thinking they have used my address to gain a school place?

[bostonbaby]

We bought this house at the end of last year.
It is very close to an excellent, very much over subscribed school.
The couple we bought it from had a little kids and we're moving to the next (cheaper, not good schools) area along for a bigger house to fit all their kids in.
Not had any mail for them as assuming they had a redirect set up.
This week we've suddenly had a few bits for them. Including a 'to the parent/guardian of xxx' from the outstanding school
It seems they have applied from this address rather than their own, where they stand no chance of getting in.
What should I do? I feel like returning it to school and saying they haven't lived here since December but then I feel sly. Then I think another child will have missed out on their rightful place. And why should they move to a considerably cheaper area and still get the perks of the more expensive one? My child hasn't missed out on this btw but they have 4 kids now guaranteed a place in that school from this.
Wwyd?

"And why should they move to a considerably cheaper area and still get the perks of the more expensive one?"

Christ almighty, this sums up all that's wrong with the state catchment system.

Why should someone who can't afford a property suited to their family within the desirable school's area have to suffer an inferior school because they're not as affluent as other families?

Lucky you that you can afford a house in such an area. That doesn't mean that someone else's kids are less deserving because the parents don't earn your level of income. Stop being the catchment area police. Live and let live and remember that it only takes an illness, an affair, an injury for your own circumstances to change and for your child to be the one without the "perks"of a half-reasonable education.

Because they are stealing the place from another equally deserving child.

You should return it OP, what are they going to do, have school correspondence sent to your address for all the time their child is there?

hooby I don't think it's a question of snobbery, it's only common sense that places are awarded to people who live within the catchment area. There is a finite number of places. If people outside the catchment area get places that definitely means a child within the catchment area doesn't get one. Also it means that OTHER children outside the catchment area should be entitled to a place too - how is it fair if not?

OP - return it and say they don't live there any more. Because they don't. It's very simple and nothing to do with being sly.

WOAH! Hold it right there! Who said anything about snobbery, OhMittens? Did I mention the word?

No I did not! And with good reason - because I'm not of the view that this is about snobbery!

So you think it's ok to break the rules then?

Due to parents lying and being found out my Dd eventually got a place at our first choice school. As it was part way through the year we had to buy a whole new set of uniform plus pe kit.

Admissions criteria are set to make it fair for everyone.

Don't forget, we don't know the contents of the letter and neither should the OP.
Also if she is having a lucky guess and it is about admission she doesn't know the all the facts about the family or if it is an error.

She shouldn't be judging or creating a drama. Just return the flaming envelope without any fuss.
It's not difficult!!

"Admissions criteria are set to make it fair for everyone."

Bollocks are they! That's typical middle class claptrap!

If you think they are, you're either convincing yourself of this fact to assuage your own conscience or you're deluded.

In an ideal world all schools would be outstanding but the truth is that the parent on the council estate, the parent who can't afford the property in the right catchment area will never see fairness under the existing system.

Lucky you that you can afford a house in such an area. That doesn't mean that someone else's kids are less deserving because the parents don't earn your level of income. Stop being the catchment area police. Live and let live and remember that it only takes an illness, an affair, an injury for your own circumstances to change and for your child to be the one without the "perks"of a half-reasonable education.

London is all about distance instead of catchment (at least much of it is), unless we are talking church schools (and let's not because I don't want to explode).

Of course a perk of wealthier areas should not be better state schools, that I agree with. What I disagree with (and despise) is lying, cheating or stealing to get your child something at the expense of another child.

I'd be interested to know where you've broadly seen support of school cheats? I certainly haven't seen any

A few posts before your post and the one I just quoted. and ...

Bollocks are they! That's typical middle class claptrap!

not all schools are outstanding, but that doesn't mean you can cheat other kids out of a spot. the admission criteria isn't the best, but is clear and transparent and there isn't obviously a better alternative (if you have one I would like to hear it...)

also, the person on the council estate without spare money is the one that is most likely to get screwed out of a place at a good school by someone cheating because they don't have the means to do likewise. In London, lots of schools abut both nice neighbourhoods and council estates.

I do appreciate the comments about London and know/knew it well, as a parent, a child in education and a resident.

That doesn't make anything I've said less true. The well off can buy their way to a better education for their child, the impoverished's hands are tied. Admissions' criteria does not make it fair for everyone.

