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

@applesandpears56 "Italian - are you deliberately being obtuse over this? " No, I am not. I don't really understand what this thing about people wanting to access good schools is. Why it is so frowned on.

When my child was ready to go to school, all I wanted was a good enough school. One where she would be safe and well treated and well educated. Her primary school was total crap for her (its been fine for ds). It just seems very unfair to me that some schools are not ones people want to send their kids to yet the state still runs them and expects people to send their kids to them.

I totally get if the OP lived miles away it would be an issue (primarily for the child who would have a lot of travelling to do), but she said 'catchment boundary' and she is moving to that area.

I don't understand how we have a situation where there is such disparity between UK state schools.

Yes - the rules apply to single parents too

It’s not about the locality - it’s about some schools being much better than others - everyone should have a fair and legal right to be admitted to the good ones on the terms of the rules of everyone else. It’s selfish and immoral to think you can play the rules to benefit you and your kids above someone else

What on earth is so difficult to understand? . Leigha, of course there's nothing wrong with your scenario, because in that case you would not have another property that you intended to move back into as soon as the school place was secured

But there is a disparity - where I live within a mile there is an outstanding school and one that is truly struggling. Of course everyone wants to go to the outstanding one. Why are you content with ‘good enough’ school for your child?! Good school yes - but really is a struggling school ‘good enough’.
I agree perhaps the rating system needs to change but that’s a whole other thread

It surprises me that quite apart from the fraudulent and immoral school aspect, nobody's pointed out that, in renting and leaving a property void, you'd also be depriving other people of a home. I'm quite shocked anyone would contemplate it.

I don't understand how we have a situation where there is such disparity between UK state schools.

The perceived quality of schools is often about the nature of their intake.

Thus a more sensible question is 'why can there be such affluent and such deprived areas within a single town / city, and how can we redirect education funding so that the schools which take those from more deprived communities have the means to offset the social and educational disadvantages that come from the socioeconomic background of their pupils and /or how can we make sure that the intake of each school is much more balanced?'

@Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar "I personally think local schools are best for families. What the hell are you on about, Italian?"

I think you are being very rude, so I will take my leave of this thread.

But just for the record I personally would always prefer to send my child to a local school because it is better for the family and child.

However, living on the boundary for a school to me seems pretty local.

What op is proposing ( and what you're determined to cheer lead - no, I am not cheer leading anything, I am defending her right to try and get the right education for her child.

"to attempt to take a place away from a "local" child. By pretending to live "locally"." OK, yes, I can see another child may be disadvantaged because presumably the local counsel can only run one good school.

"Why are you arguing a viewpoint you clearly don't understand?" I am arguing that all schools should be fit for purpose and good.

I don't understand how we have a situation where there is such disparity between UK state schools.

I am not a specialist, but it's not a UK thing. It's easy to see why some areas have better schools than others, surely?

The rule is the same all over the country, you should go to the nearest/ catchment school. I did choose a school, then move in that area, most parents around here did the same. We went for smaller more expensive properties, it's a choice. Any high demand area put the price of properties up, it's not just the school.

I can't think of another way to organise school allocations. All the schools are suffering from huge cuts in funding, things are not going to improve any time soon

Italian - you should leave this thread - you aren’t understand at all
It is the op’s right to get the best school possible for her child - but not to commit a crime to do so!

Italian, actually, the quickest and best way to move most schools to being fit for purpose and good is for people like the OP to send their child to their own local catchment school, rather than selectively parachuting them into the 'good' one.

@Bluelady "It surprises me that quite apart from the fraudulent and immoral school aspect, nobody's pointed out that, in renting and leaving a property void, you'd also be depriving other people of a home. I'm quite shocked anyone would contemplate it." That is a really good point and I will admit I had not even thought of that, which I agree is terrible.

@cantkeepawayforever "Thus a more sensible question is 'why can there be such affluent and such deprived areas within a single town / city, .... how can we make sure that the intake of each school is much more balanced?'"

Yes, very good point. I will leave on that point of agreeing with you!

OP whatever you do, please do not break any rules, do it all properly and all the best with your home move and new school.

in renting and leaving a property void, you'd also be depriving other people of a home.
Honestly? The OP could just air BnB the empty property, reducing her financial loss and the problem would be solved. Not really an issue, is it.

@applesandpears56 "Italian - you should leave this thread - you aren’t understand at all "

That's really rude and unfair, I am attempting to understand and I have not told the OP to do anything, other than whatever is legal. But the idea that you think you can send me off is pretty rude. Luckily I was going anyway....

