the 'Reuben Brothers' Piccadilly Estate into one of London's grandest hotels.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, I saw you hold hotels and residential apartments across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Paul, with the hotels and residential apartments you hold across London, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Toby, I saw you reach over 73% occupancy at 170 Piccadilly.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Toby, I saw you hold office and retail properties across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Toby, I noticed there is 3,133 sq ft available at Elsley, and if that is still the case, some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christina, I saw your retail occupancy rate was 96.2% as of March 2020.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christina, I saw you hold retail and pub properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christina, I would be surprised if every one of your retail and pub properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, I saw you hold serviced apartments and offices across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, I noticed your investment in over 3 million square feet of assets.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, there is usually a gap somewhere in a serviced apartment and office portfolio spread across the UK. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Louise, I saw you manage over 170 commercial lets and shops in Plymouth.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Louise, I saw you hold commercial property across Plymouth.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Louise, across Plymouth, commercial property like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ian, I saw you are marketing brand new units ranging from 1250 sq ft up to 16,000 sq ft.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ian, I saw you hold commercial property and luxury homes across central England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ian, I noticed you are marketing new units for lease, so there is probably some space available as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sonny, I noticed you provide a mix of managed office, studio and workshop space.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sonny, I saw you hold offices, studios and workshops across London and the home counties.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Sonny, I noticed you provide a mix of managed office, studio and workshop space, so there is probably some workshop space available as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you focus on retail warehouse and multi let industrial estates across southern England.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you hold retail warehouses and industrial estates across southern England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, somewhere across the retail warehouse and industrial estates you hold in southern England, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Iain, I saw you invest across all asset classes throughout the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Iain, I noticed your focus on commercial property in various sectors.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Iain, I would be surprised if every one of your assets in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Adrian, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Corby.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Adrian, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Adrian, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andy, I saw you focus on inspiring serviced offices in Bucks and Oxfordshire.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andy, I saw you hold serviced offices and shared homes across Bucks and Oxfordshire.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andy, across Bucks and Oxfordshire, serviced offices like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello David, I saw you provide flexible office space in Maidenhead.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello David, I saw you hold commercial property across Maidenhead.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello David, a flexible office portfolio the size of yours in Maidenhead rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alex, I saw you hold mixed-use developments across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alex, I saw you have a diverse portfolio including mixed-use developments and strategic land purchases.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Alex, across the UK, mixed-use developments like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kinga, I saw you run a commercial property business out of London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kinga, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Kinga, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Camilla, I read in your results that your flagship occupancy is 96%, the highest H1 occupancy for seven years.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Camilla, I saw you hold retail property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Camilla, a retail portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, I read in your results that occupancy improved modestly towards the year end.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, I saw you provide commercial business premises across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charlie, across London, commercial property like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nathaniel, I saw you offer hotdesks and artist studios in Birmingham.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nathaniel, I saw you run a creative workspace across Birmingham.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nathaniel, I noticed you have a 10,000 Sq ft independent creative workspace at Melting Pot Birmingham, so there is probably some space being marketed as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roy, I saw you have a small storage/industrial unit available for rent.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty units, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roy, I saw you manage industrial estates across the South East.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Roy, I noticed a small storage unit is available for rent, and if that is still the case, I would guess some of your other units are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you manage a portfolio of approximately 15,000 acres of land on around 100 sites.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, a commercial property portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ben, I saw you hold a portfolio of 109 office, industrial and retail properties.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ben, I noticed your mix of office, industrial and retail properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Ben, there is usually a gap somewhere in a office, industrial and retail portfolio spread across the UK. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mo, I saw you provide various types of workspaces for businesses in Wimbledon.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mo, I saw you hold offices, workshops, and industrial units across Swindon and Reading.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mo, I noticed you have office space for rent in Theale, Reading starting from £30, so there is probably some space being marketed as we speak. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joelle, I saw you own office and residential spaces across Manchester, Liverpool and Nottingham.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joelle, I saw you hold an office and residential portfolio in three cities.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Joelle, somewhere across the office and residential spaces you hold in Manchester, Liverpool and Nottingham, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Petteri, I noticed you manage Victoria Gate, one of the UK’s premium retail and leisure destinations.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Petteri, I saw you hold retail and leisure destinations across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Petteri, there is usually a gap somewhere in a retail and leisure portfolio spread across the UK. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Fred, I read in your results that your occupancy is at 98%.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Fred, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Fred, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Bradley, I saw you focus on real estate investment and development in the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Bradley, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Bradley, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chandra, I saw you develop commercial properties in London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chandra, I saw you hold residential and commercial properties across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chandra, there is usually a gap somewhere in a residential and commercial portfolio spread across London. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you buy Landsec's 55 Old Broad Street building in a £282m deal.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold commercial property across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in London were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Luke, I saw 58 Wellington St is a Grade II property with 15,000 sq ft of office space.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Luke, I saw you manage commercial and residential properties across Yorkshire.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Luke, I noticed you're marketing 10,000 sq ft of office accommodation at 58 Wellington St, which makes me think some of your other offices are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mohamad, I saw you hold multifamily housing across London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mohamad, I noticed you have a robust portfolio featuring successful real estate investments.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mohamad, there is usually a gap somewhere in a multifamily housing portfolio spread across London. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christos, I saw you start a £22m reimagining of an Art Deco landmark.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christos, I saw you hold commercial property across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Christos, with the commercial property you hold across London, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jon, I saw you focus on commercial property in the North East.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jon, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Jon, across the North East, commercial property like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I saw you have a property investment portfolio in excess of £250m, made up of 24 properties.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I saw you hold commercial property across the Cambridgeshire countryside.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, there is usually a gap somewhere in a commercial property portfolio spread across the Cambridgeshire countryside. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you sold the 166 unit development One Eighty Stratford High Street to Aberdeen Asset Management for £60m.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, I saw you hold operational real estate across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello James, somewhere across the operational real estate you hold in the UK, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Eli, I saw you own a substantial freehold property formerly occupied by Peacocks at 286-288 London Road.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Eli, I saw you hold commercial and residential property across London and the South of England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Eli, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial and residential properties in London and the South of England were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nick, I saw you operate over 45,000 tonnes of combinable crop storage across two grain store sites in Norfolk.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nick, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Norwich.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Nick, I noticed a 25,000 tonne capacity storage facility for malting barley varieties, which makes me think some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I saw you specialise in developing a diverse range of properties across Staffordshire and the surrounding areas.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I noticed you offer both residential and commercial rentals in Staffordshire and Sheffield.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, there is usually a gap somewhere in a residential and commercial portfolio spread across Staffordshire and Sheffield. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Dean, I noticed Niddry Lodge is a modern red brick building.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Dean, I saw you hold serviced offices across London.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Dean, somewhere across the serviced offices you hold in London, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you developed Lodge Park, a Business Park specialising in renting Serviced Office Suites.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold office developments across Ipswich.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I would be surprised if every one of your office developments in Ipswich were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I saw you own 82 properties across England, Scotland and Wales.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I saw you hold commercial property across England, Scotland and Wales.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Chris, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in England, Scotland and Wales were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold a commercial property investment portfolio comprising various asset types.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold offices, industrial, trade, and warehousing across the Midlands and South of England.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, somewhere across the offices, industrial, trade, and warehousing you hold in the Midlands and South of England, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Basil, I saw you have directly acquired 87 properties representing in excess of 5.5 million sq ft of space.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Basil, I saw you hold commercial property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Basil, somewhere across the commercial property you hold in the UK, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I saw you hold industrial and office properties across London and the South East.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty units, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, I noticed your large portfolio predominantly invested in the industrial and office sectors.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Mark, a industrial and office portfolio the size of yours in London and the South East rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Santiago, I saw Finchley House has been completed and sold.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Santiago, I saw you hold offices across Hendon.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Santiago, across Hendon, offices like yours tend to have a floor or a unit standing idle. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I saw you run a commercial property business out of London.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I saw you hold commercial and residential property across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Craig, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in the UK were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I saw you acquired the former Grade II listed Leyton Municipal Offices to restore the building to its former glory.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I saw you hold offices and light industrial units across Lee Valley.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Michael, I noticed you are marketing office space at Legacy Business Centre, E10 5NP, and if that is still the case some of your offices are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Steven, I noticed you hold a portfolio across healthcare, PBSA and mixed-use developments.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Steven, I saw you run a commercial property business out of Knutsford.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Steven, a healthcare and mixed-use portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Krish, I saw you hold luxury residential and retail properties across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Krish, I noticed your portfolio includes a range of use classes, from restaurants to industrial units.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Krish, a luxury residential and retail portfolio the size of yours in the UK rarely has every unit let at once. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I saw you hold commercial property across Leeds and York.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I noticed your assets in excess of £100 million spread across various locations.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Andrew, I would be surprised if every one of your commercial properties in Leeds and York were occupied this month. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Yvette, I saw you acquired 35 Hills Road Cambridge, a 5,950 sq ft office located within the prime city centre office district.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Yvette, I saw you hold commercial property across Cambridge.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Yvette, with the commercial property you hold across Cambridge, something is usually standing empty somewhere. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, I saw you hold over 2.5m sq ft of prime commercial accommodation across the UK.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, I saw you have a diverse asset mix including leisure and retail properties across the UK.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Charles, somewhere across the commercial and retail you hold in the UK, something is almost certainly sitting empty. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Max, I saw you acquired a vacant industrial estate in Worthing.

