
Ye of little faith? The tax loophole that turns old pubs into places of worship
The windows are painted over, the woodwork is rotting and weeds have sprouted through the paving outside.
The former Duke of York pub in Clapham, south London, is not in the best of shape. It certainly does not look like somewhere used for regular prayer services.
Yet round the back, a piece of paper has been pinned to a door, inviting anyone who stumbles upon it to 'book a private religious worship session here'.
The notice provides contact details for Faithful Global, an inter-faith organisation whose website preaches 'the power of community, connection and inclusion'.
'Our mission is to see greater opportunities for local faith communities who are seeking suitable venues for their religious practices, community activities or private prayer.' it says. However, Faithful's mission may be more financial than spiritual. In fact, the organisation is the lynchpin of a corporate network whose primary aim appears to be tax avoidance, at the expense of cash-strapped councils battling a funding crisis.
Details about the scheme's reach, revealed in the Observer today, raise questions about whether Faithful – and its landlord clients – are diverting millions of pounds earmarked for public services into their pockets.
To religious groups in need of a place to gather, Faithful Global appears to be the answer to their prayers. As of last week, it listed 370 properties – stretching from Cornwall to Aberdeen – that can be booked as 'safe and accessible places of worship for people of all faith backgrounds'.
They range from tiny retail units to gleaming office blocks and football-pitch-sized warehouses that could hold a congregation of thousands. For lone worshippers, there is a calendar of upcoming open prayer sessions to join.
Faithful presents its business model as an ingenious way of harnessing the corporate profit motive for divine ends. At the heart of its proposition are business rates – taxes collected by local authorities from the occupants of commercial property. Landlords do not have to pay rates for up to six months after a tenant vacates their property. After that, the tax – worth £25bn a year to local authorities – kicks in again.
However, relief on these 'empty rates' is available to landlords who allow the property to be used free by a charity or community sports group. There is also an exemption for properties offered to faith groups under the religious worship exemption of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, legislation passed under Margaret Thatcher that also introduced the poll tax.
Tom Perry of business rates consultancy Holloway Bond says the aim is to align landlords' interests with the common good. 'The principle is that the property is made available for the public to use,' he said. 'If it's done right, it can be an ethical idea that's beneficial to people.' Or, as Faithful puts it, landlords can 'unlock their property's potential as a space for local worship and prayer, while also benefiting from reduced costs'.
However, information obtained by the Observer raises questions about whether property owners are holding up their end of the bargain.
A couple of miles down the road from the building that once housed the Duke of York pub lies a former dentists' surgery. It was also listed on the Faithful website in early March but did not appear to be usable for prayer sessions. Its front door was boarded up, the interior filled with building materials and junk.
When the Observer emailed Faithful posing as a potential landlord client, a representative responded within days. But a separate inquiry about the possibility of a faith group using the dentists' surgery elicited an automated message, promising a follow-up that never materialised. The property was removed from its listings soon after.
Over two weeks, the Observer monitored a calendar of open prayer sessions on the Faithful website. Most new listings were for dates in the past. The few that promoted upcoming sessions featured no information about the denomination of worship.
Shaylesh Patel runs Astop, an organisation that connects charities with landlords willing to offer rooms for free, incentivised partly by business rates relief. Like Perry, he believes that this model can deliver mutual benefit for landlords and charities or genuine faith groups, and thus for wider society.
'If you can imagine trying to tax a space where people go and pray, it would be unacceptable. You're trying to tax God,' he said. But Patel questioned whether Faithful's operation was in keeping with the intent of the exemption, pointing to a row that has arisen in Kent.
Dover district council is in dispute with the owners of Discovery Park – a sprawling life sciences hub near Sandwich. More than 60 units at the park have been claimed as places of worship, the council said. It has received legal advice that suggests the faith room exemption should not apply and is now preparing to pursue the owners of the park for £1m.
'If you're saying that 60 spaces in one business park are being used for faith purposes, that's not in the spirit of it at all,' said Patel. 'That's looking at the rules and trying to find loopholes.'
