address of convenience

OP - you really need to read other threads on here about appealing for a school - the arguments you are putting forward won't be relevant. Focus on what the school offers that meets your son's needs not crime reports ffs.

DC are expected to deal with a new school at yr7 transfer when they may well not be with their primary friends.

Unless you have a report from a relevant HCP (eg CAHMS consultant) evidencing that your DC has an exceptional need, then this argument simply won't fly.

Nor will crime reports - completely irrelevent.

Transport issues are rarely considered at appeal, unless there are mobility issues. Don't give this more than a passing mention.

Issues round the move - already discussed extensively upthread.

Your argument is focusing on proving your move is genuine. Most of it should be on why this school is the only one your child should attend.

Counter arguments:

• work in new area => public transport time not an issue as you will be headed in same direction so will drive and drop.
• crime irrelevant
• son losing friends - happens with secondary transfer anyway

Not an expert, but I still think you would be much better off arguing why your son will be disadvantaged by not attending the school compared with offered school. That should make up part B of your argument.

Part A - I am properly at rented address so it was an error not to accept this. If my address had been used he would have got a place.

Part B - Even if you do not accept my rented house, my son will be disadvantaged by not attending this school, because ….

Work in the new area is unlikely to count. A commute of 30 mins to an hour is a fairly common for working adults and your drive from original home to new area is less than that.

Crime report won't count for anything. It's not relevant.

Public transport commute may well not count much either. I used to live somewhere where the drive between two towns was 15 mins but the commute was 2.5 hours due to having to go into another town and transfer. All schools worked on the distance between places and school transport was provided based on those distances if above a certain distance. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a parent would move temporarily, cite public transport and then drive their children the short journey, especially it they were already heading in that direction for work.

Moving school meaning changing friends is part and parcel of life and not grounds to aid a school appeal.

I think it'll be a miracle if you get this case OP.

I have the perfect solution, OP. If you can quickly sign your house over to me, then you will no longer own it and you may therefore win your appeal. Once you've got the school place you've aimed for, I'll give you back your house. 🤣🤣🤣

OP
Many people have listened and advised. They've just not told you what you want to hear which is the whole arrangement looks very much like the situation the rules are designed to prevent gaming. The onus is on you to prove you're not gaming the system for school admissions and at the moment the LA is highly unlikely to accept your case.

Can you confirm.

House put on market Apr 2018.

Didn't sell.

Moved Oct 2018 and rented out house.

You moved offices (when?)

Have much closer are you to your office than when you lived at old house.

How far were you to old office from old house. How far are you from new office from new house.

Is your house currently on the market again?

The link 4.2 also says if your property is rented out and you can't move back there.

runabout if the OP had moved from the other side of the country the LA might have come to a different conclusion. That’s why that second sentence is there. It gives them the leaway to accept an application from a rented address in exceptional circumstances. The burden still rests on the OP to prove that this is a permanent move and the LA are quite clear that the rental contract and the house being put up for sale won’t count as proof.

Given that the distance to the old home seems to be within what most LAs would consider reasonable travel time, the date the house was put onto the market, the date they moved into the rental home and the date of the end of the rental contracts I’d imagine the level of proof needed will be quite high here.

Gosh op, I'm not sure how you thought this would work. You only had your house on the market for three months, changed your mind, got some tenants in and moved only twenty miles away before the admissions closed and rented a house right by the school you wanted.

If you'd lived there a year or two, fine but this looks like you've simply moved to get your kid into the school.

I understand your desperation, but it was just done too late. I'm sorry.

The problem is, that based on the info that the OP has given, it certainly sounds as though she has moved in order to get a school place. She's literally said nothing that would give any credence to the idea that moving was for any other reason, and quite a few things (moving just a few weeks before the application deadline, moving 500m from an oversubscribed school etc) that would suggest this was an attempt to manipulate the school admissions process.

