I have been contacted by concerned constituents affected by the failure of Collective Spirit Free School following a social media post by its former CEO.
In the post it is claimed that the allegations made against those who ran the school were proven to be false. While the post does not state which allegations, it is important the record is put straight for the avoidance of any doubt. All the points raised here are supported by links to official sources.
I have decided to post this response, not to enter a back and forth exchange with anyone connected with the two schools, but to give assurance to former parents, pupils and staff who I have supported through their complaints, including over 100 people who signed a parent lead petition demanding an inquiry, and to the brave young people who submitted a personal impact statement.
This is a long post, but I hope anyone with an interest reads it through.
The complaints relating to the Collective Spirit Free School and Manchester Studio School are broadly in two areas; firstly, safeguarding and child protection failures, and secondly allegations of financial misconduct and corruption.
*SAFEGUARDING AND CHILD PROTECTION *
As with all allegations and concerns brought to me relating to safeguarding, they are reported as a matter of course, including cases relating to Collective Spirit Free School.
On the general complaints relating to safeguarding and child protection I can confirm that far from being proven to be false, the opposite is true. Many failures were confirmed by Ofsted inspectors during formal visits to Collective Spirit Free School in May 2016 and to the Manchester Creative Studio School in March 2017.
It was also clear, from a follow up Ofsted inspection to Collective Spirit Free School in November 2016 that the failures continued, stating that leaders and managers were not taking effective action, and that the action plan was not fit for purpose. On specific cases; one case relating to a former staff member is currently being investigated by the police and is ongoing.
Another investigation by a Safeguarding Partnership has concluded and now confirmed that the failure of the school contributed to the prolonged sexual abuse of a pupil by a family member. Four other individual cases have been raised with the appropriate authorities along with allegations that DBS checks were not conducted, and allegations that the safeguarding register was falsified.
All these concerns have been reported formally and it is important that due process is followed.
*FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT AND CORRUPTION*
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION REVIEW
On the allegations made on financial misconduct and corruption, it cannot be concluded that these allegations were proven to be false. What is not yet known, and what is required of the current ongoing investigation, is to discover the true scale of it. What we do know is detailed in large part in the investigation conducted by the Department for Education which reported its findings in May 2019. I would encourage those with an interest to read the report themselves, following the link provided.
The sample review looked at one of the trading companies which provided services to the schools; Collective Spirit Community Trust Limited, and the involvement of three individuals; Alun Morgan, Chair of Directors of both trusts; Raja Miah CEO of both trusts; and the former Chair of Collective Spirit Free School governing body Mohib Uddin.
The allegations made by whistle blowers were that money was paid to connected companies which was not declared, and that some of that was for activity which was not carried out; essentially that they were fraudulent transactions. The investigation found that only £139,676 (27.7%) was declared, but payments totalling £502,835 were discovered through the investigation. The allegation that payments were not declared was therefore proven to be true.
The investigation found there was a failure to manage conflicts of interest, that key trustees failed to declare connections, that transactions with a connected party were not adequately managed or sufficiently disclosed, that the board of trustees failed in their duties as company directors, that there was a failure to comply with the financial accountability system for academy trusts, including the relevant areas of HMT’s Managing Public Money and the Nolan principles which are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
What the review was unable to confirm, was whether the money was taken for activity which wasn’t carried out. It is not the case that this was proven to be false, but it said; “robust financial control systems, adequate financial oversight and relevant documentation to support contractual management and financial transactions by the trusts has impacted upon ESFA reaching any conclusion on the validity of funds paid to Collective Spirit Community Trust.” This was because contracts and invoices had either been removed or destroyed, or perhaps that they did not exist in the first place.
The review also found that operational staff were so concerned that they attempted to withhold payments, and that correspondence confirmed staff had questioned why invoices were being submitted when there was no evidence that activity had been carried out. An instruction to make the payment was made by Mohib Uddin. The Education and Skills Funding Agency requested assurances that outstanding payments were compliant with the rules, this assurance was provided by Mohib Uddin in writing.
