Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Can a primary school place be withdrawn after nearly a month?

47 replies

DrEeta · 10/05/2016 22:25

I would be grateful for any advice. Sorry for the long description but bear with me.
I have lived in my current borough since 2002. We have been looking for a family home after our marriage and arrival of our son within the same area and made a purchase on a property a mile down the road from where we lived (still in the same borough). The purchase completed in Aug 2015. This house was in no habitable condition and we submitted planning application for renovation and extension to be built and it is currently a major building site. We have applied to a school for our son based on the new address but informed the council at the outset that we will move in once the building work has completed. We sent all the documents about our planning application approval letters etc. We were offered a place at a school for which we are in the catchment area for. However, our neighbour's child has missed out. They have made contact with various people (LA, school headmistress, local MP and solicitors) and have been offered a place at the same school as our son after the admissions office supposedly admitting that they had made an error. We have subsequently received communications from the admissions office asking us to clarify our situation with regards to our new house undergoing renovation and about our residency at the address. We are concerned that they might take away our son's school place nearly a month after it was offered/accepted as they have now offered a place to our neighbour's child on the basis that we have not physically lived at the new house, although they knew this from the outset and sent all correspondence to the address where we still reside whilst the building work continues. Can they withdraw this offer?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

CotswoldStrife · 11/05/2016 19:07

As you say, I think the fact that you have never lived in the catchment area for the school is the issue. You may be able to argue convincingly that you had made them aware of this at the time of application. In the light of the appeal from the neighbour, they have obviously looked more closely at the applications and I think she has told them and realised that they've made a mistake.

Have you replied to them yet?

BrieAndChilli · 11/05/2016 19:16

The problem is they don't have any guarantee that you will ever live in this house, now you have the school place you could do up the house and then sell it on.
What's to stop other people buying ramshackle houses/garages/plots of land for cheap prices and then saying they intend to make it their permanent home to get a school place then just selling the land once they had the school place they want?

Arkwright · 11/05/2016 19:37

They obviously have the impression that you lived in the house and moved out for work to be carried out. The reality is you have never lived there.

What did your letter say did you clearly state your situation to them?

Whilst I know prh47bridge is an expert in this field surely the OP must reply to them. In her first post she said she had received a letter and now an email.

It does sound like the friend has put them in the picture regarding your situation.

prh47bridge · 11/05/2016 23:29

People are still bringing up irrelevant questions.

If they want to go down the "misleading" route there is no time limit for withdrawing the offer. It can be withdrawn even after the child has started at the school. However, they can only withdraw if the application was fraudulent or intentionally misleading. Note the word intentionally. Given all the information you've provided I think they will find it very hard to justify a belief that you were intentionally misleading. They may have misunderstood the information you provided but that does not mean it was intentionally misleading.

The problem is they don't have any guarantee that you will ever live in this house, now you have the school place you could do up the house and then sell it on.

No they don't but that is irrelevant. The OP was open about the situation. In my view the LA cannot justifiably argue that the application was fraudulent or misleading.

In her first post she said she had received a letter and now an email

No. In her first post the only mention of letters is in relation to things she sent the LA. The reference to an email is to something she received today. There is no conflict in what she has said at all.

Arkwright · 11/05/2016 23:38

I didn't imply there was any conflict. I read it that she had received a letter asking for clarification of her situation and now an email. Surely she must reply to them not ignore them.

prh47bridge · 12/05/2016 00:00

Sorry, misunderstood your post. Yes, she should definitely reply to the admissions office. She has been open with them up to this point. The best policy would be to continue being open.

Ditsy4 · 12/05/2016 05:09

Tell them if it isn't finished you will be putting a caravan there!

I did the same as you when we bought our house. It was stamped "unfit for human habitation" and we lived in a friend's house a few villages away. We weren't in the house when the children started school we were in a cottage about 8 miles away that had a primary school that my husband had gone to. There was no problem with the school about the fact that we were living out of catchment because our address was the new house and it also was to be our forever home.
If they remove your place I would appeal and rent a caravan to sleep in if the house isn't finished. Put it on the drive.

UpsiLondoes · 12/05/2016 07:43

I disagree it's irrelevant as many people own more than one property. Promising one property you own will be your permanent residence and forwarding all your mail there while you reside elsewhere is pretty misleading. Clearly the OP didn't explain it that well and expected the school to somehow know the property was not habitable when they purchased it and they omitted the fact they never lived there.

Most people don't forward all their mail to a non-habitable property, so the fact you did OP can be argued as being purposefully misleading.

SuburbanRhonda · 12/05/2016 07:50

UpsiLondoes

The OP posted this:

The letter offering the place at the school has our new address on it but they have sent the letter to where we live whilst the house is being renovated.

So she didn't have mail redirected to an uninhabitable house.

UpsiLondoes · 12/05/2016 08:24

The LA is saying their application was misleading because it looked like they moved out of the family home during renovations and now they've discovered the truth - OP has never resided at the address she claims as her permanent residence.

I mentioned our LA requires proof of address after you are offered a place and the OP replied

"We have changed our address with our GP, bank etc and sumitted documents with our sons name at the new address when we applied."

