will the LEA act on people who try to beat the admissions system?

[queenfromars]

I cant believe this, I bumped into a mum I know from when ds used to be at baby group who I still see around and say hi to today. She was also at our school appeal a couple of months ago as she was also appealing for the same school we were. Anyway, she said another mum who we also both know, deliberately rented a house opposite the school for 6 months to get her son in (and was successful). The LA have been told about this by several people, but have said they can't do anything until September (?)

I am fuming, at the time the schools were allocated, ds was number one on the waiting list, so that should have been his place. Other people have since moved nearer and ds has now moved down to second on the waiting list. What a kick in the bloody teeth. Why do they have to wait until September, and what will they do? At our appeal they said they took this kind of thing very seriously, but it turns out they knew that day as this other mum brought it up in her appeal, and others have too.

tiggy
you like prh have great faith in the "rules" and the "system"

welcome to the real world - paperwork gets held up and delayed while going via the Bermuda holding company
and as the calls are part of a private company, not any local government "freedom of information " rules
you'll be lucky getting proof

the "independent panel" - independent of whom and chosen by whom - as they are a private company, not covered by any public procurement / accountability rules
some of the companies are charities whose holding trustees are LLPs in offshore tax havens

I wish you luck on finding the "accountable person"

tiggytape
I deal with the "law" for local government all the time
I'm currently involved with a case that will be front page news when it finishes

"rules" "laws" pah
convienence is all
"if a councillor does not declare an interest over £5000, repor it to the ombusdman"
whoops, the ombudsman got abolished
whoops, report it to the police
whoops, they can barely cope with real crime

if you have evidence of a failure in the system for a non LEA school, who will you phone to get it sorted?
what number?
what department?

appeals to a private company : if they ignore them, then what?
who to next?

You write to the ombudsman : number ? evidence of success ?

The EFA is utterly untried and untested
Can you name me one case where the initial decision in an academy school was overturned ?

(allowing for the fact that these are private companies so there will be commercial sensitivity so absolutely no publicity and accountability at all)

and this story adds to concerns
www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/11/academy-schools-teachers-grade-inflation

How many of the Kent schools are non LEA?

fairy nuff
I guess they are having to be more transparent because it is such a contentious system
still UTTERLY unconvinced by how it will work long term

Last year the EFA upheld or partially upheld complaints in 28% of cases with half of these leading to a fresh appeal. For comparison, around 28% of cases referred to the LGO lead to some kind of remedy for the family. Unlike the LGO which can only make recommendations, the EFA can force an academy to act. To be fair it is unheard of for an LA to refuse to implement the LGO's recommendations in a school admissions case but VA schools have been known to do so.

Academies are, of course, subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And, like LAs, they are required to answer any question parents reasonably ask to help them prepare for their appeal. Failure to do so would go down badly with a properly trained appeal panel and, should the appeal be lost, would be grounds for referral to the EFA. Of course, as a quick perusal of admissions threads will show, LAs are no saints when it comes to admitting when they've got it wrong.

Of course, there are no "Bermuda holding companies" involved in current academies nor can there be under the law as it currently stands. Even if this were to change, unless there were changes to the Admissions Code such a holding company would not be involved in the admissions process. The applications go direct from the LA to the school even if it is part of an academy chain. Admissions are decided by the governors of the school, not by the chain.

Do please enlighten us as to which charities have trustees that are LLPs in offshore tax havens? I am not aware of any.

Regarding the OP's last question, my view is that it could go either way but I think the most likely outcome is that the LA would award the place to whoever is currently at the head of the waiting list. You would then appeal on the basis that the place would have been yours if the LA had applied its rules correctly. The appeal would hinge on whether or not the LA had sufficient evidence to act sooner.

AET are using offshore LLPs to invest reserves awaiting capital expenditure.
Legal but not ethical.
You have an incredible faith in the "charity" status, while forgetting the networks of subsidiary companies that are not charities through which the money is being flushed and skimmed.

The offshore limited company used by AET to manage investments is NOT a trustee of AET.

I do not have "incredible faith". I simply know charity law. That does not, of course, mean that all charities comply with the law. "Flushing and skimming" money through a network of subsidiary companies is, of course, clearly against the law.

No its not.
It is perfectly legal business planning.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't know charity law. You are doing so again. It is not "perfectly legal business planning" for trustees to "flush and skim" money for themselves through a network of subsidiary companies. It is a clear breach of the Charities Act 2011 and they can be required to refund the money concerned in addition to any other penalties.