It concluded that these assurances were inadequate, given what was discovered and suggested that Mohib Uddin had potentially breached directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006, by failing to act in the best interests of the trust.
Despite staff raising concern, both Alun Morgan as Chair of Directors and Mohib Uddin as Chair of the governing body confirmed to the investigation that no specific work had been conducted by themselves or the boards to investigate staff concerns relating to invoice increases and potential lack of delivery of certain services.
The report suggests that this is a potential breach of rules governing academies and free schools which states that trusts must take appropriate action where fraud, theft and/or irregularity is suspected or identified. What stood out as being odd, was that on interview, the Chair of Directors, Alan Morgan who stood as a 50% shareholder of the company said he had ‘limited knowledge of being a shareholder.’
It was alleged that the leadership of the schools made attempts to avoid declaring interests, for instance standing down from positions which required them to declare interests, but in truth, had maintained control in the background. The review found that the former CEO, Raja Miah resigned as a director of both trusts in 2014, but continued to attend board meetings with minutes presented confirming he would have oversight for finance and governance. It also found that he had clear connections with the company including personally chasing payment from the school as late as 2017.
Further, the investigation found that staff and new governors reported that school owned IT equipment was retained by former trustees long after their involvement had ceased.
WHAT REMAINS OUTSTANDING
What is important to recognise is that even with this limited review, there remains significant questions directly relating to the former CEO, Raja Miah and others.
These include a range of companies and individual payments which did not form part of the Department for Education review, these include Collective Community Partnerships UK C.I.C. whose sole shareholder was Raja Miah, and which declared payments of at least £485,258. Social Mavericks LTD, again sole shareholder Raja Miah, which declared payments of at least £240,622. Rise 2010 CIC which declared payments of at least £45,583 and Raja Miah individually with direct personal payments of at least £163,229. It is essential that these companies are subject to the same review as Collective Spirit Community Trust Limited.
There are several other companies, some of which have a clear connection, some of which are less clear, which require investigation. Because these have not been covered by official reports, I will not publish them, it is important due process is followed. I am also mindful that in the midst of the complicated web of companies and transactions, some innocent people will be caught up in it, and they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Across all similar activity paid out of the two schools it has been asked that transactions of £2.8m are considered for a full review.
VAT FRAUD
Allegations were also made that the Manchester Studio School was used as a host address for VAT fraud. It was confirmed that in invoicing for services, Morgan Bristol Limited, had obtained the VAT number of a company with a similar name to invoice for services provided to Oldham Council. The £31,090 fraud was discovered after whistle blowers came forward.
It was also confirmed that the actual address used; 70 Henry Street, was not listed on the Royal Mail address database, but is the side steel fire exit door of the Manchester Creative Studio School. This address was also used by other companies.
FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS
It was reported by Schoolsweek newspaper that Alun Morgan, Raja Miah and Mohib Uddin had been blacklisted from further involvement in schools, but despite this Raja Miah established The Supply School Ltd, providing supply teaching staff to schools.
Lord Agnew, an Education Minister at the time, confirmed in writing that he remained concerned that the future involvement of the three individuals named within the report. He went on to confirm that he had written to them making that position clear. In addition, he confirmed that he had instructed Regional Schools Commissioners to inform him directly should they become aware of any further involvement of the three named individuals within schools in their region.
There is much more, which because this has already been a long post, I will not go into the detail here, not least of all because I believe in due process and they need to be fully investigated first. Needless to say, any suggestion that allegations surrounding financial conduct could be considered to have been ‘proven to the false’ is far from the truth.
SOUTH CHADDERTON SCHOOL
The post also references that the site of the former South Chadderton School was; “’promised’ in a land deal to one of these “shadowy associates.” This defamatory comment, like many others made over the past year and a half, is purely an attempt to deflect my legitimate challenge on this case.
