A High Court judge has thrown out an appeal by a housing association boss in a row over a conflict of interest involving his partner and a firm of solicitors
Co-operative Development Society executive director David Rodgers faces a five figure legal bill after the High Court dismissed his complaint against the Housing Corporation over remarks about his standards of probity.

The case has raised questions about the scope of the corporation's regulatory powers.

The dispute began in 1997 when the corporation criticised Rodgers over the use of Lewis Silkin as the association's solicitors. Gillian Bastow, who Rodgers has lived with since 1989, was a partner at the firm. Although Rodgers declared an interest in two discussions about the firm, he did not leave the room and took part in the discussion.

In a letter to CDS the corporation claimed Rodger's action was "not the standard of probity we expect from someone in his position." Rodgers applied for judicial review because he claimed the agency's comments had damaged his reputation.

But the High Court dismissed the application, and ruled that the corporation could make such comments as part of its regulatory role.

In his ruling Mr Justice Dyson said that Rodgers had "behaved honourably and with the utmost candour", but the corporation "was entitled" to comment on the need to see that there was fair play.

Rodgers was ordered to pay costs, which could be over £40,000, and was refused leave to appeal.

Speaking afterwards he said: "I'm not a fat cat and I'm now going to be a very lean one."

He claimed the lack of a right to appeal against the corporation's criticism, however harsh, was a "serious problem".

He said that corporation's powers "have more in common with those of an autocratic state than with the principles of transparent accountability and the protection of the rights and liberties of citizens."

A corporation spokeswoman said it was "regrettable" that the dispute had reached the court, but that the agency's approach had been vindicated.

Rodgers said: "Their actions have been ruled not subject to judicial review. It does not vindicate them."

A spokesman for the National Housing Federation said he could not comment on the case, but added: "An effective and credible appeals mechanism would be in the best interests of the regulator and regulated alike."

Source

Housing Today