Pat McFadden, UK work and pensions secretary (Image: GETTY)

Taxpayers have been charged almost £10million in rent, rates and service charges on “ghost” Department for Work and Pensions buildings – including one that stood unused for almost three years at a cost of £2.3million. The department carried on paying for 13 sites after moving its staff out, two of which it left in January 2024 on leases that do not end until March 2028. It admits it will still be paying for eight empty buildings this year.

News of the bill comes as ministers boast of saving £43million a year by shutting 14 government buildings, with Cabinet Office minister Anna Turley promising “a leaner, fairer government estate”. The DWP figures, released under Freedom of Information laws, show £5.9million was paid in rent on the vacant sites from the day each was emptied, plus £2.3million in business rates and £1.5million in service charges.

Its annual report records a ‘constructive loss’ of £4.3million on rent for decommissioned sites in 2025-26 alone. Costliest was a site vacated in July 2023 on which the DWP went on paying £2.3million in rent and rates for almost three years while it stood empty.

Two more sites emptied in January 2024 are costing £425,000 a year in rent between them and are tied in until 2028.

The DWP refused to say where any of the buildings are, claiming that revealing the locations of its empty offices could help criminals to”attack those locations”. It said there had been “instances in the past where DWP buildings have been targeted”.

Asked whether it had tried to break the leases, sublet the buildings or hand them back, the department would say only that it “will explore the potential for early surrender or disposal” once a property is approved for disposal.

The DWP said it expected to continue paying rent on eight empty properties during 2026-27, at a total of £1,841,737.

Benjamin Elks, grassroots development manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for buildings to stand empty. It’s better to surrender or sublet offices, potentially for use by other public bodies, rather than leave taxpayers on the hook for both rents and potential damages.

“Local councils and quangos seeking expensive new HQs could be given this public sector space, to save taxpayers some money.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “Saving the taxpayer money is a clear priority, and we have reduced the number of our vacant sites this year. When we no longer need a building for frontline or operational use, we look to close it to save running costs, and always look at opportunities to sublet or hand back properties early.”

Taxpayers Fleeced for £10 Million as DWP Leaves 13 ‘Ghost’ Offices Standing Empty – Fresh Government Spending Scandal

A major public spending controversy has erupted after new figures revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spent almost £10 million maintaining 13 office buildings it had already vacated.

The revelations have raised serious questions about government property management, financial accountability and the use of taxpayers’ money at a time when millions of British households are struggling with the cost of living.

According to figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request, the department spent approximately £9.7 million on rent, business rates and service charges for 13 buildings that were no longer being occupied by DWP staff.

The findings have prompted criticism from taxpayer campaigners, who argue that the public should not be left paying millions of pounds for empty government offices.

But why are these buildings still costing taxpayers so much money?

£9.7 Million Spent on 13 Empty Buildings

The figures reveal a substantial financial commitment associated with offices that DWP had already moved out of.

The reported £9.7 million expenditure was divided into three main categories:

• £5.9 million in rent payments.
• £2.3 million in business rates.
• £1.5 million in service charges.

Together, these payments represent a significant cost to the public purse.

One particularly expensive building reportedly accounted for £2.3 million in rent and rates over almost three years after the department vacated it in July 2023.

Two other properties, emptied in January 2024, were reportedly costing approximately £425,000 annually in rent between them.

Their leases are understood to continue until March 2028.

The department also acknowledged that it expected to spend approximately £1.84 million on rent for eight empty buildings during the 2026 financial year.

These figures have intensified calls for the government to explain why the properties have not been handed back to landlords or found new occupants.

Why Are the Offices Still Empty?

The central issue appears to involve the complicated lease arrangements associated with government buildings.

Many public-sector offices are rented rather than owned outright.

When departments decide to relocate staff or consolidate operations, they cannot necessarily walk away from their contractual obligations immediately.

Some agreements include minimum rental periods, break clauses and other conditions governing when a property can be returned.

