Is this admission fraud? AIBU to report it?

[grammarmom]

Here's the situation.

We live in a grammar school catchment area that gets smaller every year. When we bought our house several years ago, it was very comfortably within the catchment for an excellent local grammar (very high in the league tables), and oh boy was it reflected in the price. Now we're right on the boundary. Among the thirty or so houses around us, some children got in last year and some didn't, literally a difference of a few yards.

Another child on our street, who is in the same class as my DC, only just passed the 11+ (a few points above the pass threshold). We live on the same road, but they are about 50 yards further from the school gate. Based on last year's distances, my child would likely get a place while theirs wouldn't.

Over the weekend, during a sleepover, the child mentioned that her mother has now rented a house much closer to the school to secure a higher priority for admission. The tenancy was apparently signed one day before the cut-off date, making it "legal" for admission purposes. She still owns their original home, but the story being presented is that relatives who were previously "homeless" will now live there free of charge, and all bills and utilities have been transferred into those relatives' names (I strongly suspect that the mother will in fact pay these bills as those relatives are penniless).

She's even moved the children's belongings to the rented property and makes them spend nights there (they hate it). There's no doubt that once the school place is obtained, they will move right back.

This effectively pushes my child down the priority list and means they may now miss out.

Would this constitute admissions fraud? It feels incredibly unfair that someone with £40k to spare for rent can effectively buy their way into a top grammar school, especially when their child didn't perform particularly well in the exam (despite being tutored for hours every day).

Should I report this? I have no more detail apart from what this child told me (and they obviously weren't too sure about some aspects of it due to age).

Reading ‘address of convenience’ protocols is interesting:

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/ggxfyjcy/address-of-convenience-protocol.pdf

It is interesting to note that the evidence to show that a permanent residence is not being lived in (rental / uninhabitable) is NOT sufficient to show that an address of convenience is not being used - that remains a judgement on the balance of probability.

So always worth reporting and letting the LA make the judgement that it is their job to do.

They THINK they are playing the game according to the rules. The OP does not think the same, and it certainly looks from the document I have linked that there is a reasonable chance it will be judged to be fraud.

Just report - the LA can then do their job and make the judgement.

If they are from Ukraine they are not refugees with the same refugee status in the UK. The last government gave the temporary visas instead so that they couldn’t stay permanently and make the immigration figures look bad.

I'd also be wary of acquiring the reputation of being that parent who mines youngsters at sleepovers for information they can then use to incriminate the child's parents in some wrongdoing in order to benefit their own family.

There is a good chance that, if you report it, the LA will disregard the address for the purposes of admissions. If they do so, they will - I think - act as if the original house is the address. In which case, this kid might get in anyway, as that address is close to the 'furthest distance admitted'

What his score is, whether or not the refugees are leaving in a year, which school is right for him - all that is noise.

I think it’s dependent on how much competition there is for school places and the extent that parents have tried to game the system before. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it in ours. When I went to look for example last night I picked a few LAs that I know used to be really oversubscribed when the peak birth rate years were applying for reception.

Interestingly the first one I picked didn’t explain it clearly even though I know we had a very long thread from a parent who had tried this and been informed by the LA that their application had been considered fraudulent and they were going to use the previous address a month before allocations came out.

Which is kind of the point. They child may get in anyway and if he gets in that way it will at least have been as fair a process as it can be and the children who should have got in will get in. If he wouldn’t have got in then he has taken the place of the child that should according the rules have had that place.

Agree @RafaistheKingofClay

Just saying that OP doesn't need to angst over the kid's score, or the status of his relatives, or anything. If she's going to report, cleaner to do it now as then (if he is out of "catchment") the kid never gets the place and has it taken away down the line.

Report it. If she’s done nothing wrong, then nothing will come of it. Although it sounds like she’s going to fairly extreme lengths, so they probably won’t be able to find her guilty of fraud.

She's a single mum trying to get the best future for her child.
A lot of parents would do the same if they had the funds as you've already said the alternative school is not good.

Why lose a friend over this? She cares about her kids future.

So does the OP, and this “friend” is currently prepared to [allegedly] cheat the system to disadvantage the OPs child. This is why if I were the OP, I’d report it. The decision is then of her hands and either it’s legit, and remain friends, or it’s not legit and, hey presto, they can still remain friends.

Having the resources to legitimately game the system, or even pay privately, or just live in a better area, is a different matter which happens day in, day out, right across the UK.