The school my Dd eventually got into is a church school. It is right next to a council housing estate. Lots of children from this estate go to the school and got places ahead of my Dd. We live further away so they were rightly given places before us.

Lying and cheating is wrong full stop.

In our local authority, you must use the address you were living at on deadline day in October. If you move before January you can ask for your new address to be used but you don't have to (so you'd only do it if you'd moved closer to the school). After that, you'd be treated as a late applicant. I know this because we moved during that period and I checked (both houses are within catchment, before anyone shouts at me).

Pretty sure that you can resubmit/change an application up until the January deadline - and are expected to do this if your circumstances change.
Couldn't they have just delayed sale by six months rather than make a fraudulent application?
And you don't have to prove address in original application but Local Authorities can and do undertake additional checks. A parent in our area was found to have made a fraudulent application when their offer letter was returned marked 'not known at this address'. They actually still got a place from their real address though.

The well off can buy their way to a better education for their child, the impoverished's hands are tied. Admissions' criteria does not make it fair for everyone.

I am all ears for better criteria.

"Why would you withhold information relating to someone else's child? Bloody weirdo"

How rude!! Nowhere in this thread did OP say they are not going to pass this letter on (even if they did bin the ex-owner's other post!)

hooby you didn't say snobbery but you inferred it, IMO: "Lucky you that you can afford a house in such an area. That doesn't mean that someone else's kids are less deserving because the parents don't earn your level of income. Stop being the catchment area police."

Definition: Snobbery: the behavior or attitude of people who think they are better than other people : the behavior or attitude of snobs.

And I think admissions criteria is fair - looked after children or those with a statement get priority. And then each category is prioritised by distance.

It's fairer than people getting priority because they put their child's name down at birth, are on the preschool committee, or donated a lot of money to the school.

I haven't managed to read the whole thread but is it possible that the child meets any of the top criteria for a place at the school? At our local school it goes something like kids with a statement, LA looked after kids including kids that are no longer in LA care, kids from military parents. These all take precedence over catchment/distance from school. You wouldn't necessarily be privy to this sort of information OP.

I would send the mail on to them of you have their new address. Otherwise would ignore letter. Maybe they are bending the rules perhaps or have just forgotten to tell school change of address but I would not tell on them.

sleepy it's not relevant in any shape or form whether the child meets any criteria or not for a place at the school. What is relevant is that the child no longer lives at that address and OP should return to sender saying as such.

puddy how is it "telling" on them for OP to return mail to sender that is addressed to people who no longer live at her house? "Telling" on them would be ringing up the school and making a point of it. Returning post is returning post. She is legally not entitled to open it and I can't see why she would or should keep post not addressed to her. (and keep her address on record for registered persons who do not live with her at her address. It's barmy!!! Why are people putting emotion into what is a black and white situation - return to sender - addressee is no longer at this address?

I really don't get how anyone can moralise about catchments.

This family moved to a cheaper area because they can't afford more than a 2 up 2 down close to their preferred school, and they have four kids. So they are manipulating the system to try to get their kids into a state funded school, because it is in effect privately funded admission by house price, and that price is more than they can afford to pay.

Being able to buy your way into an Outstanding school in a leafy suburb is not "fair". It does not make you more moral than someone trying to play the system by massaging facts. It just makes you richer, and luckier in being able to conform to the admission rules, so nobody can ever challenge your child's place.

We moved to a house 1/3 of a mile from our preferred school to ensure we got a place for our DS, incidentally, so I am not saying I am above that degree of sharp-elbowed selfishness. (And then we hated the school, he started talking about topping himself at 5, and we moved him to a school a 15 minute drive away where he is blissfully happy... but that's another story!)

I just roll my eyes when people huff that this sort of thing is "depriving a child of their rightful place", because when we replaced a childless woman in our house, some other family a little further out lost their child's chance at the local crappy, OFSTED, your cracked out views to the contrary school. But because we can afford the area if we breathe in a little and eat more baked beans then somehow that's okay. How? Why is being richer than someone else morally unimpeachable, while trying to game your way in for your child, because you can't buy in, conversely very, very wrong? Both sets of parents are trying to grab an advantage for their kid(s) denied to other children. All that separates them is money.

There's absolutely nothing for you to speculate or worry about here Op.

Simply RTS and think no more about it.

Sleeponeday: how is the OP richer? She has moved into the 2 up 2 down that the applicants moved out of....