Is this admission fraud? AIBU to report it?

Yup, this. In addition, there have been a handful of legal challenges to the admissions criteria that I know of over the years in Bucks. None has ever succeeded because schools are entitled to consider an application fraudulent even if it was made in good faith, and even if the parent thought they had done everything correctly.

Islington:

Please note that we may not accept a temporary address if you still possess a property that was previously used as a home address; nor accept a temporary address if it is used solely or mainly to obtain a school place.

There are many like this. In most cases, "may not" is only there to give them the ability to accept a temporary address if the property you own is uninhabitable.

No, the school does not need any evidence actually. It can take the view that admissions fraud has been committed and the child will not be offered a place. Barring an appeal from the parent (which will look at whether the school's process was adhered to rather than the decision itself), that will be it.

In general, renting one property while continuing to own another, where the former is definitely in catchment and the latter might not be, could be sufficient to trigger an investigation.

Yes you provided a couple that don't actually say what people are claiming.

It does appear that there are individual schools that have policies like this as the one you have just shared. But certainly not the majority, if any, LAs with policies this strict/ prescriptive as people are widespread claiming .

As we are dealing with a public authority performing its functions, the standard they have to meet is very low. For parents to overturn a decision that their application was fraudulent, they have to show that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, i.e. that it was, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

I think PanelChair and prh47bridge are admissions experts who sit on appeal panels

Found this re Watford Girls Grammar. Not sure if it's already been shared

You asked for LA policies so I provided a couple.

Additionally, individual schools sometimes have stronger restrictions if they are very competitive e.g. Dame Alice Owen in Herts, which is partially selective:

The Governors will refuse to allocate a place under criteria 2/7 where they consider that the permanent home address as stated on the application form is a temporary address even if the child is living in this property. If the child has changed addresses within 36 months before the date of application, but a property that was a previous home address has been retained (where it is less than 50 miles from the school), an application from a property closer to the school will be treated as a temporary address regardless of whether the child is living in the property the majority of the time and/or regardless of whether the previous home address is leased to a third party. The governors will make their decision based on such evidence as they reasonably require.

This is one of the strongest worded ones but even then it is qualified in important ways- It says they won't normally accept a temporary address.

Here's what Surrey say:

• We will not normally accept a temporary address if the main carer of the child still owns or rents a property that has previously been used as a home address, nor if we believe it has been used to obtain a school place when an alternative address is still available to that child.

On the basis of the above, I would expect Surrey to deem the "old house" as the permanent address.

ETA here's what Herts say:

Which address to use
Give your child's permanent address at the time you apply.
If you move after applying, you must send us proof of your new address.
Proof can be:

• a solicitor's letter upon completion (exchange of contracts not accepted) confirming your completion date was on or before 2 December 2025 or
• a signed rental agreement (for at least 12 months) showing the start of your tenancy on or before 2 December 2025. If it's not possible to provide a 12 month tenancy agreement because of the nature of the agreement, we'll request alternative proof of address and verify it with the Shared Anti-Fraud Service, as necessary.
• evidence that you have relinquished residential ties with the address you originally declared on your application form.

The child in question moved before the deadline so the above isn't totally applicable but shows intent: The child MIGHT be OK in Herts, if the mum has signed a 12 month rental contract and if the evidence of relinquishing ties with the old house was sufficiently demonstrated by e.g. the relatives signing a rental contract.

No. People keep saying this, but no one has been able to share an LA with these rules. One person managed to find a policy from one specific grammar school that had this rule.

I don’t think a balance of probabilities is needed here. Either the LA/school admissions policy counts “second homes” nearer to the school only if the parent has sold the former home before a certain deadline, or it doesn’t and is prepared to count a nearer second home if eg a long term rental contract has been signed on the second home.

The motivations for the change aren’t really the point being considered.

Don't some LEAs make their decisions on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring absolute proof of rule-breaking?

A reasonable belief needs to meet a specific legal standard in order to be considered one. If that standard isn’t met then they’ll be leaving themselves open to accusations of prejudice.

They would need to be able to show why they hold that reasonable belief despite the woman having legally met the school’s requirements for admission.

The school would not need evidence. As prh47bridge has already pointed out, they would need only a reasonable belief.

Sure, and that is evidence the woman will be able to provide if she’s gone about this properly. If further investigation is made (and it may very well not be. The school, for a number of reasons, may not be motivated to pursue this) she can argue that she took reasonable action in response to an exceptional set of circumstances. If this is the case then there is likely enough for this not to be considered fraud.

While the onus is on the woman to prove that it isn’t fraud, the school would still need evidence to support the conclusion that it is. Evidence that would stand up to scrutiny in the event of an appeal.

This isn’t a cut and dried case.

Ah but the onus in this instance is on the woman/family, not the school. Schools are given quite wide latitude in matters of eligibility criteria and it will be on the applicant to provide evidence that the move is genuine rather than on the school to prove that it is not. A school can decide that it is admissions fraud under their (published) criteria, whether the applicant considers it is or not.

Perhaps there are LAs where this is explicitly stated, but I’d need to see the pertinent documents to determine whether this is the case. The one example already provided in this thread was actually quite vague.

The point is that if this woman has gone about this in an above board way, then the LA would lack the evidence they needed to establish fraud had taken place.

Imagine if the child has got it wrong. A
local authority investigation and a long Mumsnet thread, triggered by the innocent misreporting of an 11-year-old 😏

I thought all LA’s had this policy, I know mine does, they are really hot on people doing this.

Many LAs won't be interested. Their rules are clear that, if you own a house, that is the address you must use for admissions purposes. Even if they don't have that in their rules, they only need a reasonable belief that someone has acted fraudulently.

It doesn’t appear to be a short term rental, given that they’ll be there for at least a year. If they’ve converted the former main residence into a rental, established their accommodation as being the new main residence, and followed the law when it comes to their tenants, then it’s unlikely to be considered fraud.

They also likely can justify this if questioned by the LA. Why do this? It was necessary for their Ukrainian relatives, fleeing a war that left them traumatized, to be in close proximity to family. Why rent their own house to them, depriving themselves of it? Because the Ukrainians would not have been able to secure a nearby rental otherwise. How could this compassionate act possibly be considered fraud when this family already resided within the catchment area?*

*I’m not claiming that these answers would be truthful, only that this exceptional set of circumstances can be used to adequately explain their actions.

So does the OP, and this “friend” is currently prepared to [allegedly] cheat the system to disadvantage the OPs child. This is why if I were the OP, I’d report it. The decision is then of her hands and either it’s legit, and remain friends, or it’s not legit and, hey presto, they can still remain friends.

Having the resources to legitimately game the system, or even pay privately, or just live in a better area, is a different matter which happens day in, day out, right across the UK.

She's a single mum trying to get the best future for her child.
A lot of parents would do the same if they had the funds as you've already said the alternative school is not good.

Why lose a friend over this? She cares about her kids future.

Report it. If she’s done nothing wrong, then nothing will come of it. Although it sounds like she’s going to fairly extreme lengths, so they probably won’t be able to find her guilty of fraud.

Agree @RafaistheKingofClay

Just saying that OP doesn't need to angst over the kid's score, or the status of his relatives, or anything. If she's going to report, cleaner to do it now as then (if he is out of "catchment") the kid never gets the place and has it taken away down the line.