Renting any old hole for 5 minutes to secure a school

[mumtojohn]

Am sure this has been gone over on MN loads of times before, but I am just entering the minefield of schools consideration (DS is now 2.5), and wondered what the general consensus is on the practice of renting for a short time to secure a favoured school (before moving then to the house you actually want to buy and live in, which may then not be within the original catchment of 10 metres away or whatever).

I know it is 'working the system' and that is wrong, but I am increasingly thinking that said system is completely ridiculous anyway (or rather, what you need to do to get into a good school is becoming ever-increasingly ridiculous). Do I care that much if the other mums at the school gates clock that I don't live in the school's armpit any more? If we have the flexibility to do it (and I mean genuinely live in that rented property for the necessary time, rather than simply re-routing mail for a few weeks), why not?

I should point out that I am usually someone with a strong sense of fairness and mostly live by the mantra of 'well, if we all behaved like that...', but I've just had a particularly fast and large glass of red, and this schools business is really something else.

That is one brave thread. Hold on for a bumpy ride !

Oh dear....thanks for the warning!

I'm going through what a i feel is a terrible time at the mo because I cant get my son into the school i want because of distance, so I say, if you can afford to do it, then do it! Look after number one...the LEA wont give a damn so why should you? Good luck, I hope you get what you want. :)

Do what you need to do. I know heaps of people that have moved house (either bought or rented) simply to secure a place for their child at their first choice school and I don't think any less of them.

We needed to move areas anyway but we certainly made school 'catchment' area a high priority when house hunting.

Do it? It's a system and if you are going to live in that area (not just change mail) then I don't see the problem.

More people should use their local schools

ducks for cover

Do it? It's a system and if you are going to live in that area (not just change mail) then I don't see the problem. Too right!

You will probably need to live there for a full year, maybe even longer depending on your LA. Be very careful. If the LA conclude that the rented address is not your real address but is being used purely to get a place at school, thereby depriving another child of a place, they can withdraw any offer that is made even after your child has started school.

I hope they do

Phew - I thought everyone was going to hate me.

To be clear, I'm talking specifically in terms of moving to a new area, rather than leaving where we currently live and own to rent on a temporary basis within the same area. So, we'd be new to the area anyway and just be renting in one of the required streets for 6 months or whatever and then moving (and buying) at a later date. There, it sounds perfectly reasonable when I say it like that.

Really, it doesn't feel that different to buying a house to get into a school (which people of course do all the time). It is just a quicker, less permanent, less risky way of achieving the same thing (I say, as I finish a second fast and large glass of red).

From my own horrid personally experience of moving and applying for schools I would be very careful, see my post - Appeals, am I reading this right? Our move was not out of choice, it was our circumstances that forced it, it was a genuine move and as it stands at the moment, we are going to appeals and do not have a place at all for my daughter.

But good luck with whatever you decide.

Yep, for the avoidance of any doubt, it WOULD be my real address and I would move the whole family there from our old area for whatever amount of time I would need to to make sure it was all above board. If it's a full year, then fine.

I'm not talking about 'using' an address to hoodwink the LA (clearly out of line), merely the deeper moral question of is it right to live there on a shortish/medium term basis to get in. And the more I think about it, the more I think it really isn't wildly different to buying a house in the 'right' (schools-wise) street, which is effectively also getting in ahead of other families (who may have lived on that street their whole lives, but happen to be further away than me, now that I have paid the higher price for that house within catchment). And I imagine rental prices will also reflect how close the property will be, so it's not like I won't be paying for the privilege.

Anyway, it's all new to me so I'm just thinking stuff through based on first-night consideration!

My friend did exactly this. They were relocating from London and always intended to live in the area they rented in but houses of the type they wanted came up rarely (and not within the time frame for their school applications). They rented a flat in catchment and lived there part of the time (still in London rest of the time). The house they ended up buying was even closer to the school, but they also looked at some houses outside catchment and I would not have thought any the worse of them if they had ended up buying one of them. But then I pay for school....

chopchopquick - I just read it. Sounds horrendous. I hope it works out.

We recently moved from an area where flats are relatively affordable but family houses are horrendously expensive. I know quite a few families who have moved to cheaper areas for more space as their families have grown and whose children have got into their formerly local school as siblings.

I don't have an ideological problem with that as these families have supported the school for years, which counts for something in a part of London where schools are vastly oversubscribed in the infants but the junior classes might only have 25 children because so many move out of town. Likewise if you are actually going to live in the area I don't have a problem with that. As you say, if you bought a house in the armpit of the school no-one would say anything.

Some schools will check through the time your child is at school and may not allow your child to continue. Others may ignore it. Depends on the school, popularity, and the views of others that there are out of area children at the school when their kids cant get in.

So glad I dont have this problem. our schools are catchment, and you can only go to the catchment school. we dont have any choice and we make the best of what we get.

Really are there actual cases of children being forcibly deregistered from state schools because they move?

Are there cases where the place has been withdrawn without the parents agreement and where they were able to provide the correct details (gas bill/electoral roll/whatever) I havn't read about any

FWIW
really common where I am
I know several who did it and got away with it
LA know it's happening but IMHO turn a blind eye
(I've namechanged for something else but here goes) I've tried to do it and couldn't get anywhere suitable from local EA

there are several houses round here advertised in Nov as being available for a short let and in the catchment of such and such a school and I know of several investment properties bought because of their catchment area

so no YANBU

Really hope I don't have to deal with any of the chilldren brough up thinking this is acceptable behaviour. "Look after number one" is as repellent a philosophy of life as it's possible to have.

There are areas all around the country, including within commuting distance of London, with perfectly good schools and none of this ridiculously underhand behaviour. Why not move to one of those? There is a lot to be said for living in an area where your child can go to the local school and live amongst or near their friends - creates a great sense of community, which reduces the sort of underhand, selfish behaviour which otherwise seems quite justifiable to otherwise reasonable people. Then you can smugly live in an area where you can look on in horror at the idiots who move to an area where everyone is scrabbling for spaces in only one or two schools when a few miles down the road, they would just be waiting for their child to be old enough to go to the local school.

Bear in mind if you have a second child after you have moved into your dream house, they might not get into the same school as their sibling

Our LA state 12mo resiidence is required, and I know families that have lost their places after investigation.
Who would want to live in 'a hole' for 13months plus?

You know it's morally wrong, but I. Think most of us consider it fleetingly...

It really makes me laugh, the hypocrasy of parents who sneer at those paying for independent school when they have bought their school place through their mortgage. Lovely standards!

I know someone who bought a house in the catchment area of the secondary school they wanted their child to go to.

Child go into the school, family moved back near other childrens primary school. They rented the other house to another family whose child wanted to go to the secondary school - child got in. Next year they did the same, school noticed and withdrew the place of the third child to get in from that property. The owners of the house hwere remrimanded by the school but thier child was allowed to stay as had settled in the school.

Be careful that the property you rent isn't one many people have used for the purpose of getting into the school. I compltley understand why you would do it, everyone just wants the best for thier own child.

It's fine provided:

a) you actually live in the house for a reasonable period, and
b) realise that more and more LEA's give lower priority to non-catchment siblings (after all catchment children). So if you have more than one DC and are planning to settle any distance from the school you may well not get the sibling into the same one.