Graveney - Renting in catchment for admissions purposes

[StockwellLiving]

I am thinking about renting for a 12 month period or so from this summer to cover up to beginning of Y7 for DD in Sept 2013. And then moving back out.

I know (most people think) renting is wrong (and often discussed here). I actually also think its wrong, but I also know others do it (and not sure why we should be the only one not "playing the game", and I do want to avoid my local catchment school (have no religion, no money (for indies), average DD with no chance of her passing selection tests).

I am not starting this thread to get into the rights and wrongs of it - I only want to ask the very specific question: Do "renters" get caught and are places actually withdrawn?

I am asking about Graveney, not in general. I know from threads on MN that some LAs do try and look into short-term renting. But somehow I think that this particular school and this particular LA don't really care (happy to have aspirational middle classes moving into catchment) ...... so do they look into whether the rental is permanent or not, whether the renters have an owned (proper) home (rented out for a year)

Just wondering as it seems its increasingly popular to do this ....

TheReturn etc - yikes! "Shortly before christmas" presumably meaning (at risk of stating the obvious) that the DS had actually started at the school. How dreadful. I somehow thought that if you were caught out, then to be have the place removed it would have to be before the DC had started .....

... but of course .... they were going to move back anyway once they got the place, so you needn't have missed them too long.

Well, their plan was to stay away for 2 years, I think. But yes, the poor boy had actually started, got to know the school, made friends, etc. Not that he seems unhappy now, but his parents certainly wanted a "better" school for him.

Someone mentioned Greycoats earlier in the thread. Their DD is there (she's 15).

Yes - Greycoats is a possibility - and am of course going to digest all this and rethink the renting strategy. But we would also hope to get my DS into same school (cue: debate on fairness of sibbling policy.....) :)

Sorry to disappoint you, but Greycoats is tough as well.

I know people there who again did not meet the stringent religious or other criteria and so ended up needing proximity...eg renting.

If you were to sell your current house and buy a property nearer to the school that would be fine, of course, if you could afford it. Then a few years down the line you could sell the new property and move further away again.
Renting closer to the school would only really work if you were already living in rented accommodation.

I don't agree that the child who lives next door is any more 'entitled' than one who lives 5 miles away. As I said before, all parents pay through taxes and all (well, most) try to do what they perceive to be best for their own child. Life's like that.
Doesn't actually affect me because (a) I live in an area where there are places to spare at most schools, and (b) I use indies for part of my children's education. As for community - if you live in a village where everyone knows everyone else's business, or makes it up if they don't know, well, you can have far too much of it. Miss Marples Wotsitmead has nothing on it!

tiggy - I understand all that, and didn't really want to get into the rights and wrongs. However, when you write:

The problem with people cheating on distance is that if a family genuinely live 800m away from a London school and fail to get a place, because other people have rented closer than them, then they have no alternative schools to go to. They'll get allocated one miles away from home. The people who rented short term do have schools near their own homes that would take them but they just don't want to go to them.

The same can be true if someone moves permanently to get into the school (planning to say for 7 years or whatever), the person 800m out loses a place. And they are still left in the "black hole" you (very correctly) describe. Morally superior perhaps (the mover over the renter); but the consequence on those near the boundary are the same.

Having said that - definitely rethinking this all... Thanks for the thoughts.

A number of LA are now explicitly stating that if you rent a home and own a home then home you own will be treated as your address. So if you own a home relatively near where you rent I think you may find the council don't accept the rental property as your permenant address for admissions purposes. If you sold your home and then rented you are fine.

@gazzalw I always like what you say.

Thanks !

Thanks tiggy. Yes I wanted to put the morals to one side and look only at viability (for Graveney). You (and others) make some good points here that I will certainly dwell on.

cue: debate on fairness of sibling policy.....

Well I can answer that. At secondary level, in an urban environment with half-decent public transport, there shouldn't be one. hth

I've previously said that....they don't need to be at the same schools and often aren't if they go to single gender schools anyway....

Ive always thought that, not a popular view though tbh

I think at some stage the sibling policy will go out of the window...in a way it discriminates against families with single children......

That's so true, there used to be a sibling policy at DDs school which has been phased out now.

We live in a borough where the majority of our primary and secondary schools are massively oversubscribed. Yes you got it, many local kids miss out due to tactics of this nature.

The sooner the council and schools crack down on this behaviour the better. Why should local children be denied access to local schools just because they happen to live in borough with good schools which everyone else wants access to? I know it's not what you want to hear and I?m not having a pop at you but I've just gone through the secondary school allocations experience which was super stressful. Whilst it worked out for us, I can tell you that there were many who didn't get the news they were hoping for despite meeting the criteria.

Everyone wants the best for their children, that I can relate to but I find this tactic very underhanded, selfish and completely inconsiderate. If yourself and other parent's aren't happy with the performance of school's within your area then you should start making some noise. I can tell you that up to 3-4 years ago many of the local comps in our area were poor however that has now changed dramatically.

OK, so the definition of a permanent address is what is in your head at the time you move out?

I still don't think that makes sense, sorry. I do agree about the morality of all this, I just don't see how that definition sticks.

If you rent out the house you own, rent somewhere else, change electoral roll address, council tax, utilities, everything, are people really saying it is not permanent from the POV of the CAF because of what was in your head when you moved?

I just don't see how that can be - not least because life is not that certain. You might never move back because you fall in love with the new area or one of its inhabitants!

Surely the council has to define a permanent address as for example the electoral roll one?

And yes, people who move around a lot have a succession of permanent addresses. And a right to school places.

What is fair or not fair has become very blurred.

DD did not get a place at our nearest school five or so minutes walk away because it is a sought after church school, we are not religious enough and we live the wrong side of the borough boundary. Children commute from across London to this school.

I would be surprised if all the pupils were as religious as they claim to be. Would I criticise any of my neighbours if they rented a flat in the right borough to be sure of a place? No. DD did not get any of her choices, and was offered a troubled school some distance and a difficult journey away. We had anticipated the problem and she had a place at an independent school. But what about those who can't afford to pay.

But none of those things prove you intend to move back do they? Loads of people round me move - really permanently, totally legitimately - to get their older child into catchment and rather than disrupt their younger children put up with schlepping them to primary till they leave. None of them as far as I know have been challenged. If they decide they hate their new area and move back, are they legit because that was not in their head when they moved?

Yes, a few months looks dodgy, but how do they prove you don't intend to make it permanent? I don't see how someone can be asked to prove what is in their head. You may not sell your house because market conditions are bad, or you are becoming a landlord for income, or investing in property, or many other legitimate reasons. Cheaters will be able to make a case on this basis, in the same way tat they find loopholes elsewhere, surely?

I don't think it is as black and white as all that, if you do all the paperwork and actually live in the rented house for, say, two years?

We can all agree that it is not a fair system, nor am I defending it, just curious about this 'thought crime' aspect of the CAF that has passed me by......