It is a matter of fact that on the merger of South Chadderton School and Kaskenmoor School to create the Oasis Academy that both sites would be redeveloped, with the income allocated to the Building Schools for the Future Project. It is categorically not the case that the land was promised, let alone with anyone who could be considered ‘shadowy’. Again, and for the avoidance of doubt, my only involvement in any aspect of the South Chadderton site since becoming an MP has been both to ensure the vacated school was returned back to the council, and taxpayers of Oldham, and that Whitegate End Primary School had continued use of the playing field.
FINALLY
Finally, in taking this case on, no one could have foreseen the vengeance that would follow from Raja Miah and his associates. I know many decent people have been attacked, had their character dragged through the mud, and felt threatened and deeply affected by his actions. I know too well the impact this can have and the toll it can take, and I hope you know that while I am deeply sorry for the abuse you are going through, I would still pursue this case, even knowing now what was to follow.
Politics is about people; and the pupils, parents and staff who have asked me to be their voice matter to me. I have no intention of letting them down.
Of course, what follows is now for the authorities to pursue. I sincerely hope they do so without fear or favour.
Jim McMahon OBE MP
Member of Parliament for Oldham West and Royton
INDEPENDENT LINKS
*Department for Education review published May 2019* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-report-manchester-creative-studio-and-collective-spirit-free-school
Findings from the visit and subsequent work beyond that identified a number of significant failings in both the governance and financial control arrangements, including several breaches of the regulatory framework governing academy trusts. These include:
- Failure to manage conflicts of interest resulting in a breach of AFH 3.1.12
- Key trustees failed to declare connections with CSCT breaching the AFH 3.1.13
- Transactions with a connected party (CSCT) were not adequately managed or sufficiently disclosed in the 2015/16 financial statements resulting in a breach of AFH 3.1.14 and the Academies Accounts Direction
- Failure to establish a control framework that recognises public expectations about governance, standards and openness, a breach of AFH 2.3.2
- The board of trustees failed in their duties as company directors as set out in the Companies Act 2006 to: avoid conflicts of interest declare interest in proposed transactions or arrangements exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
- Failure to comply with the financial accountability system for academy trusts, including the relevant areas of HMT’s Managing Public Money and the Nolan principles – AFH 1.1.2
*Manchester Creative Studio School published in March 2017* https://files.api.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/2677777
- Governors do not fulfil their statutory safeguarding duties. Governors’ policies, procedures and practice are ineffective
- The arrangements for safeguarding are ineffective.
- There are serious failures in relation to safeguarding arrangements. Leaders do not adhere to their own safeguarding policies and procedures.
- Where incidents occur, senior leaders do not share the information that they have with each other so that appropriate action can be taken.
- During the inspection, inspectors received information relating to the well-being and safety of pupils in the school.
- The concerns raised by a number of pupils and staff during the inspection are now being examined by the appropriate bodies.
- Leaders do not record safeguarding incidents appropriately.
- They do not have sufficiently detailed records of incidents that take place in the school or of the subsequent investigations that they undertake.
- Leaders do not routinely undertake health and safety checks to ensure that students in the sixth form are safe at their work experience placements.
- Pupils receive information about radicalisation and extremism. However, leaders do not ensure that, should it occur, pupils would know how to recognise the signs of radicalisation in their own lives.
- Leaders do not monitor the effectiveness of online filtering systems and governors do not receive reports on the how effectively their systems keep pupils safe when online. Consequently, leaders and governors do not know whether the school’s filters are age appropriate and whether they effectively protect pupils from inappropriate content.
- Nearly half of parents who responded to Parent View, Ofsted’s online survey, think that pupils are not safe in the school.
- Current safeguarding arrangements do not allow leaders to engage effectively with parents and other stakeholders.
- Pupils think that there is a culture of ‘turning a blind eye’ to issues that arise in the school.
*Collective Spirit Free School in May 2016*
https://files.api.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/2578127 1
- The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
- While procedures for child protection, risk assessment and health and safety are in place, the policies for safeguarding and child protection and attendance displayed on the school’s website are out of date.
- Pupils who the lead inspector met formally and informally said that they did not feel safe from bullying and fighting around the school and parents agree.
Jim McMahon OBE MP 