Withdrawal of high school place after 11 weeks

And the older sibling was still at the school on the day that the offer was made to the younger sibling.

How on earth does that seem fraudulent @CurlewKate ? What lie has been told?

No, it isn't.

On the closing date for applications, the older sibling was still attending the school and OP had no plans to change this. OP's failure to use a crystal ball to peer into the future does not make her application fraudulent.

It sounds like a fraudulent application to me-sorry.

Sorry this has happened, it must be very stressful! hope you have got sorted by now.

Yes, how did you get on with the appeal @Mel198 ?

I'm curious now - OP, did you appeal, and how did it go?

It's really frightening how much extraordinarily bad advice has been given on this thread.

Secondary National Offer Day was 1st March. Could it be argued you had any knowledge that your son would not continue in the school prior to that date? Does your DS have an EHCP or is he now attending a special school or AP?

No, a school cannot withdraw offers based on decisions about a sibling student. The Admissions Code sets out the circumstances in which an offer can be withdrawn. This is not one of them.

Presumably you made application in autumn 2022 and the offer was at the very beginning of March.

I'm not an expert on appeals but those who are knowledgeable on here, can an appeal consider the circumstances of the sibling move? Because if son's move was a managed move because he had problems at the school, and it was actually initiated by that school, then the school should have known the situation (the change of circumstances) soon after the offer was made and should have discussed this at the time with the parents. Once the managed move was completed they actually withdrew the offer to the younger child soon after that.

I don't know whether it's policy to allow a school to withdraw offers based on their own decisions about a sibling student - in this case it seems potentially very discriminatory. And I see other posters have said something about this.

Day job?! Famous?!

The 3 days aren’t hearsay. They are case law, but old case law now, and the judgment relates to a very particular situation.

I think there are good arguments here to present at appeal, but so much depends on the wording of the admissions criteria and key dates at which things happened and decisions were made. As PatriciaHolm says, speculation doesn’t help.

Just wanted to say good luck @Mel198 . It's clear you are just trying to do your best for both your children in difficult circumstances, I'm not sure why some people are so mean spirited. As others have said they are best ignored, just focus on the advice of the 3 experts here. It sounds like you have a good case for appeal, go for it with the advice of the famous 3.

The decision is also at least 12 years old now, and was made under the previous admissions code. That doesn't lessen it's validity really, but as prh says, it only relates to when the admissions authority made an error (which as we've discussed they haven't, though that is what they are calling it).

This will all come down to the exact wording of the admissions criteria and the exact dates involved. All else is speculation I'm afraid.

It doesn't seem to be.

Might it be in this archive @prh47bridge ?: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C154

You won't find it online, I'm afraid. It comes from an LGO decision where the ombudsman ruled that withdrawing a place offered in error after more than 3 days amounted to maladministration. The decision in question is no longer available online.

Note that this limit only applies if the offer was withdrawn because it was made in error. It does not apply if the offer is withdrawn for another reason.

oh and PatriciaHolm 😁

OP - prh47and panelchair are the experts in this.

This is part of their day job.

Please listen to them and ignore any advice that contradicts them, as they are the ones that actually know what they are talking about.

It sounds like you need to send this message to the admissions team and get an appeal going.

Good luck with your appeal OP - please update us here when you know the outcome. If the details at time of application were true and not misleading then no mistake was made in allocating the place to your daughter. The stuff about your house move is irrlevant and just muddying the waters - spending time on it just legitimises the incorrect view that the sibling link place shouldn't have been allocated. The fact that the sibling link isn't there any more is also irrelevant - it was there at the time of application and there on allocations day, you had no reasonable way of knowing what was going to be the case in the future, and it is well-established in the admissions code that places cannot be withdrawn after more than a few DAYS, let alone weeks, UNLESS the application was deliberately fraudulent which in this case it wasn't.

“ It's not the same as choosing to move a child from the school after securing a place for the sibling.”

In this case, it wasn’t really a choice on the part of the OP.

Personally, I think if the place is allocated on allocation day, on correct information at the time, then that should be it. Even if a family subsequently moves through free choice. And the reason for that is that an LA only allows the address that a child lives at and not a planned future address - so, quid pro quo, they shouldn’t take the place away if an applicant followed the rules at the time.

as I noted above, if an elder sibling died between allocation day and school start day, the place could be withdrawn for the younger sibling if you take the argument to its conclusion. Is that right and fair?

I wouldn't say that is the conclusion of the argument, as its not remotely the same thing and is a bit offensive to use as a comparison. It's reductio ad absurdam. Exceptions are often made anyway for extreme circumstances like that. It's not the same as choosing to move a child from the school after securing a place for the sibling.

But I do take your point about the gap between application and allocations. Would you think it was fair though for someone to still get the place awarded for nearness if they had chosen to move in between allocation and start? What if that was their intent all along? still fair?

Because there is an admissions timetable. If what you write is true at the time of writing and has not changed by the time of allocation, you are at a serious disadvantage in the process if an allocated place is taken away, as the place you would have got if those circumstances had been there earlier will now not be available.

especially if those circumstances have changed through no fault of your own eg landlord has decided to sell up so your address changes.

as I noted above, if an elder sibling died between allocation day and school start day, the place could be withdrawn for the younger sibling if you take the argument to its conclusion. Is that right and fair?

I'm not seeing the unfairness here....if you get a place in school because there is a sibling in the school, and then you take the sibling out of the school before the child starts, they aren't entitled to that space anymore. It would the the same as getting a place due to nearness to school, and then moving across town before starting.

I'm sure you can tell me reasons why I'm wrong and I can believe it, but on the face of it, I can't for the life of me see why that's being held up as unfair. Logically, it is totally fair.

Sadly, it isn't just schools. There are a number of LAs that breach the Admissions Code regularly because they think what they are doing is fair - withdrawing places from people who move after the offer is made, putting late applicants at the back of the waiting list and so on. Mostly, appeal panels know their stuff and put things right, but it doesn't always work out.

For example, I had some involvement in a case a year or two ago where someone had made an in-year application for a primary school place and had been allocated a school that was a long way from home. The parent argued that their child should have been treated as excepted as there were no places available within a reasonable distance from home, pointing out that statutory guidance is that anything over 45 minutes journey each way is unreasonable for primary school pupils. The LA argued that this was "only guidance" and "couldn't work here". The panel accepted this argument. However, the reality is that statutory guidance is not "only guidance". It is as close to law as it is possible to get without actually being law. The LA must follow statutory guidance unless it can show that, in a particular case, there is good reason to deviate from it.

I think it would be fair comment to say there are schools that play absolutely straight with the admissions code and schools that look for 'wriggle room' to avoid some admissions.