Is this admission fraud? AIBU to report it?

Some friends of mine rented near a grammar school and renovated their existing property which took about a year. Very convenient timing, but it's just part of the game.
It is kind of the reason why previous governments wanted to move away from GS system as it just enables the pointy elbowed middle classes who can afford tutoring and the property price uplift.
Suck it up, she played the game and played it well.

so people with money spend a fortune on their dc passing the 11+
is that fair

none of this is fair
but as said, people want their best for their children

Money talks. Get over it and focus 100% on making sure you do the best for your own DC.

I would also be frustrated OP. But when we talked of unfair advantage, that's unfortunately how the entire system is. You don't have the money to buy a house in the catchment area? Too bad. You don't have money for tutoring? Too bad. You don't have money to feed your kids well so they can perform well in class? Too bad. Your parents are neglectful alcoholics/struggling with their own MH which impacts you/you attend a primary with a plethora of pupils with high needs meaning less time and attention for brighter kids? Too bad.

People, yourself included, use what they have to confer advantage to the level they can. Has always been thus and, I suspect, will always be thus.

You've both used money to climb over the heads of poorer children though?

Yes. It's what is allowed in practice that matters. Not what posters think should be allowed.

Answer truthfully, would you do it if you could???

It’s not “legal” - pretending to move out, or even actually moving out, but keeping your original home, is not allowed - someone I know tried this, someone else informed the school, and the placement was rescinded, even on appeal.

that,

you are mift coz she bit you to the game. She must have done the same thought process as you and acted upon it. If you had enough…you’d probably do the same…

No, it is not important at all. Admission appeals panels won't be interested, nor will the LGO or ESFA. And nor will the courts if the parents go to judicial review.

Similarly, many LAs have lists of addresses they know are used as temporary rentals by people trying to get places at popular schools. Any application from one of those addresses will be looked at with suspicion. They don't need to publish those addresses, nor do they need to publish the fact they hold such a list.

The only question is whether the admission authority's actions are Wednesbury unreasonable. The fact they haven't told the world and his dog that they will look on your application as fraudulent unless you can prove otherwise in certain circumstances does not make their decision Wednesbury unreasonable.

When such cases go to judicial review (which is extremely rare), the LA's case is simple. The parents own a property in the area which they previously used as their home. Shortly before applying for a school place they moved to a rented property nearer their preferred school but retained ownership of their property. The property remains inhabitable. We therefore concluded that their application was fraudulent and treated it as such.

That is clearly not Wednesbury unreasonable, which is why parents don't win these cases.

Grow up Concentrate on your own child stop worrying about what others are doing, if your now outside the area the tough either do the same or pick a different school. You sound seriously jealous. So what the child only just got the pass mark that doesn’t make your child any better.

People do this all the time. Mind your own business and get a life!

And she may very well be able to do that if she has been above board in going about this.

Legally, it really is very important. That is what provides the room for consideration of wider context, and what the judgement as to whether it can be considered fraudulent or not hinges upon.

Because you said she wouldn’t be reading in British? 🙈

You sound awful, her child may of barely ‘scraped’ through the 11+ but they scraped through and passed!
They passed.

Also no way would a child give out this much information you have 100% been goading the child to tell you things.

Morally right or wrong the mum clearly is fighting for something and wants her child to have a good education, and good on her for doing so.

You on the other hand sound awful and bitter.

Yes most certainly feels like snitching especially on her kids friends even if you report it doesn’t mean you are going to automatically get a place in the school, live and let live

Legal, yes. Morally dubious.

The sooner they close all grammar schools the better.

The claws-out rending of other parents and children's flesh about school places, looks such a waste of time a few years later. #justsayin

I've dealt with Islington. The "may not" really isn't a lot more important than I'm crediting. Indeed, I know from experience that many LAs start from the position that, if you own a property and give the address of a rental property, your application is likely to be fraudulent and will be treated as such unless you can prove otherwise. They don't always say this in their admission arrangements, but that doesn't matter. Once they have decided that an application is fraudulent, it is up to the parents to prove that the LA's decision is Wednesbury unreasonable.

Ah, OK.

You think that the "may" will be used by LAs to allow the majority of 'temporary address' applications.

I think it is used to disallow the majority of 'temporary address' applications, but to give occasional exceptions eg main house flooded and is uninhabitable during the application period.

The majority of cases won't make headlines because LAs will be quietly doing background checks and notifying parents of address decisions during the process, rather than taking away a place after the child has started at the new school (which tends to be more newsworthy).

Exactly

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here?

What is confusing you?

People are claiming that in most LAs you are not allowed / it is against the rules to use a rental property address if you still own another nearby property (even if that property is rented out).

These claims are not correct.

There are a few LAs that state that they may reserve the right to refuse an application in these circumstances if they believe the rental address is temporary and has been used solely to get a school place.

Lots of other LAs say if you own another property it should be unavailable to you, eg rented out, which is the situation being described in this thread.

The rental is not going to be automatically considered a temporary address, particularly if the contract is not a short term one of six months or less. In addition, it won’t be considered temporary if it has been established as a main residence, with the owned property having been converted to a rental property with a legal tenant in situ. Nor is this automatically going to considered a case where the main or primary motivation can be assumed to be because of catchment area.

The ‘may not’ is a lot more important than you’re crediting it as being.

@puppymaddness I am not sure what you are trying to get at here?

The policies that I am quoting, and others too, clearly indicate the directions in which the LAs will be focussing, and the situation in the OP is clearly one intended to be caught by such policies. Of course, no one policy can capture every single possibility, but all the discussion on this thread - as every thread - is primarily about the specifics raised by the OP.

If they deny admission despite the mother adhering to the school’s protocols and being able to provide evidence of this, and the mother subsequently appeals, they will need to show their reasoning, and what they have based their belief on.

In general - sure, but what matters is the specific details of the individual case. If the mother has been above board in what she’s done, it may not be considered fraudulent.

May not accept a temporary address is completely different to you aren't allowed to move and still retain/ rent out an existing property.

The school are reserving the right to refuse a place if they believe the action is temporary/ fraudulent ,

however there are many reasons why people may reasonably rent while owning another property - you mention one which is if the property is uninhabitable. people may also move permanently, but not be in a position to sell/ buy at that time, or may choose to retain a property for investment/ or for family (as per this OP) etc. A blanket rule like this would be unreasonable. Thats why these kind of fixed, prescriptive rules dont generally exist.