Friend of a friend renting for school places...

[DoodleNoo]

Ive recently found out that a friend of a friend is renting her own house out and renting another house to live at, well within the very tight catchment of her preferred secondary school, in another part of our London Borough.

I don't know all the details and to be fair I do know that the family has been toying with the idea of moving away for a long time, so I could be generous and assume that they are ultimately planning to buy in the area where the preferred school is. But it still seems unfair that they are jumping the queue to this sought after school.

When I see her in the mornings, dropping her children at primary school near to their old /actual home), I feel so repulsed that I can't bring myself to speak to her.

Am I being unreasonable? I think I feel it all the more acutely as my own DD is applying to secondary school this year and we have been honest and realistic with our choices, even though there is a good chance that we might not particularly like what we end up with.

This can be a real problem in London and some councils will withdraw your place if you rent for convenience.

The term catchment can be a bit misleading. A lot of London schools do not have a defined catchment area, so what people mean by catchment is the area within the maximum cut off distance for admissions in the previous year. So all pupils are competing directly with each other for places based on distance. If you rent close to the school then move back out to your old house you have deprived someone who lives closer than you to the school of a place.

If you rent close to the school then move back out to your old house you have deprived someone who lives closer than you to the school of a place.

I don't see how. Renting is "living". If you live closer than them to the school in your rented place (and you truly do live there) then you live closer than them to the school, full stop.

MadSleigh
The point is those people who only move temporarily to get a school place, they don't intend to live there nor be part of that local community. Renting as a long term decision is living in a place, renting short term just for the purposes of a school place is camping.

BTW I am not directly affected by this as my DC go private but I can see why it upsets people who live close to a school, don't have the option of renting elsewhere (e.g. social housing) and end up with a school across the otherside of the borough because of people who move out once the places granted.

Renting with a view to moving there permanently = fine.

Temporarily renting then moving back to your own home as soon as the child safely has a place = morally dubious.

Renting but not actually living in the rented property even though you're claiming it's your address for the purpose of school admissions = fraudulent.

I disagree. I can see that people who do the fake address thing are taking the piss. But if you live somewhere (and sounds like these people have moved lock, stock and barrel if they've rented their own place out) then you live there. Renting generally is pretty short-term in London. I've rented a flat I only stayed in for a year and I definitely considered I was "living" there!

The whole advantage of renting is that you can move around at your convenience (and on the flipside suffer the inconveniences of renting - which include the possibility of being given a month's notice). You might as well be cross with people who relocate to a rented place to be nearer a new job, because they're depriving the people who already live within commuting distance of the job. It's only because this is about schools that people get disproportionately wound up.

I also don't really buy into this conformist stuff about how you should be part of your local community or people will disapprove. Suppose you don't want to be, regardless of how long you live there? I don't think that should be used as a test of someone's virtue.

I don't have any kids by the way, which I think is giving me a rare advantage here. Honestly, it is really inconsistent to mind about this when you wouldn't mind people moving "temporarily" (if that's what a year out of our threescore and ten is now) for other general life goal purposes.

"This can be a real problem in London and some councils will withdraw your place if you rent for convenience."

I don't think they have grounds to do this unless they can prove that the place was obtained fraudulently, even though nearly all of them threaten to. How on earth would they differentiate between the family whose tenancy was up, or someone who could no longer afford the mortgage and moved from someone like the woman in the OP?

I am unaware of any London borough which has withdrawn a school place due to the parents moving three or four months after application- do you have any info or links? I would be genuinely interested to find out, as councils often threaten legal action, but I don't know of a case where they've taken it.

MadSleigh

The issue often becomes when is a home a permanent home, as that is the requirement. If the council believes your move is temporary and you intend to move back to your existing/previous family home then it is arguable the address you applied from is not your permanent home.

This happened locally with a secondary school application - the place was withdrawn.

Do you know the details, XBenedict? Genuinely interested as to how a council ascertains where fraud starts and moving ends IYSWIM...

tethers
I believe there was thread about renting in the Graveney "catchment" a while back where at least one poster knew of someone who had had their place removed.