We are not talking about the charity that owns the school.
We are are talking about the linked companies that provide computing and training and building maintenance
groups like Oasis and ARK and Harris have multiple associated and related party companies
otherwise they could not make it pay.

Oasis, ARK and Harris are all charities. They have wholly owned subsidiaries that are not charities which provide the services you mention. Any profits from those wholly owned subsidiaries goes to the parent charity. The trustees may not benefit from or be employed by the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies are not a way for the charities to "make it pay". These subsidiary companies allow the charity to save money compared to buying the services from third parties, thereby ensuring that more money is available for the primary objective - educating children.

The trustees cannot be paid for acting as trustees. What I think you are referring to is that they (or any company or individual with which they are associated) can be paid for providing services to the charity provided:

• the payment is reasonable for the services provided
• the trustees are satisfied it is in the best interests of the charity
• the trustees involved are in a minority, i.e. the majority of trustees are not receiving payment nor is any payment going to companies or individuals with which they are associated

It is, of course, very easy for the press and observers to say that trustee X has (or works for) a company which is receiving £Y from the charity and hint at malpractice. Without knowing whether the amount paid relates purely to services provided by X or if other people were involved and without knowing the nature and extent of the services provided it is impossible to tell whether the amount paid is reasonable. The regulators, of course, have access to this information. They have taken action against various charities in the past where they have uncovered evidence of abuse. I hope they will do so should any abuse be uncovered at academy charities but I know this cannot be totally relied on. We live in an imperfect world and regulators will sometimes miss or fail to penalise abuses. That, of course, applies regardless of the way things are set up. There have been abuses by people within LAs, in central government, etc.

For what it is worth my personal view is that it is unwise for any charity to pay trustees or associated companies or individuals significant sums of money as there will always be those who suspect impropriety even if everything is above board. There are, of course, occasions when it is impossible. For example, in the case of one academy trustee where the press has "revealed" that significant sums of money are being paid by the charity to her employer, the employer concerned is the GLC.

This is, of course, getting well away from the subject of this thread.

I am in an area of over subscription and one family at our choice of school lost their place this year for putting down grandparents address - but only because others reported them. Its important to stop cheats so fight your corner. You should appeal again and state that 1. they have broken the rules 2. the place was your 1st time round.
Kick up a stink until you win.

The LA responded saying they are aware of the family in question, and they have evidence that they were living at the rented property at the time of their application. They have said however that they are aware it is a short term tenancy, and if they will be reviewing the situation in the Autumn term.
The other mum has informed me that she was told by the LA if they move more than 0.4 miles away from the school, they will lose the place. I found out today that they are moving tomorrow, 0.6 miles away.
The LA did not mention my request for a new appeal in their reply, and I am unsure wether to push for a new one or contact the ombudsmen.

Go for the ombudsman. You've already lost an appeal so you are entitled to go to them. It may not get you anywhere - the ombudsman may think the LA's approach is reasonable given the evidence. But you won't have lost anything by trying.

Thankyou Prh, why do you think the 0.4 miles is important? The mum who has been talking to me has email evidence saying the family will lose their place if they move this distance, but apparently the family in question were told they wouldnt lose the place if they moved to this address.
I am also querying something that was said by the La at our original appeal, which I am certain they have since backtracked on (in regards to a place being allocated off the waiting list), can I bring that up too?

I would imagine 0.4 miles is the distance for the last child admitted. If the LA decides these parents used a false or misleading address they must decide whether or not they would have been offered the place using the correct address. If they would they are entitled to keep the place.

You can certainly bring up your query about the evidence given by the LA at your appeal. If it turns out that they said something that was untrue and was significant in determining the outcome of your appeal the LGO would be very interested.

Ah yes, 0.4 was the distance for us, and also a little boy a few doors down (who did get in) so that makes sense. If they take the place away I am guessing that might advantage us.
At our appeal we were told a place had been offered to the person at the top of the list (which we were at the top of the day before) but when i questioned it in the days after, we were told that the place was offered AFTER our appeal. Obviously the timing is important as if it WAS offered the day before our appeal, we were told we were still first on the list.
I have requested a copy of the notes taken so I can check what was said, my request has been passed to the relevant department according to the LA.

I have pm'd you Prh47bridge, I found out new information that might be useful.

They were living at their original address at the time of application, let alone allocation, which is considerably further than us, but they told the la they would be moving soon (to a short term tenancy opposite the school) and they accepted this.
I am hoping this will help us considerably, thanks Tiggy.