This means taxpayers can continue funding a building even after government employees have stopped working there.

The DWP has previously explained that its property transformation programme involves reducing the number of offices, moving employees into larger locations and making better use of available space.

However, the latest figures demonstrate that the financial consequences of leaving buildings can continue long after staff have moved elsewhere.

DWP Refuses to Reveal the Locations

Another aspect of the controversy concerns the department’s refusal to identify the 13 properties.

According to the report, DWP argued that disclosing the locations could increase the risk of criminal attacks against those buildings.

The decision has attracted questions from transparency campaigners.

Critics argue that taxpayers should be able to understand which properties are costing public money and whether the department is taking sufficient steps to reduce the expenditure.

The government must balance transparency against legitimate security concerns, but the financial questions remain.

How many buildings are still costing taxpayers money?

When will the leases end?

And what steps are being taken to avoid unnecessary payments?

These are reasonable questions for a department responsible for billions of pounds in public expenditure.

Taxpayer Campaigners Demand Action

Benjamin Elks of the TaxPayers’ Alliance criticised the continued expenditure on vacant government properties.

The organisation argued that the department should investigate options such as ending leases early, subletting suitable premises or transferring buildings to other public-sector organisations.

The concern is that taxpayers could remain responsible for unnecessary costs simply because government departments have failed to resolve complicated property arrangements quickly enough.

The DWP has defended its approach, saying that saving taxpayers’ money remains a priority.

A spokesperson also indicated that the department considers opportunities to sublet properties or return them to landlords early.

The department said it had reduced the number of vacant sites during the year.

Government Promises to Reduce Waste

The controversy comes as the government continues its wider programme of reducing the cost of maintaining public-sector buildings.

In February 2026, the government announced that closing three expensive central London offices had generated more than £17 million in savings over six months.

The closure programme included 10 Victoria Street, which was expected to save approximately £8.8 million annually.

The planned closure of Caxton House was also expected to generate further savings.

These examples demonstrate that consolidating government offices can produce substantial financial benefits.

However, the DWP’s empty-building costs raise questions about how quickly those benefits can be achieved when departments remain tied to existing leases.

What Does This Mean for Ordinary Taxpayers?

For households already facing higher bills, the prospect of millions of pounds being spent on unused offices is likely to be frustrating.

The DWP is responsible for administering important services, including:

• State Pension payments.
• Universal Credit.
• Personal Independence Payment.
• Pension Credit.
• Employment and disability support.

These services affect millions of people throughout Britain.

Every pound spent maintaining unnecessary buildings is money that cannot be used elsewhere in the public finances.

That does not mean every property can immediately be returned without financial consequences.

Breaking a commercial lease can involve substantial penalties, and sometimes remaining in a contract is cheaper than ending it early.

Nevertheless, the department should demonstrate that its decisions are based on careful financial calculations rather than administrative delays.

Questions the Government Must Answer

The latest revelations leave several important questions for ministers and DWP management.

Why were the 13 buildings not handed back sooner?

Were alternative tenants or government departments approached?

What would it cost to terminate the remaining leases early?

How much more public money will be spent before the properties are finally returned?

And will the department publish more detailed information about its vacant property portfolio?

The public deserves clear answers, particularly when the expenditure involves millions of pounds.

Conclusion: Millions Spent While Government Offices Stand Empty

The reported £9.7 million expenditure on 13 vacant DWP offices has reignited the debate about waste and accountability in government.

Although complicated commercial leases can make it difficult to leave buildings immediately, taxpayers are entitled to expect departments to manage these arrangements efficiently.

The DWP says it is working to reduce vacant properties and explore options for ending unnecessary commitments.

However, the figures demonstrate why greater scrutiny is needed.

Britain’s taxpayers should not be left wondering why millions of pounds continue to disappear into buildings that government employees no longer use.

The real issue is not simply how much has already been spent, but how much more taxpayers will be expected to pay before these so-called ghost offices finally disappear from the government’s property bill.