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).

You asked for LA policies so I provided a couple.

Additionally, individual schools sometimes have stronger restrictions if they are very competitive e.g. Dame Alice Owen in Herts, which is partially selective:

The Governors will refuse to allocate a place under criteria 2/7 where they consider that the permanent home address as stated on the application form is a temporary address even if the child is living in this property. If the child has changed addresses within 36 months before the date of application, but a property that was a previous home address has been retained (where it is less than 50 miles from the school), an application from a property closer to the school will be treated as a temporary address regardless of whether the child is living in the property the majority of the time and/or regardless of whether the previous home address is leased to a third party. The governors will make their decision based on such evidence as they reasonably require.

I think PanelChair and prh47bridge are admissions experts who sit on appeal panels

Found this re Watford Girls Grammar. Not sure if it's already been shared

As we are dealing with a public authority performing its functions, the standard they have to meet is very low. For parents to overturn a decision that their application was fraudulent, they have to show that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, i.e. that it was, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

Yes you provided a couple that don't actually say what people are claiming.

It does appear that there are individual schools that have policies like this as the one you have just shared. But certainly not the majority, if any, LAs with policies this strict/ prescriptive as people are widespread claiming .

No, the school does not need any evidence actually. It can take the view that admissions fraud has been committed and the child will not be offered a place. Barring an appeal from the parent (which will look at whether the school's process was adhered to rather than the decision itself), that will be it.

In general, renting one property while continuing to own another, where the former is definitely in catchment and the latter might not be, could be sufficient to trigger an investigation.

Islington:

Please note that we may not accept a temporary address if you still possess a property that was previously used as a home address; nor accept a temporary address if it is used solely or mainly to obtain a school place.

There are many like this. In most cases, "may not" is only there to give them the ability to accept a temporary address if the property you own is uninhabitable.

Yup, this. In addition, there have been a handful of legal challenges to the admissions criteria that I know of over the years in Bucks. None has ever succeeded because schools are entitled to consider an application fraudulent even if it was made in good faith, and even if the parent thought they had done everything correctly.

May not accept a temporary address is completely different to you aren't allowed to move and still retain/ rent out an existing property.

The school are reserving the right to refuse a place if they believe the action is temporary/ fraudulent ,

however there are many reasons why people may reasonably rent while owning another property - you mention one which is if the property is uninhabitable. people may also move permanently, but not be in a position to sell/ buy at that time, or may choose to retain a property for investment/ or for family (as per this OP) etc. A blanket rule like this would be unreasonable. Thats why these kind of fixed, prescriptive rules dont generally exist.

If they deny admission despite the mother adhering to the school’s protocols and being able to provide evidence of this, and the mother subsequently appeals, they will need to show their reasoning, and what they have based their belief on.

In general - sure, but what matters is the specific details of the individual case. If the mother has been above board in what she’s done, it may not be considered fraudulent.

@puppymaddness I am not sure what you are trying to get at here?

The policies that I am quoting, and others too, clearly indicate the directions in which the LAs will be focussing, and the situation in the OP is clearly one intended to be caught by such policies. Of course, no one policy can capture every single possibility, but all the discussion on this thread - as every thread - is primarily about the specifics raised by the OP.

The rental is not going to be automatically considered a temporary address, particularly if the contract is not a short term one of six months or less. In addition, it won’t be considered temporary if it has been established as a main residence, with the owned property having been converted to a rental property with a legal tenant in situ. Nor is this automatically going to considered a case where the main or primary motivation can be assumed to be because of catchment area.

The ‘may not’ is a lot more important than you’re crediting it as being.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here?

What is confusing you?

People are claiming that in most LAs you are not allowed / it is against the rules to use a rental property address if you still own another nearby property (even if that property is rented out).

These claims are not correct.

There are a few LAs that state that they may reserve the right to refuse an application in these circumstances if they believe the rental address is temporary and has been used solely to get a school place.

Lots of other LAs say if you own another property it should be unavailable to you, eg rented out, which is the situation being described in this thread.

Exactly

Ah, OK.

You think that the "may" will be used by LAs to allow the majority of 'temporary address' applications.

I think it is used to disallow the majority of 'temporary address' applications, but to give occasional exceptions eg main house flooded and is uninhabitable during the application period.

The majority of cases won't make headlines because LAs will be quietly doing background checks and notifying parents of address decisions during the process, rather than taking away a place after the child has started at the new school (which tends to be more newsworthy).

I've dealt with Islington. The "may not" really isn't a lot more important than I'm crediting. Indeed, I know from experience that many LAs start from the position that, if you own a property and give the address of a rental property, your application is likely to be fraudulent and will be treated as such unless you can prove otherwise. They don't always say this in their admission arrangements, but that doesn't matter. Once they have decided that an application is fraudulent, it is up to the parents to prove that the LA's decision is Wednesbury unreasonable.

The claws-out rending of other parents and children's flesh about school places, looks such a waste of time a few years later. #justsayin

Legal, yes. Morally dubious.

The sooner they close all grammar schools the better.

Yes most certainly feels like snitching especially on her kids friends even if you report it doesn’t mean you are going to automatically get a place in the school, live and let live

Because you said she wouldn’t be reading in British? 🙈

You sound awful, her child may of barely ‘scraped’ through the 11+ but they scraped through and passed!
They passed.

Also no way would a child give out this much information you have 100% been goading the child to tell you things.

Morally right or wrong the mum clearly is fighting for something and wants her child to have a good education, and good on her for doing so.

You on the other hand sound awful and bitter.

And she may very well be able to do that if she has been above board in going about this.

Legally, it really is very important. That is what provides the room for consideration of wider context, and what the judgement as to whether it can be considered fraudulent or not hinges upon.

People do this all the time. Mind your own business and get a life!

Grow up Concentrate on your own child stop worrying about what others are doing, if your now outside the area the tough either do the same or pick a different school. You sound seriously jealous. So what the child only just got the pass mark that doesn’t make your child any better.

No, it is not important at all. Admission appeals panels won't be interested, nor will the LGO or ESFA. And nor will the courts if the parents go to judicial review.

Similarly, many LAs have lists of addresses they know are used as temporary rentals by people trying to get places at popular schools. Any application from one of those addresses will be looked at with suspicion. They don't need to publish those addresses, nor do they need to publish the fact they hold such a list.

The only question is whether the admission authority's actions are Wednesbury unreasonable. The fact they haven't told the world and his dog that they will look on your application as fraudulent unless you can prove otherwise in certain circumstances does not make their decision Wednesbury unreasonable.

When such cases go to judicial review (which is extremely rare), the LA's case is simple. The parents own a property in the area which they previously used as their home. Shortly before applying for a school place they moved to a rented property nearer their preferred school but retained ownership of their property. The property remains inhabitable. We therefore concluded that their application was fraudulent and treated it as such.

That is clearly not Wednesbury unreasonable, which is why parents don't win these cases.

that,

you are mift coz she bit you to the game. She must have done the same thought process as you and acted upon it. If you had enough…you’d probably do the same…

It’s not “legal” - pretending to move out, or even actually moving out, but keeping your original home, is not allowed - someone I know tried this, someone else informed the school, and the placement was rescinded, even on appeal.