The site's owner, Discovery Park Estates, pulled in revenues of £22m in 2023, although it lost £169,000 before tax. But the company is just one part of a nationwide corporate network controlled by the Schreibers, a large London-based family of property investors who appear to be the scheme's biggest customers.
Companies controlled by members of the family also own the former Duke of York pub and a host of other venues listed on Faithful's website. Representatives of the family told the Observer that business rates on empty properties put a 'significant burden' on landlords. They said their use of the scheme was legitimate and did not constitute tax avoidance.
They also said that their properties at Discovery Park and elsewhere had been used for faith purposes, and that local authorities had been provided with evidence of this.
A court ruling from last year raises questions about how often some of the venues offered by Faithful are actually used for faith purposes. The case also laid bare the corporate interests behind the 'inter-faith organisation' itself.
Bradford Metropolitan borough council brought a successful claim against a property owner for unpaid rates. The resulting ruling named three companies behind what the judge described as a 'scheme' devised in 2021 for the purpose of tax avoidance.
One of the companies, Room for Faith Ltd, is based in the UK. Its sister firm, Local Faith Ltd (LFL), incorporated in Hong Kong, appears to be the corporate entity behind the Faithful website.
The nucleus of the scheme is a third business: Greater Manchester-based property consultancy Verity Commercial Services. The Faithful website describes Verity as a 'partner' and 'agent'. In fact, it was Verity that incorporated both Room for Faith Ltd and Local Faith Ltd in the first place, according to the ruling.
Verity's website sets out a very different mission to Faithful's. It boasts of a 'revolutionary' business rates mitigation product that beats previous tax avoidance models.
The Bradford court papers shed light on the apparent inner workings of the scheme. First, according to the ruling, Verity's landlord client grants a lease to Room for Faith Ltd. That company in turn subleases the property to Local Faith Ltd (LFL), the company behind Faithful Global. The property can then claim relief, with Verity pocketing a quarter of the savings its client makes.
The scheme appears to be the brainchild of Verity's founder and chief executive, Simon Dresdner, a veteran property consultant who is also a director of Room for Faith Ltd. His testimony in the Bradford case raises further questions about Faithful's prayer sessions.
In a statement submitted to the court, Dresdner referred to a meeting that Faithful claimed had taken place at one of its venues. He could not say how long the meeting lasted and could provide 'no evidence of how the premises was made available for worship', according to the ruling. In pictures of the event supplied to the court, the only person that could be identified was someone acting as an 'employee or agent' working for Verity.
The property 'had no electrical lighting', according to evidence submitted during the case. A council inspector had to be shown round by torchlight. Ultimately, the court found that there was 'no evidence that LFL was anything beyond a company upon which a legal right to occupy was conferred for no other purpose than the avoidance of liability to rates'.
Data published by local authorities indicates that Room for Faith and Local Faith Ltd have held dozens, if not hundreds, of leases across the country, from North Lincolnshire to South Ayrshire, and in multiple London boroughs, including Lambeth and Tower Hamlets. The variety of properties and locations means that the sums landlords can save vary significantly.
In Bradford, the council went to court for just £14,348.90. Dover said it was pursuing the owners of Discovery Park for more than £1m, although Discovery Park Estates says the sum in dispute is much lower. Verity's own website boasts that it has saved clients £18m with its scheme.
At a national level, the costs of business rates avoidance runs high. Councils lose about £250m a year due to all forms of business rates avoidance, according to a study by the Local Government Association in 2019. Birmingham cited declining business rates among the factors that plunged it into a state of financial distress in 2023, just one example of a local authority funding crisis that threatens to cripple public services.
So far, only a handful of councils have challenged the faith room tax avoidance scheme. But City of London is now understood to be providing assistance to less well-resourced local authorities, including Dover – part of a concerted effort to shut it down.
'Tackling business rates avoidance provides much-needed funds for public services and a level playing field for firms,' said a spokesperson.