In any case, the onus is on the OP to prove that she did not move for a school place, and as she has been repeatedly advised, that is what she needs to do. If she did indeed move for the school place, then it is right and proper that it has been removed from her. The rules are clearly published, and apply to everyone.

I commuted around an hour each way for secondary. That wasn't weird in the nineties (I was!)

Well run I agree the longer the journey, the more arguable the OP's case is. But given that for secondary I think 75mins(?) is not considered unreasonable I still think the OP is on a sticky wicket even if the commute is say 50mins.
The OP really hasn't stated here reasons why they upped and rented just 4 weeks before the admission deadline. If the OP can't explain it to the appeals panel then their appeal will be rejected.

Lola, Teen and MrsM, I admit that I am assuming that the 25 minute drive is likely to be very variable based on London traffic. I would add a 30 minute buffer onto a 25 minute journey during rush hour, maybe even more if I couldn't risk being late.

OP has said the distance between the 2 houses is 25 minutes drive though. Which is perfectly possible to drive each day and suggests she's not in a very built up, traffic clogged area. If it was an insane journey, then OP could just point out that no one in their right mind would want to make that journey every day, and she'd win her appeal.

But yes, agree that OP must focus on demonstrating that she has truly moved to the new area and cut ties with the old one. If the tenants in your old house are willing to extend their contract, then why not actually extend it?

The rules are open to interpretation:

4.2 We will not generally consider an address to be a child’s habitual residence if the applicant owns or rents an alternative property that the child previously lived in. Where an applicant still owns or rents an address at which their child previously lived, they must explain and evidence the permanence of their house move. Renting out an owned property or putting it up for sale would not normally deem it unavailable to the family. A property would normally only be deemed unavailable to the family from the date it is sold but this would not alter the outcome of an application for a school place where the decision has already been made.

That implies that the LA can waive the rules if they believe it to be a genuine permanent relocation - eg no one would question someone in the same situation if they had moved from Cornwall to Nottingham.

If you can show that the commute from your old home would be 2 hours by public transport and find out how long it would take by car during rush hour (I am assuming well over an hour), that would add credence to your argument that this is a genuine move, not just an attempt to game the rules.

OP admits it's 25 min away by car. So very doable for them to move back home. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

runout The OP said 25mins by car. Answers are reflecting that.

runoutofnamechanges
People are being unsympathetic because the rules are clear and they are designed to prevent people moving into rented housing in their chosen catchment area for the purpose of school admissions.

There's no evidence that this is anything other than a fraudulent application. I'm not saying the OP is planning on moving but there's no evidence that it's not game playing and the rules are there because those with the money and resources are renowned for doing this.

I think PPs are being unsympathetic because 22 miles seems like no distance at all in most parts of the country so it seems like you are moving temporarily to get a better school in the same area. Whereas, what you are doing is what many people do when they children go to school or move to secondary school - leaving London for the home counties and a totally different lifestyle, larger home etc. It's a far "greater relocation" than 22 miles in the same county. To put it in perspective, if you lived in Notting Hill, would you apply to a school in St Albans then move back to Notting Hill once you got the place? It would be an insane commute by public transport and by car the journey could double or triple in time depending on the time of day.

OP, you need to prove that your move is permanent and you are settled eg showing that you quit your job and found a new one in the area, changing GP, dentist etc, change of address for banks, HMRC, leaving clubs etc in the old area and joining new ones etc, proof of any fallen through sales with your old property to show you are genuinely trying to sell.

one year but my landlord and my tenants willing to extend however the LA rejected these options

Being willing to isn’t the same as actually having signed one though. You’ve done absolutely everything possible to make it look like you’ve submitted a fraudulent application. If you want to start trying to prove you haven’t, then you need to start thinking about how you prove that you haven’t.

You say you’ve moved job as well. When was that and how far away from the new property and old property is it?

I want to know on what grounds they can prove I am going back to the old address

They don't have to prove anything. The onus is on you to prove you won't.

You've done the EXACT thing they tell you you can't do in their admissions details! Why do you think this rule applies to everyone except you?!