A lot of the time it is not publicised.

Its not necessarily the moving that is the problem its where you move to. If you move back to the old family home 1.5 miles away then the council can argue your earlier address was not your permanent address.

Look at these
All ties with previous addresses relinquished
www.damealiceowens.herts.sch.uk/documents/admissions/guidance_document_2205_2012.pdf

www.csfgsixthform.org.uk/page_viewer.asp?page=Admissions+Policy+for+the+Sixth+Form+-+2013&pid=68

I think what happened in this case was the family just rented a flat but never actually lived there which I guess is reasonably easy to prove.

again different to the OP

Yes, clearly fraud there, XBenedict.

Dame Alice Owen is voluntary aided I believe? (interesting sibling rule too... ex-students are counted as siblings ) So not sure if that gives them more leeway, or whether this sets a precedent which other LEAs will follow.

Camden School for Girls' admission arrangements are for the sixth form only- years 7-11 are subject to Camden's admissions policy, which has no such caveat.

AFAIK, any community school which uses an interview to select students is breaking the law.

Blimey. I will be doing this in a couple years, when DS1 is in Y5 or Y6. We will need to move by then, as it is already a bit of a snug fit on our house, and I want a bigger garden. But there is no immediate need, so we have decided to sell when DS1 is 9 or 10 (he is now 7), rent for a couple of years near a very good local secondary school, and then buy once we've found the right place - which may or may not be in the catchment area for that school (not London - not that it necessarily makes a lot of difference).

We didn't think there would be a big problem with this - we will be selling our old house and renting for a good period of at least 1-2 years, possibly longer. We are doing it to get DS1 (and the others, subsequently) into the school, but we can't say at that stage that we will be staying in the catchment area for ever. Am a bit that people may be 'repulsed' by this.

tethers
They were just a couple of quick examples I found. All the schools emphasise permanent address.

Outside of London West Berkshire says this
"It is the child?s normal permanent home address where he or she lives with his or her
parents/carers that is used to decide in which school?s catchment area the child lives.
Temporary addresses cannot be used to obtain school places, e.g. temporary addresses
whilst retaining a previous permanent home will not be accepted"

Hampshire CC
"Places are withdrawn every year because parents give false addresses in applications. This includes cases where parents take out a short-term let or buy a property solely to use its address in the application without any intention of taking up permanent residence there. The County Council will investigate allegations of false addresses and may monitor residency details particularly if use of a temporary address causes concern."

I think a lot of London councils stick with "permanent" address without defining fully to allow them to have scope to challenge your address.

Mog
I think it is different if you have sold and are renting because your rental home is your only option so whilst you are renting it is your permanent home because you have nowhere else to move back to.

I think the morally dubious side here is a rich country - with failing schools - direct annoyance and anger at the government.

'There is a sought after catchment grammar school near me who does late evening home visits ( without notice) and interviews the family with the child present.'
Really? That school is clearly breaking the law then?

But isn't that what the family the OP is talking about are (probably) doing? If we don't manage to sell our house we will rent it out - but not with any intention of going back and living there. How would that be proved? Keeping the house and renting it out would be a legitimate step, imo.

Well, a mum from playgroup is going to church every Sunday now to get her daughter into the CofE primary school. Neither her nor her husband are religious.

Which is worse? Moving closer to a catchment area (and possibly bigger place) or pretending to be religious?

Chaz- that London west Berkshire statement contradicts itself First it says the peramanant address is where child lives with his parents and siblings, and then later that if the family still retain a house where they used to live, then that house will be used.
Again I would doubt the legality of that.

We'll be doing exactly this next year. We can't for various reasons sell our (London) flat, but we want to move to Canterbury. DS2 is due to start school next September so we will be renting there for the foreseeable future. as most of the schools local to us currently are somewhat less than ideal.

I suspect that we shall never sell the London property as it has a too short a lease-hold left on it, and if we were to sell and buy in Canterbury, we might never be able to afford another property in London should we want to move back in the future.

In your eyes what we are doing is repulsive, but it doesn't seem to me that we have any choice in the matter. Sorry.