'The City corporation is using its expertise to help other local authorities fight tax avoidance schemes as part of its commitment to creating a safe, secure environment for businesses and residents alike in the Square Mile and beyond.'
In the meantime, councils seeking to protect much-needed revenue must use what scant resources they have – or offer up a prayer.
Verity and Faithful Global did not return requests for comment.
There is every chance that members of the Schreiber family own an office block, a shopping centre or a disused pub near you.
From a nondescript three-storey brick building in London – home to 321 active companies, according to Companies House – this dynasty of property entrepreneurs controls a nationwide real-estate empire.
The Schreibers appear to be the biggest customers of the 'faith room' scheme, an audacious tax avoidance structure we reveal today.
The scheme allows landlords to avoid paying business rates if their property is being used by faith groups. But often there is little sign of devotional activity taking place.
One unlikely hive of religious fervour is Discovery Park Estates, a vast life sciences hub near Sandwich, Kent, owned by members of the Schreiber family. Dover district council is pursuing Discovery Park for £1m, challenging the company's designation of 60 of its units as faith rooms. A spokesperson for Discovery Park said the sum in dispute was much less than £1m and that it was only leasing 18 rooms to faith groups at present. The company said it had provided evidence to the council of the buildings being used for religious worship.
Discovery Park's chief executive, Mayer Schreiber, is one of nine siblings of a family that invests via its private office, Midos Group.
Midos is ultimately owned by 72-year-old Miriam Schreiber, one of two directors along with David Schreiber, who is the same age.
Midos owns Cornmill shopping centre in Darlington, via a company whose directors include a Jacob Schreiber. It also owns the Idlewells shopping centre, in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.
Companies controlled by David Schreiber also own the former Duke of York pub in Clapham, south London and the Regent Centre, an office block in Newcastle.
Another block on Newhall Street, Birmingham, is co-owned by a company whose owners include three members of the family: Miriam, Gyta and Osias.
All are listed as being or having faith rooms on the website of Faithful Global, an 'inter-faith organisation' at the heart of the scheme.
Midos Group said its use of the scheme was legitimate and did not constitute tax avoidance. 'All properties within this scheme have been made available and are accessible for faith-based activities,' it said, adding that local authorities had been provided with evidence of this. 'The current business rates system for vacant properties imposes a significant financial burden on landlords, penalising them for market conditions beyond their control,' it added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Badenoch ‘will get better as Tory leader as Thatcher did'
Kemi Badenoch will 'get better' as the Tory leader just as Margaret Thatcher did, the shadow chancellor said. As questions about Mrs Badenoch's leadership mount amid dire poll ratings, Sir Mel Stride said the Conservative Party had chopped and changed leaders far too often. He pointed out that Thatcher was seen as a poor opposition leader for months after taking over from Edward Heath in 1975, but she ended up becoming a political force, winning three general elections between 1979 and 1987. Some recent polls have been disastrous for the Conservatives, with one last month seeing them slip to fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats. In a speech on Thursday morning, Sir Mel vowed that the Tories would 'never again' put the economy at risk as Liz Truss did with her mini-Budget. Asked about Mrs Badenoch's leadership, he said: 'There's no need to change leadership. We've had too many leaders, we've had too many prime ministers chop and change. 'If you look at the nature of the challenge and the approach to it that I've set out, she is the person to meet it. She will get better through time at the media, she will get better through time at the dispatch box at PMQs. 'Just as Margaret Thatcher, when she became leader in '75, was often criticised for everything from her hair to the clothes she wore, to the pitch of her voice, to heaven knows what else, in the end she got it together. Kemi will do absolutely that.'