It doesn’t appear to be a short term rental, given that they’ll be there for at least a year. If they’ve converted the former main residence into a rental, established their accommodation as being the new main residence, and followed the law when it comes to their tenants, then it’s unlikely to be considered fraud.

They also likely can justify this if questioned by the LA. Why do this? It was necessary for their Ukrainian relatives, fleeing a war that left them traumatized, to be in close proximity to family. Why rent their own house to them, depriving themselves of it? Because the Ukrainians would not have been able to secure a nearby rental otherwise. How could this compassionate act possibly be considered fraud when this family already resided within the catchment area?*

*I’m not claiming that these answers would be truthful, only that this exceptional set of circumstances can be used to adequately explain their actions.

Many LAs won't be interested. Their rules are clear that, if you own a house, that is the address you must use for admissions purposes. Even if they don't have that in their rules, they only need a reasonable belief that someone has acted fraudulently.

I thought all LA’s had this policy, I know mine does, they are really hot on people doing this.

Imagine if the child has got it wrong. A
local authority investigation and a long Mumsnet thread, triggered by the innocent misreporting of an 11-year-old 😏

Perhaps there are LAs where this is explicitly stated, but I’d need to see the pertinent documents to determine whether this is the case. The one example already provided in this thread was actually quite vague.

The point is that if this woman has gone about this in an above board way, then the LA would lack the evidence they needed to establish fraud had taken place.

Ah but the onus in this instance is on the woman/family, not the school. Schools are given quite wide latitude in matters of eligibility criteria and it will be on the applicant to provide evidence that the move is genuine rather than on the school to prove that it is not. A school can decide that it is admissions fraud under their (published) criteria, whether the applicant considers it is or not.

Sure, and that is evidence the woman will be able to provide if she’s gone about this properly. If further investigation is made (and it may very well not be. The school, for a number of reasons, may not be motivated to pursue this) she can argue that she took reasonable action in response to an exceptional set of circumstances. If this is the case then there is likely enough for this not to be considered fraud.

While the onus is on the woman to prove that it isn’t fraud, the school would still need evidence to support the conclusion that it is. Evidence that would stand up to scrutiny in the event of an appeal.

This isn’t a cut and dried case.

The school would not need evidence. As prh47bridge has already pointed out, they would need only a reasonable belief.

A reasonable belief needs to meet a specific legal standard in order to be considered one. If that standard isn’t met then they’ll be leaving themselves open to accusations of prejudice.

They would need to be able to show why they hold that reasonable belief despite the woman having legally met the school’s requirements for admission.

Don't some LEAs make their decisions on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring absolute proof of rule-breaking?

I don’t think a balance of probabilities is needed here. Either the LA/school admissions policy counts “second homes” nearer to the school only if the parent has sold the former home before a certain deadline, or it doesn’t and is prepared to count a nearer second home if eg a long term rental contract has been signed on the second home.

The motivations for the change aren’t really the point being considered.

No. People keep saying this, but no one has been able to share an LA with these rules. One person managed to find a policy from one specific grammar school that had this rule.

Here's what Surrey say:

• We will not normally accept a temporary address if the main carer of the child still owns or rents a property that has previously been used as a home address, nor if we believe it has been used to obtain a school place when an alternative address is still available to that child.

On the basis of the above, I would expect Surrey to deem the "old house" as the permanent address.

ETA here's what Herts say:

Which address to use
Give your child's permanent address at the time you apply.
If you move after applying, you must send us proof of your new address.
Proof can be:

• a solicitor's letter upon completion (exchange of contracts not accepted) confirming your completion date was on or before 2 December 2025 or
• a signed rental agreement (for at least 12 months) showing the start of your tenancy on or before 2 December 2025. If it's not possible to provide a 12 month tenancy agreement because of the nature of the agreement, we'll request alternative proof of address and verify it with the Shared Anti-Fraud Service, as necessary.
• evidence that you have relinquished residential ties with the address you originally declared on your application form.

The child in question moved before the deadline so the above isn't totally applicable but shows intent: The child MIGHT be OK in Herts, if the mum has signed a 12 month rental contract and if the evidence of relinquishing ties with the old house was sufficiently demonstrated by e.g. the relatives signing a rental contract.

This is one of the strongest worded ones but even then it is qualified in important ways- It says they won't normally accept a temporary address.