renting another place to get school of choice-urban myth or not?

[1dilemma]

So I was talking to a friend the other day and we were discussing this. She basically said it was an extremely rare thing to do and an urban myth, which got me thinking I only know of people who have done this by reputation not friends or family. So I thought I'd ask those who know....
so come on do people rent another place to get into the school of their choice or don't they? Friend said using another family members address was much more common.
Am in London FWIW

This was rife in my area as people fought to get into one particular school.

However, the council now demand evidence that you live at the rented address (Child Benefit, council tax etc) and that you are no longer responsible for any utility bills etc at your previous address. They even ask for the date when you stopped being responsible for the bills at any other address.

I did this for primary (in London). At that point I had to apply for the school by mid January so rented a 2 bed flat close to the school end December and moved in with children (preschoolers). We were having building work done on our home anyway. I changed details on the electoral roll, had council tax and utilities in my name. Checked with the LEA and they were fine about it. Got into oversubscribed school from that address. There was no problem when I moved back at the end of the rental period (in June)as I wasn't exactly living miles away anyway. In some years I would have got into the school without resorting to such lengths but I was aware that ds1 was in a high birth year.

I know of someone who did this. They were moving into the area from a long way away and fretting about cut off dates for school applications in the new county.

They rented a house in the same village as a very good secondary school to make sure they got a place. They didn't actually move into the county until about 6 months later and if I rememebr never moved into the rented house but to a different village about 4 miles away. If they'd lived in the 2nd village when they applied the chances are they wouldn't have got into that school.

from the outside I could see why people feel it is a little bit dishonest and underhand - especially if it is stopping other children (who genuinely live nearer) getting into their school of choice. Why should money buy your right into these schools over other children without rich parents able to afford to rent a second home just that bit nearer? Seems against the grain of the whole ethos of state schools.

However, if I were a parent living near a dire school, had several children and cannot afford the fees for all of them to go private, I could be persuaded to consider this as an option. In reality, no way we could afford to rent a second home. Our first home is costing us the earth right now, but if we could... hand on heart, perhaps we would.

You need to have been resident at the 'rented' property for 2 years if applying for a local school place (that's the case around the London boroughs anyway 'cause I've enquired).

Also, if you use grandparents address, that's fine, but the you have to be on the electoral roll at their address to qualify for a school place.

I think its totally wrong by the way. People who do this are denying other children places at the school - children wno actually live nearer to the school. Of course its famailes that can afford to pay rent on a second property that do this, meaning poorer families are furhter disadvantaged and their kids end up at a crap school.

Which London boroughs have you enquired with regarding the 2 year rule? Can't see how that could be enforced as usually renters only get a 6 month contract and the landlord is free to give notice at the end of that (if say they want to move back in or sell).

Know quite a few people who have done this and it has invariably backfired, two had their children removed from the school. Not fair on their kids and not fair on others. Do understand why people do it, think it is totally wrong though.
If you can afford to pay rent to play the system you are making a mockery of it, go private and allow someone less fortunate to who can't pay to get a place at an excellent school rather than forcing the divide further.
That said, our top local primary must be one of the most exclusive I know as you can't buy a house in the catchment for less than £800,000. We certainly don't have that sort of house and would be sent to the worst performing school ? social streaming according to affordability which will create a never ending divide.

And actually the stuff about using grandparents address is false too - you have to live there, not simply be on the electoral role.

So in answer to the OP, yes some people will go the extra mile to get a school place, but it pays to know what happens at your school of choice in terms of checks etc.

It happens a lot round here -- dd2 didn't get a reception place at a league table-topping primary near us, although she was in the nursery and we only lived 650 meters away, according to the LEA. Yet every morning as we walked to the nursery class we were overtaken by people driving their kids in from god-knows where. A popular tactic seems to be to rent in the area to get your oldest child in, then move back to wherever you actually live safe in the knowledge that all your other kids will get in on the sibling ticket.

I think schools tacitly condone it in many cases, because those parents who are pushy, organised and affluent enough to pull off a stunt like that are likely to be supportive to the school and have high-achieving dc.