Telegraph
6 days ago
- Telegraph
Left-wing haters need a lesson in Thatcherism
Deputising for Charles Moore in these pages from time to time is more than enough to make my imposter syndrome run wild, but emulating him by writing a biography of Margaret Thatcher when he has already written a magnificent three volume one, is perhaps inevitably a step too far. Mine will be published on Thursday but is barely a pamphlet by comparison, and perhaps has a different objective. Its aim is twofold – to introduce her to a new generation, which wasn't alive when she was in power. It's astonishing to realise that, to have ever voted for Margaret Thatcher, you would have to be at least 54 years old. In the 35 years since her fall from power, so many myths have grown up about her that many younger Brits probably think she was responsible for the slaughter of the first born. There have been only three significant prime ministers since the war whose policies still impact the way we live today – Attlee, Thatcher and Blair. As Tony Benn would have put it, they were each signposts rather than weathervanes. But today's younger generations have been indoctrinated into believing that Margaret Thatcher was privileged and her policies were only ever aimed to benefit the rich. That's presumably why she oversaw the biggest transfer to the working classes in the history of our country – by which I mean the sale of council houses and encouraging ordinary people to buy shares in privatised companies. People believe she supported the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa because she didn't impose sanctions. In fact, she did more to bring Apartheid to an end than virtually anyone else, as our then Ambassador to South Africa, Robin Renwick, has detailed in his various books. Nelson Mandela personally thanked her for her role in getting him released and bringing the evils of that regime to an end. According to Left-wing haters, Thatcher did nothing for the environment. Yet it was she who was the head of government in the world to warn of the dangers of climate change in 1989 – before most people had ever heard of the term. If I was wanting to court controversy, I could also have said she closed down most of the coal industry, something our current Government is urging China and others to do. That she was a dictator who brooked no dissent is another myth about Lady Thatcher. Yes, she would lead from the front and challenge others to defeat her argument, but there are countless occasions when people did just that and contrary to their fears, their careers prospered. It's how John Major got into the cabinet. A theme of the book is also that although she revelled in being seen as a conviction politician, in reality she was very pragmatic and realised that a bull in a china shop approach rarely achieved the desired results. Trade union reform is a case in point. Contrary to popular myth, Thatcher was not 'anti-European' and most people who knew her doubt she would have supported Brexit. Her famous Bruges speech, where she said she said 'We haven't successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state only to see them reimposed at a European level' was actually very pro-European if people took the time to read the whole thing. Woke up Did you know that men can have periods and menstruate? Nope, me neither. But that's the latest quackery promoted by the more extreme parts of the trans lobby. Their logic, presumably, is that trans men are men (just as 'transwomen are women'), and as such they continue to menstruate. Bunzl, one of the biggest toiletry suppliers in the UK, has produced an inclusive language guide, God save us. It recommends that common terms such as 'sanitary', 'hygiene' and 'feminine products' should be replaced with the term 'period products' to avoid offence. Who on earth is supposed to be offended? This sort of ridiculous virtue-signalling idiocy needs to be called out by people across the board, and not just those with Nigel and Farage in their names. Biological men cannot menstruate. Fact. And that's the end of it. Every little helps For a Government that repeatedly tells us that it is unashamedly pro-growth, it has spent much of its first year in power introducing policies which achieve the exact opposite, and the chickens are starting to come home to roost. I've lost count of the number of business people I know who have imposed recruitment freezes, had to shed workers or cancel planned pay rises as a result of the decision to increase Employers' National Insurance to 15 per cent and cut the threshold to £5,000, and in addition increase the minimum wage by 6.7 per cent. There is no form of political or economic sophistry that Rachel Reeves can deploy to persuade us that there measures are anything else but growth killers. Tesco now tell us they're planning for many of their stores to shut an hour earlier as their costs have increased by £235 million, just from the NI hike alone. Proof, were it ever needed, that actions have consequences.


