Renting in school catchment area temporarily

[3weeksuntilwine]

I’m prepared to be told I’m unreasonable and potentially planning something illegal...

We live on the catchment boundary of a really good primary school and my DD is due to start reception in September 2019. We are currently looking at houses and hoping to move a couple of miles to get into the catchment completely but there’s nothing on the market at the moment and we haven’t sold our house. I’m aware the application process will start in autumn.

Would it be unreasonable to rent a flat for a few months in the catchment area from September 18 and use the rental address on the application? The dodgy bit is that we would continue to live where we are now. My crazy thought is that we’d have a short term lease and if we still haven’t sold/moved then stay in current house until something comes up...(so keep the rental for a few months only)

I know this sounds crazy but we also have two younger kids who would be going to school a couple of years later. If we didn’t get into this school, we would have to consider a fee paying school for the eldest as other schools locally aren’t great. The big cost outlay now would be far cheaper than sending all three to private school.

Am I considering a fraudulent act?
Has anyone done anything similar?
If the majority agree this is an ok plan, are there any flaws in it?
Tia

Our council require 12 month rental agreement and for utility council tax and child benfit evidence you live at address on apllication form. They also make visits to make sure people live there. Also they aleays prosecute people making fraudulent applications.

The simple answer if you want to move would be to sell your property, move to rented in catchment and then buy when you can. You’ll be in a much better position to proceed and get the school place you want.

We fully intend to move into that area - as twattish as it sounds, our current area is probably a bit more expensive to live in than the new area, it just so happens that the local school here isn’t great.

I’ll give the council a bell tomorrow, ta. Just checked and the ‘much wanted’ school website says they take 50% of pupils from outside the catchment, seems unusual? As I said, I don’t know too much about this.

You do understand that 'of course we fully intend to move there' is a) unproveable and b) what everyone says?

If calling the council, ask whether someone living in your current address would typically get a place.

It may be that the 50% out of catchment are in fact siblings whose families have moved out of catchment since the first child got in ... definitely worth looking at the admissions criteria - is it siblings then catchment; or catchment siblings, catchment other, out of catchment siblings, out of catchment other?

@BakedBeans47 "Why should your kids not go to a nice school?" Actually, peronsally, I think all kids should go to a good school. We all pay taxes, wherever we live

"So only the kids of parents who are (a) wealthy enough to have 2 properties on the go and (b) willing to commit fraud should get to go to a nice school? Fuck the kids of poor and honest people eh?" No, not at all, as I say all kids should be able to attend a good school.

"Shitty attitude" I don't think my attitude is shitty. I think it is shitty our government, which I did not vote for, passed schools on to various bodies to run and there appears to be a massive difference in their performance. They should all be good schools. How is it fair for people in one area to have a good school and people in another area not have a good school? And if you are allowed to move area, why should you not be allowed to rent in that area?

Isn't what you are really saying that it is wrong for some people to be able to afford two homes? Maybe it is, lots of things seem unfair but are not illegal. Plus the OP does plan to move to that area. She's not talking about a school miles and miles away, she says 'catchment boundary' so I am not sure why it is so shitty to think the child should get to go to that school.

Friends of mine did this. It works better if you're not married and don't have joint accounts.

She owned their house in her own name (no mortgage) and paid council tax. He paid other bills. They were both registered on electoral roll at the address.

He then rented a house in the preferred catchment while they were selling, paid council tax on it etc.

When it came time to apply for schools they were questioned as they were fairly newly renting in the area, but because the application was all under his name they weren't able to prove that "they" still owned the other house, or indeed were even a couple.

I think the key thing is that 1) they rented somewhere bigger than their previous house - so it was obvious that it was for a family and 2) they actually did end up moving into it for about a month as they sold their house and the one they bought in the catchment ended up with some issues and they moved in late.

To be honest I think if you are actually planning on living in the catchment it's neither here nor there. It might be worth actually moving to a rental there if you're sure you want to sell, you could always airbnb your old house while it's on the market. Gives you flexibility to pick a house you want as well, without buying the first thing that is OK. Think about how long it's doable for to offset the alternative (private school fees) though.

if you are allowed to move area, why should you not be allowed to rent in that area?

Of course you can rent in that area IF YOU HAVE SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF YOUR ORIGINAL HOUSE. What you can't do is rent a tiny empty property and claim that you live in it, simply to gain admission to a specific school.

And if you are allowed to move area, why should you not be allowed to rent in that area?
you are allowed to rent, the problem is with people renting the shortest possible time to put their child in a school who then move away to a cheaper and further area. Local school is for local kids, it's in everyone's interest!

It can backfire when siblings are refused a space a few years later, and parents end up with kids starting at the same time miles away, or even in different counties with different term dates.