OP I guess by now you understand the general feeling and response to your Original post.

Genuine questions.

Have you visited any of the schools in question?

What makes you think that one school is so much better than the other?

I think some being are being very OTT here.
Most people do not have the money to even contemplate making this choice if they had to for their kids.
I’m sure if faced with the same and I could afford to do what you were proposing I would consider it. I hope I’d decide not to in the end, but I’d definitely consider it. I’m sure lots of people would if it were actually an option open to them.

@Italiangreyhound

In the past there were areas where people did this- rented near the school temporarily, got the place, then never moved. A lot of councils decided this was unfair, and now require proof that you are actually living at the address (e.g. council tax payments) or simply will not accept this as your address if you have another house nearby (say in the same town). In this case, they usually run your application from the address they consider your home i.e. your old house. In this case, some people may still get in, but others won't, and will have a nasty shock on offers day.

Also, some parents will report this behaviour to the LA- especially if their child missed out on a place. This would be investigated by the LA, and if they believed you had behaved wrongly you would lose your place- even if the child is already at the school. This is obviously difficult for the parents and the child.

So it's not a good or safe course of action. Some people do get away with it but more get caught these days I think.

I agree all children should go to a good school. If all children were forced to go to their local school, it might actually cause a raising or evening of standards.

The reason people view this as morally wrong is that by behaving this way, you are depriving another child of a place. This child may actually live much closer to the school than your child, and may be left with a long and difficult journey to the next nearest school with places. If 20 or 30 people did as the OP is planning, then that's 20 or 30 children who will have this problem. In some areas, where all schools are very oversubscribed, this can lead to "black holes", where children are left without a school place at all.

Some schools wish to serve their local community, hence setting distance or catchment criteria. Those renting from outside of catchment may disrupt a school aiming for a community feel.

I live in a county that is largely very rural. Each school has a priority admissions area defined by the council- organised for the provision of buses etc. Not every child is in their closest school's priority admissions area - it is designed mostly so that those with a 5-7 mile journey to their nearest school get that (with an organised bus and friends to travel with), rather than, say a 12 mile journey with no provision.

I know OP has said she intends to move to that area, eventually. But basically everyone who tries to do this says that, and many of them do not end up moving as they can't find a nice house or live in a nice enough area.

If people could rent another property to create a loophole in the system, it is often poorer children who lose out.

So that's why people (and schools and councils) don't agree with it.

I think you were a little naive in not anticipating the response you've got OP, what you're suggesting is gaming the system, it's no different from tax evasion or benefit fraud - you'd be stealing a place from a child who had more right to the place than yours. The system would collapse if everyone tried to do what you're suggesting.

You've got 10 months to move, it's perfectly do-able. All houses sell at the right price, drop yours and if you don't get the best price for it offset it against the school fees you're saving yourself.

Most schools now have it in the school admissions info that you can’t do just that.

Yes, it is an issue. An air bnb isn't a home. And that would compound the illegality as no rentall lease would permit it.

Slate me all you want but I would do everything I could to get my children the best education that I could. If that means renting then so be it. We sold our house with nowhere to buy and rented beside the school then bought later. The house was on the market when we got the rental and we just slowly moved in.

Bluelady
I meant to AirBnB her own home, not her temporary rental. Not legal issue there.

No, you can't "just AirBnB your property" whilst renting a flat close to the school!! You're still the legal owner, it'll still be presumed you rented to pretend you lived in catchment and the house you own will be taken as your actual address

It's illegal and your child's school place can be taken away if you are reported or found out. Sorry.

On the plus side, although applications for Reception places in 2019 open in September 2018, the closing date is January 2019 so you will have more time to sell your house.

You don't have to buy another house, you just have to genuinely have your only residence there. So for example it would be fine to rent while house-hunting. But it would not be fine to rent while owning a primary residence elsewhere. If that makes sense.

I think it's morally wrong, but not surprised tbh.
What about poorer people who can't afford to rent and actually live in the house they claim to be living in.
I'm sorry your attitude stinks, it would be lying and of course you risk being caught and being asked to leave the school.
Which I believe would be the best thing to happen to you.
People like you make me suck up the school in your own area or pay.

Lama I am not saying the OP should, just responding about a weird comment about leaving a home empty. I am not at all in favour of "fake renting"!

What councils should do, and might start doing, is maintaining the catchment during the whole schooling. If you move from the catchment area, you lose your space at that school and get allocated one in the nearest available school from your new address.
That would stop people fake renting or renting a few months to get to a school they have not right for.