Telegraph
7 days ago
- Telegraph
Labour has wiped out Thatcher's legacy
The Thatcherite dream finally died this month. Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in office had a long afterlife, perhaps longer than that of any prime minister other than Clement Attlee. She reimagined both her own party and indeed that of her Labour opponents. There would have been no Blairite interregnum in the socialist party's relentless 'egalitarianism before all else' philosophy without her. Even more significantly, Mrs Thatcher transformed British society – at least for a while. But 35 years after leaving Downing Street for the last time, Thatcherism has finally expired. The Iron Lady's legacy has not managed to survive the vicissitudes of Keir Starmer's Government. With the renationalisation of South Western Railway as the next step towards the full state ownership of Britain's railways, that moment has come to an end. Rail privatisation, only enacted in 1993 when John Major was prime minister and implemented amid the last gasps of 18 years of Tory rule, was a late flowering of the valiant attempt to roll back the frontiers of the state. Its implementation was bodged and the infrastructure soon fell back into public ownership in 2002. The privatisation programme started slowly in Mrs Thatcher's first term with various sell-offs, most notably the flotation of 51pc of British Aerospace in 1981. It really took off and grabbed the public imagination with the float of British Telecom in 1984. Millions of people on ordinary incomes caught the bug for investing in shares and these sales were hugely oversubscribed. Privatisation was not just an attempt to inject dynamism into the British economy, although it undoubtedly achieved this. Thatcherism has been denounced by the Left as an attempt to transform the very ethos of the UK, to dismantle the collectivist assumptions that had taken hold since the Second World War. They pillory Mrs Thatcher for declaring that there is no such thing as society (she never said it) and that we owe our fellow citizens nothing in terms of social solidarity (she did not believe that either). The Left are wrong in this caricature, but they are right to say that Thatcherism was an attempt to fundamentally change our country's character. And privatisation – alongside council house sales – was a cornerstone of this mission. At the 1985 Tory party conference Mrs Thatcher declared that she hoped a day would come 'where owning shares is as common as having a car'. She saw that by spreading the benefits of ownership, both of people's homes but also of the country's assets, Britain could become an entrepreneurial society; a country where bosses and workers saw themselves as in conflict could become one where all strived for affluence. In short, Mrs Thatcher hoped Britain would have an American future, where the accumulation of wealth was seen as a virtue, not a sin. She believed that once people have a proprietorial stake in the country – be that via owning their council house or possessing a few hundred shares in BP or British Steel – old class antagonisms would over time wither away. The Left saw these privatisations as a bribe; just as council house sales were discounted, shares were deliberately underpriced so the public could make a quick buck. And they are right in this analysis, but it was not an electoral bung but rather a strategy to change public attitudes. Perhaps the apotheosis of this campaign was the 1986 'Tell Sid' advertising campaign for the sale of British Gas. Its message was unapologetic: these flotations are for everyone. And it worked, those owning shares directly rose from around three million people in 1979, or around 7pc of adults, to over 12 million, or nearly a quarter of adults, when Mrs Thatcher left office. This was further augmented by the big demutualisations of the late 1990s – Abbey National in 1989, Northern Rock in 1997 and Standard Life in 2006. This trend has reversed. The proportion of UK-listed shares directly owned by UK-resident individuals was 10.8pc at the end of 2022, down from 12pc just two years earlier. Today 57.7pc of UK shares by value are owned by overseas investors, a record high. If you go back to the 1960s, those figures are reversed with 54pc of shares owned by British individuals. This had fallen to 28pc by 1981. Mrs Thatcher did not reverse the overall trend in a declining percentage of the stock market being directly owned by individuals, but did vastly increase the number of people owning those shares. The long-term decline is not an entirely negative one. The days when the well-off would buy, say, £10,000 of Marks & Spencer shares and then hold them for 40 years are gone. And that is not a bad thing; pooled investment funds are clearly a far wiser and less risky route for investment for most people than simply buying individual blue chip stocks and holding them for the long term. Additionally, it is inevitable as so many of the privatised and demutualised companies have been taken over, bought by private equity or are no longer with us for other reasons. But more broadly, the agenda of popular capitalism has been reversed. The decline has been long and gradual, but has been vastly accelerated by Starmer's Government. One of its early actions in office was to hugely cut the discount that council tenants receive on buying their home. In London the maximum discount was reduced in November from £136,400 to £16,000. Mrs Thatcher's 1980s dream of making Britain more laissez-faire and more American in attitude is now sadly dead. Labour has deliberately extinguished it.