I understood this to mean changed it to the house under renovation which they have never resided in. Perhaps I misunderstood?

SuburbanRhonda · 12/05/2016 09:14

Only the OP can say whether you misunderstood, but I thought the OP told the LA on the application that they have bought a new house which was being renovated and they would be moving in in summer 2016. The LA obviously has her current address because they've sent letters to her there.

I think the fact that the OP would have been happy with the second choice school except for the longer journey suggests she hasn't misled the LA but I could also be wrong about that.

SuburbanRhonda · 12/05/2016 09:19

Just read that the OP has changed her address with the GP and the bank. I guess if she is still getting paper bank statements that would mean letters are going to the house being renovated. So I see what you mean about other letters going to the new house. I was Teferring just to the addresses used for the school application.

LittleBearPad · 12/05/2016 09:30

I think that the council assumed that you moved into the house and then moved out for the renovations which they might just about consider ok.

Then they've been told by your neighbour that you've never lived there.

They have no reason to believe that you will definitely move in this summer. You could sell the renovated property or rent it out. If you live in a London borough then this behaviour isn't abnormal to get a primary place.

Have you anything in writing from the council specifically acknowledging that you will be applying from the new house whilst planning to move into the new one and that they know you've never yet lived in the new house.

LittleBearPad · 12/05/2016 09:33

Being devils advocate changing addresses to the new house really doesn't show an intention to live there. It's in the same borough - no faff to walk around to collect post every so often.

It's easy enough to change addresses. I've had to do all our twice in the last year as we moved twice.

Arkwright · 12/05/2016 09:34

I don't understand why you changed your address with the GP. They need your current address in case you need a doctor to visit in an emergency.

SuburbanRhonda · 12/05/2016 10:00

they have now offered a place to our neighbour's child on the basis that we have not physically lived at the new house, although they knew this from the outset and sent all correspondence to the address where we still reside whilst the building work continue

If the LA "knew this from the outset", that implies the OP told the LA she has never lived in the new house. Whether the LA acknowledges that they understand this isn't relevant. What's important is whether the OP told them, and it seems she did.

Unless she didn't

prh47bridge · 12/05/2016 13:02

The fundamental question is whether the OP has intentionally misled the LA. If there was never any intention to live in the new property that would clearly be deliberately misleading. If she had claimed they were already living in the new property that would also be misleading. The OP appears to have been completely open with the LA about the situation.

UpsiLondoes · 13/05/2016 06:55

But you can't prove whether someone was deliberately misleading or not. If she didn't specifically say "we have never resided here" but called it her primary/main residence and sent building plans, you can argue anyone who looked up the house on Internet could see it wasn't liveable therefore it's not deliberately misleading. Or you could argue it was purposefully misleading because she knew the council would assume they had lived there at some point and don't have time to investigate each application in that detail.

Original poster

DrEeta · 13/05/2016 08:59

We have had various communications with the LA. There had clearly been some misunderstanding. We will obviously wait for their decision. Thank you all for taking the time to comment and contribute to the discussion. They have been very helpful.best wishes.

OP posts:

prh47bridge · 13/05/2016 12:38

But you can't prove whether someone was deliberately misleading or not

It isn't about absolute proof. The LA needs to make a reasonable decision on the balance of probabilities.

If the OP said she was living at this house that would clearly be intentionally misleading. It appears she said that they bought an uninhabitable house to renovate and that they would live at their current address while the renovation was being completed. The LA, of course, has access to Council Tax records so knows how long the OP has lived at the current address. Unless there is something the OP isn't telling us I struggle to see how she has misled the LA. They may have misunderstood but that is a different matter.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 13/05/2016 18:44

The council could also have checked the situation out further before April. The OP wouldn't have been the first person to get a letter saying that after further investigation their address was deemed to be unacceptable and another address would be used.

And if the LA's description of which addresses can be used are a bit wishy washy, it might not matter. If it does actually state the address the will be living in, then it may not matter whether they've lived in the property before as long as they are in by September.

admission · 15/05/2016 18:09

I have to agree with PRH here.
This is about 2 things. What does the admission guidance for the LA say and did the OP deliberately mislead the LA.
If the admission guidance say the permanent address they will be living in when child starts school, then they have put the right address on the application form. From the posts of the OP they could not have been clear with the LA about the current situation and what was going to happen. They did not to my mind deliberately mislead.
Of course the LA is perfectly entitled to take any viewpoint it wants but it must obey the law as well as the OP. It cannot just remove a place because the LA has realised that what they thought was happening was not happening, they can only remove the place if it was deliberately misleading. Providing that the OP has copies of the information that they sent with the application form then they are on solid ground for any appeal.
The other point here is the question of why the next door neighbour has now got a place. There cannot be a connection. If the OP had been told they have the place removed due to fraudulent application then quite realistically the next door neighbour may then be the next on the waiting list and be given the place. But to do that you need to have a place available. At present that is not the case, the LA have simply asked the OP to explain, the place has not been removed. If the LA have offered the place on the basis that they intend to get around to removing the place from OP then that it another significant point to be made at any appeal that the LA have failed completely to follow their own rules.

Flip

1 2