I'm writing about the vacant business rates on that empty space, and the expected impact that the Court of Appeal decision on 29th July this year may have. The CoA overruled the case that box-shifting and intermittent occupation schemes have leaned on for years now. Occupation on its own is no longer enough. What counts now is whether the tenant had a real commercial reason to be in the building, beyond saving you the rates.

If you use one of those arrangements, your provider may not have mentioned it yet. If you don't, you are simply paying the lot. Our process was conceived in anticipation of this test, several months before the ruling: our tenant company takes a lease and genuinely trades from the building. You save 65 to 75% of the rates demand.

I can put a page together on one of your empty buildings, what you would save and why this holds up if anyone asks. Costs you nothing either way. Would that be useful?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Max, I saw you hold industrial properties across Worthing.

I wrote to you about empty rates, and the Court of Appeal ruling that changed what counts as occupation. If you do use a mitigation arrangement, two questions are worth putting to whoever runs it.

What is your occupier actually doing in the building, beyond saving you the rates? And could you prove it if a council asked?

Most arrangements were never built to answer that. Ours was: our tenant company trades from the property, and it would still have a reason to be there if the relief did not exist. We have mitigated business rates since 2008, for owners of every size, from single buildings to listed portfolios, and saved them hundreds of millions.

I can put ours next to what you run today, on one of your buildings. Worth a look?

Jeremy
Mothball

Hello Max, I saw you acquired a vacant industrial estate in Worthing, and if that is still the case some of your spaces are probably empty right now. Last email from me, promise.

Empty rates only hurt when something is actually standing empty, and from the outside I can't tell if that's true for you right now. If I'm wrong and everything is let, ignore me and long may it last.

If I'm right, the offer stands: our tenant company takes the rates demand off an empty building by genuinely trading from it, which is exactly the test the Court of Appeal has just made decisive. You save 65 to 75%.

One page on one of your buildings, the money you would save and the reasoning that holds it up if anyone asks. Shall I put it together?

Jeremy
Mothball