Is this admission fraud? AIBU to report it?

You are putting on them the interpretation you want, which is that LAs generally allow people to rent whilst owning a property and only sometimes rule it out. I am telling you what actually happens, which is that LAs generally do NOT allow people to rent whilst owning a property and only sometimes allow it in exceptional circumstances (generally when the owned property is uninhabitable). Both interpretations work with the words used. The difference is that mine is the interpretation used by LAs in real life.

So the right thing to do is for this family to “graciously” bump 150 down to 151, to “save” them from a grammar school education? How philanthropic of them.

The fact you repeatedly try to read these policies to mean something different is irrelevant.

Lol, I'm reading the actual policies as they are written.

I did think of that one, but resisted!

“The artist child formerly known as admitted” 😀

I am not making up these statements. I know from long experience how most LAs implement these policies. If they find that someone has applied from a rented address whilst owning a property in the area they will use the address of the property they own unless there are exceptional circumstances, which generally means the property being uninhabitable. The fact you repeatedly try to read these policies to mean something different is irrelevant. This is what actually happens in the real world.

No not "my mind" - as per the actual written policies. You keep making these statements, which simply aren't backed up / evidenced when you read actual admissions policies. The reality is much more nuanced.

It may be more nuanced in your mind. It is not in the minds of most LAs. If you own a property in the area, that is the address you must use for admissions purposes. Using a rented address, even if you claim you are living there, is classed as admissions fraud.

the admissions process isn't based on fairness, it's determined by who can afford to pay a premium for their housing . There are no children more or less deserving of a place a that school. Objectively speaking, The "deprivation" "misfortune " and "suffering" of OP's child if he doesn't get a place is no greater or more worthy of consideration than the "suffering" of any other child who wanted that place but missed out

So how would you refer to the child deprived of their place through fraud? ‘The unfortunate sufferer’? ‘The wrongly deprived’? ‘The child negatively affected’?

Is admissions fraud the only fraud you regard as ‘acceptable’? Or do you apply the same reasoning to eg benefits fraud?

Yeh I disagree for reasons above.

There is a victim, though - the child who was not given a place that was rightfully theirs.

And the redress is that they are given their place, while the fraudulently-obtained place is taken away. A rather neat ‘punishment fitting the offence’.

Again this involved forging/ falsifying documents which is what made it criminally prosecutable:

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/trainee-conveyancer-used-skills-in-school-place-fraud

interesting article on the case referenced by prh

The pp I was in conversation with said that it was a "crime" with a "victim" (compared it to reporting theft- another compared it to reporting child abuse!)
I said it wasn't a crime and not comparable.
That was what this particular exchange was about.
It's not a crime with a victim. It's an administrative/ civil issue concerning school admissions bureaucracy- a system which is fundamentally inequitable whatever way you look at it. "Fairness" really doesn't come into it.

Exactly 👍

Prosecution isn’t the point, though, is it? The penalty is the child losing / not being given their school place, and that is done by LAs and not courts.

Please reference a case that has been criminally prosecuted that involved simply renting a property in catchment- eg not something like forging / falsifying documents.

Renting a house in catchment whilst owning a property elsewhere in the area is admissions fraud in most LAs.

Except this isnt true at all; the reality is much more nuanced than that:

However, a trainee conveyancer was convicted in 2023 and received a suspended jail sentence.

That’s interesting PRH, thanks!

Yes, they have. Whilst prosecutions for fraud are rare, some cases have gone to judicial review. Parents have always lost. @thing47 is correct. Schools, LAs and the courts have all agreed.

Buying a house in catchment is not admissions fraud, nor is renting in catchment if you do not own a property. However, it is known that some parents will buy or rent a house in catchment, get their oldest into their preferred school then move away, relying on sibling priority to get places for their younger child. To combat this, increasing numbers of admission authorities are removing sibling priority if the family moves away from the school.

Renting a house in catchment whilst owning a property elsewhere in the area is admissions fraud in most LAs. However much some posters on this thread want to treat this is being the same as buying a house near the school, the reality is that, unlike buying a house, this is against the rules. If you don't like it, campaign to change the rules but don't encourage people to break the rules and take places away from the children who should have got them.

If parents try to break the rules by renting a property whilst owning another, it is likely they will be caught when the LA checks school applications against their Council Tax records. If this happens, the LA will generally use the address of the house the parents own without notifying the parents. However, a proportion of applications using false addresses are only caught after the child has started at school. When this happens, the child will normally lose their school place and, instead of getting the place they would have got if the parents had been honest, they are offered a place at the nearest school with places available, which is likely to be an unpopular school the parents wanted to avoid.

Whilst fraud is a crime, prosecutions for admissions fraud are vanishingly rare. In most cases, the LA take the view that the child not getting a place at the preferred school is enough punishment. However, a trainee conveyancer was convicted in 2023 and received a suspended jail sentence.

No they haven't:

There have been a couple of (very rare) criminal prosecution cases against parents for schools admissions fraud , but they have involved the falsification of documents.

Apparently In 2009, a London mother was charged under the Fraud Act 2006 for allegedly using a false address to get her son a place at a state primary school. The case was widely reported as possibly the first of its kind.

the prosecution was dropped after legal advice indicated that the law might not cover such cases — specifically, that it might be hard to prove a “gain” or “loss” (as required under fraud law)

there as schools, LAs and even courts have all agreed with it.

lol no they haven't

Anyone is free to report their suspicions whether they have personal involvement or not

They are "free" to of course. But it is neither OP's duty nor business to do so.