 
 - Download
this document in Adobe PDF Format (738 MB)
Investigation of multiple-occupancy addresses
11 May 2004
Robert James
White Wulf Consultants
Gable Cottage
The Green
Dunham-on-Trent
Newark
Nottinghamshire
NG22 0TU
email: robertj@cix.co.uk
Rob Walker
Rob Walker Consultancy
64 Histon Road
Cottenham
Cambridgeshire
CB4 8UD
email: robwalker@cix.co.uk
Executive Summary
Addresses of multiple occupancy properties, where several addressees share the same address, have been identified in several parts of the Project Acacia work as an area requiring more detailed investigation. Multiple occupancy can be hard to identify and affects an estimated 10-20% of property nationally.
This report is the output of a short study of multiple occupancy addresses in the City of Nottingham. The object of the exercise was to identify and investigate issues associated with these addresses. The report considers some groups of multi-occupancy properties and identifies the different needs and practices of the Acacia partners in recording this type of address in the different source datasets.
A general definition of multiple occupancy has been adopted:
This encompasses commercial property and flats where there is a lesser level of sharing as well as shared houses and bed-sits.
The address datasets from NLPG, Council Tax, non-domestic rates, OS MasterMap (derived from the Royal Mail PAF) and Land Registry were analysed to find multiple occupancy addresses. It is not straightforward to identify these addresses from these files. Only the PAF and datasets originated from it attempt to identify concealed multiple occupancy (that is one door with many occupants behind it). Some shared multiple occupancy is identified in the VOA data where a premise pays both Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates. In the other datasets, multiple occupancy addresses can only be identified by investigation of the structure and semantics of the address.
The source files are not compatible in structure or content. All have different rules for inclusion of multiple-occupancy addresses. It was found that there are many omissions and duplicates, and business addresses are recorded poorly in all files. All of the files seem to exhibit significant lag between changes and updates.
Only a full comparison of all the files that would involve the standardisation of data structures and re-presentation of data content will enable these issues of quality and consistency to be resolved. An outline of how this might be done is provided. Part of this process is the need to establish standards for data recording that could be applied across all stakeholder datasets. This can be undertaken independently of the wider process.
Much multiple occupancy is not recorded, for example. student halls of residence and care homes of all kinds. Consideration should be given to how those properties in multiple occupation that are of interest to other areas of government could be recorded.
|
