SPILL THE BEANS ON MONEY GAGS
Wheatley ordered to hand over details of deals to stop former staff from talking
Scotland’s largest housing association has been ordered to publish details of the amounts of money paid to keep ex-staff quiet.
The Wheatley Group has previously refused to reveal information about gagging orders called non- disclosure agreements ( NDAs) it has issued between 2009 and 2014.
But after a two-year probe byy the Scottish Information
Commissioner (SIC), it has been told it has until next month to release full details of its NDAs or face legal action.
Wheatley – once Glasgow Housing Association – has so far revealed £100,000 was paid in settlements with ex-workers signing NDAs since 2014.
But insiders claim the pre-2014 total is far higher.
A source said: “There have been allegations of disgruntled and a hard done- by workers silenced s with [NDAs].
“This ruling might reveal some s of those details.”
Many firms use NDAs to protect p commercially sensitive data but campaigners say they are also used to cover up abuse and mismanagement at work.
In 2019 an extension of freedom of information laws meant housing associations now have a legal duty to provide the public with information.
Wheatley Group was quizzed on details of settlements it paid out between 2009 and 2019.
But the firm – headed by £ 296,000-a-year CEO Martin Armstrong – refused to supply all the info. It said it didn’t hold records prior to 2014 and there was no requirement to release.
But after an appeal, the SIC said records held by its lawyers are covered by FOI laws.
Activist Sean Clerkin, of the
Scottish Tenant Organisation, which requested the first FOI, said: “They spend public money so we should know what is done with it and that includes the use of historic gagging orders.”
In 2017 Wheatley’s pervy finance director Mark Logan, 53, avoided jail after admitting to hiding spy cameras in toilets at its Glasgow HQ.
The Wheatley Group said Logan had been sacked and not got an NDA, adding: “It was our understanding information about employees, held by external lawyers for business purposes, was not ours to release. However, we respect the Commissioner’s decision and will release the further information.”