I think the 2-year thing can't be a blanket policy, because people who've genuinely moved into the area have as much right to a school place as people who've lived there for years. I'm guessing the LEA use that as a guideline in assessing cases of alleged fraud.

loads of people here (wandsworth) doing it - the roads around the "desirable" school are full of houses which are pretty much only used as "school" rentals - lots of people parachuting in for a year or so - the school knows it's happening but can't do anything about it as they are legally living there on the required date

" * By StripeyKnickersSpottySocks on Wed 10-Dec-08 09:12:34
I think its totally wrong by the way. People who do this are denying other children places at the school - children wno actually live nearer to the school. Of course its famailes that can afford to pay rent on a second property that do this, meaning poorer families are furhter disadvantaged and their kids end up at a crap school*" you hit the nail on the head, precisley my argument why we shouldn;t allow it, but i don;t see how it cna be stopped.

Frogs - that really sucks.

We used to live near a "desirable" primary and now live near a "desirable" secondary (though not, it seems, quite near enough!). ime the heads don't condone it. Certainly at the primary, the head and the teachers were completely gutted by what went on. Maybe they were a one off. I can see it would be quite an ego boost. They are all, though, completely powerless to stop it b'cos it is legal, if you've jumped through the required hoops and any change would discriminate against those legitimately renting. Which would be really unfair.

UnfortunatelyMe - I'm wishing you luck. (Note - I've tried the bold thing, thanks for that.)

Oh, we were fine about it, in many ways I prefer the school dd2 is now going to, which is much more mixed and saner. Less keen on the mile-long walk up a steep hill though...

I think a positive change would be to alter the admissions criteria nationwide to give lower priority to subsequent siblings where the family had moved since the initial sibling started school iyswim.

That would be an obvious and fairly easy loophole tightening exercise, I would think.

i have known one in the past and one who is doing it now.

remaininganon Yes, you are sopose to live there , you are absolutely correct and by being on the electoral register for that address, 'they' assume you are. However, if the school checked and you were not resident along with the child, dc would have to leave the school. I am referring to the London Borough of Croydon.

I enquired as we were in the process of moving house into the area we wanted our child to attend a certain school. The closing date was drawing near and we had not managed to sell our home (it was on the mkt for 17 months ).

I enquired about renting and applying for the school and was told I would need to be resident in the borough for at least 2 years to qualify.

I know someone who did it.

And there is a school close to us where it happens routinely and estate agents advertise 'close to XX school' in big letters on to let ads.

We had to show utility bills, bank statements, and either mortgage papers or a lease of a year, and they check the electoral role.

One of the big effects of short term renters is that as each family rents and then moves awy, alll their subsequent siblings get a place...while the flat is rented to the next year's intake of people doing exactly the same thing, then they move away but the siblings get in...and this happenes every year, with new families in the many rentable flats that come up next to the school every year and soon all the admissions are siblings of families that live several miles away and children from the estate across the road cannot get in.

Oh yes - and many LAs do home checks to see if the child actually lives there.

Don't know if ours does.

mummyofboys, I fear that someone gave you incorrect information. There is no 2 year limit on renters - otherwise the implication would be that anyone moving into Croydon wouldn't have their children in school for up to 2 years. As Croydon has a fairly high percentage of rented accomodation this would be a bit of a problem. Croydon are happy to use a tenancy agreement as proof of address provided that the tenancy agreement is signed prior to mid January and you do actually reside at the rented accommodation. They cannot consider any tenancy which is not in place by mid January though.

In my particular case (which is also Croydon), I spoke to Croydon in December and signed the tenancy agreement at the end of December and used the rented accom as my address for school application in January. I also notified achool and LEA of my move back to my permanent home at the end of June prior to school admission but after a place had been offered and accepted. The school place was validly applied for.

Ironically, as my children were staying with me in the rented accommodation, it would have been difficult for me to apply from my permanent address as I was not living there during the relevant period. I would have needed to have a letter from my solicitor showing that I did continue to have full rights of occupancy.

remaininganon Sounds like I've been duped ... which doesn't surprise me frankly. They did witter on allot about how far down the admission criteria I would come if I hadn't been resident for 2 years blah blah blah.

In the end it didn't matter anyway 'cause we moved into the Borough of Bromley.

When exactly do they ask to see council tax bills, child benefit books etc then? Because the form I filled in, well it has dds name on it and a number, and her name/number will be sent off to the schools to see whether she fits the criteria, and if she does they will offer a place.....Noone has said anything about seeing any proof of our address in between filing in the form and being offered a place.
So is this bill checking only if you are accused of lying?

I know a family who did it.

I know of three parents who have done this (one of which was found out and had two children removed from school)

mummyofboys - the council I referred to is Bromley. They are pretty strict.

remaininganon, trying to think of any primary school in Croydon I would make that kind of effort for! Unless it was A or G?

I know someone who is doing it right now (renting a place that they won't be living in, that is). This is in N London.