Yes it’s the renting but not living there that’s fraudulent
Renting and living there is just moving into the area

(BTW, a lot of small flats near desirable schools are blacklisted by councils. Anyone applying to a school from one of them will be deemed to be fraudulent [it is up to the council what they deem to be your address] unless the family can prove absolutely that it is not.}

Thanks caoraich your last paragraph is definitely food for thought. Definitely prevents us buying quickly and making an expensive mistake too!

You are allowed to rent in that area, Italian. Of course you are. But if you also own a house within reasonable distance it will be assumed that you're renting purely for the purposes of pretending that you lived in catchment, and the address of your actual home will be taken as your real address.
Op has admitted she didn't even intend to move in...

However, the council is well within its rights to take your owned home nearby as your 'real' home, even if you have temporarily rented it out and rented a flat / house in catchment instead. 'Switching' houses purely for the purpose of gaining advantage in school admissions is a well-known admissions tactic and many councils are very wise to it, though others have been slower to respond.

So you may well find that the only reliable way of doing this is to sell, then rent in catchment - which also has the advantage of being within the rules, not fraudulent, and legal.

@cantkeepawayforever " What you can't do is rent a tiny empty property and claim that you live in it, simply to gain admission to a specific school." Why? Can you explain why? I am perfectly happy to admit I don't know the legality of this and I said this to the OP. So I am not advocating this. But I cannot see how this works.

I have two kids, I pay taxes, so does dh, my kids are entitled to a free education (in that mine and my husband's taxes pay for it, along with yours if you pay tax) and so if the school in my catchment is crap and the one in the next catchment is much better is it 'fair' that I have to send my kids in catchment? How is that fair?

All schools should be good and fit for purpose.

(I am perfectly happy with my kids schools but when dd went to secondary school we did look at a whole bunch of schools in a wide variety of places relatively locally. We (she) chose our local school and all was fine. If it had not been we would have moved her if we possibly could. We all just want the best for our kids and to be honest I can't see why anyone should have to rent a flat to get that.)

@cantkeepawayforever "So you may well find that the only reliable way of doing this is to sell, then rent in catchment - which also has the advantage of being within the rules, not fraudulent, and legal." Very good advice.

It is, cantkeepaway. Even "marketing" your house isn't necessarily going to convince the admissions board you are serious; it's easy enough to just not accept any offers... They'll still see the fact that you are currently in a short let rental.

Italian - are you deliberately being obtuse over this?
Because you have to apply with the addesss you live at for applications. Lying about where you live to obtain an advantage is therefore fraud.
If you live there it’s not fraud
Pretending you live there, when you don’t is clearly fraud

Italian,

Say there is a family who do live in catchment, near the edge, but in catchment. They genuinely live in their house.

The school has 60 places. If everyone applies according to the rules, the child from this family is number 60, and gains a place.

However, if rich family rents a tiny flat that they don't live in closer to the school, by gaining a place they displace number 60 from the list.

It may seem to you to be 'fair' that the child from the rich family gets a place, and the child who should have had a place does not. But how is it fair to the child who would have been number 60 and now does not have the school place that is rightfully theirs?

"Local school is for local kids, it's in everyone's interest!" I personally think local schools are best for families.

I guess for a school what is most important is that the parents participate as actively as possible, encouraging their kids with homework and all that, giving money to the parent teacher association events etc, I'm not sure that any of that requires someone to live really close by as opposed to moderately close by.

Would people feel so antagonistic if the OP was a poorer single parent who was proposing moving in with a relative to gain access to a better school? Genuine question.

italian the system is not perfect, but the catchment is the fairest one! How is that fair that a child is refused a school 2 minutes walk?

It's supply and demand. Houses in the area of a good school go up in price - houses in commutable areas go up in price also. It still is everyone' s interest to go to their catchment, how else could the system work?

It's bad enough to see how far some kids commute to grammar schools.

3weeksuntilwine

Maybe instead sell your property and actually move into a rented place in the catchment area, while continuing to look for a home to buy in the area.

Surely there is nothing illegal or risky about that?

Italian, why is it OK for the OP to attempt to deny another person's child their school place?

It is not OK for anyone to pretend their living arrangements are other than they truly are to gain a school place. However, it is on average true that houses on the margins of most 'honeypot' schools' catchments are cheaper than those right next to the school. Thus someone renting a flat close to a school to fraudulently obtain a place will dispropotionately displace poorer families from the admissions of that school.

I personally think local schools are best for families. What the hell are you on about, Italian?
What op is proposing ( and what you're determined to cheer lead ) is to attempt to take a place away from a "local" child. By pretending to live "locally".
Why are you arguing a viewpoint you clearly don't understand?

Would people feel so antagonistic if the OP was a poorer single parent who was proposing moving in with a relative to gain access to a better school?

It depends if they were moving permanently, or temporarily to commit fraud there too! Why do you think the teachers do "Home visits" in this country?

Oh course, the interest if for the kids not to be ferried for hours, why do you think the schools exist in the first place? There has to be some admission rules, the address is the fairest.