Renting in the catchment area of a good school - would you do it?

[Thomasina76]

Very sensitive topic, I know, but curious to see who has or would do this. The school in question has an admissions policy that doesn't prohibit this (just says the address must be your permanent address and you need a child benefit letter with that address and letter from a professional confirming the same but no rules about having to live there for X number of years in advance). IF we did do this, we would rent for at least 2 years in the area and may move there eventually anyway but just seems massively risky to me that someone will query it. I know quite a few people who have done this or intend to do it though so clearly some people think it's ok!

[Blu]

BoboChic RTFT. The OP discovered that her LA these days is very specific that if you own a local home, and rent another, they will use the owned home as the address for school applications.

Actually this would seem to make it easier for those who rent (private, not council or HA) to move from address to address depending on where they are in the schools application cycle.

This scenario is something that happens not far from me.
For years people rented a flat to get their eldest into a highly sought after primary. They would rent for one year, get the eldest in, and move out. Then another family would move into the same flat and do the same thing. Each family would get a further one, two , maybe 3 siblings I to the school. So over 3 years each of the flats could easily be responsible for claiming 9 places in the school. A one form entry school. There were loads of these rental flats.

For the families in the estate behind these flats who could not get their kids into the school, even from 60m away, what do you think is the line between wanting the best for your child and breaking the law? Reporting these families for admissions fraud? Putting cockroaches through their letterboxes to deter renting? Stabbing them?

Or should everyone just observe the stated rules?

[Blu]

To be clear: the year long renters had mortgaged houses further away from the school,

[titchy]

Well it's quite obvious where the line is drawn... Apply from your real address, don't use your wealth to cheat. Easy.

[prh47bridge]

The convoluted rules as you describe them only disadvantage 1 group of people

And even that group isn't necessarily disadvantaged. Provided their attempt to cheat the system is discovered before offers go out they will end up with the same school they would have got if they had been honest.

[Bobochic]

Maybe distance from school is a bad criterion for selection?

[TartyTart]

bobochic What do you propose? An outright lottery drives people to distraction, and are terrible for social cohesion and the environment when everyone drives.

I really don't understand how people think cheating is okay.

Giles Coren of the Times wrote some great articles about this - his child didn't get into any school within walking distance, despite the fact that his road was rammed with cars bringing kids into the area.

[Bobochic]

Maybe a system where children are allocated a place by the council at a school within a zone (in which there may be several schools) is fairest? It is the notion of parental choice that is driving the requirement to introduce rules that curb choice.

[swingofthings]

And then you get a town with significant problems with traffic because the 'given' school is far enough away that walking isn't possible, so even more parents are driving their kids to the other side of town. Pointless.

[Thomasina76]

Agree that everyone should play by the rules but I am sure home owners will continue to rent in catchment areas of good schools and apply from there. Hopefully the admission policies will continue to be clearly worded and enforced to deter people. Tiggytape sets the options out very clearly. Obviously people who are currently renting are better placed and incur fewer costs then those who are homeowners and need to sell.

I know two families though who own houses outside of London which they use at the weekend and in the holidays and who rent in London in the week. Both families moved into the catchment area of our current school to ensure their eldest got a place there then will move again at secondary and rent to ensure their eldest gets a place at the school whilst keeping the house outside of London. I am sure in this case that the LA would not decide that the house outside of London is the main residence as the child does not live there Monday to Friday. Seems a bit unfair that homeowners with properties further are able to do this whilst homeowners with properties close by can't.

[Thomasina76]

I think we are also wrong in talking about people using the 'wealth" to play the system. In many many cases, including mine, we are not talking about wealthy people with lots of money at their disposal and those that do have good incomes have a lot of outgoings (huge mortgages etc). Clearly if we were then private school would be an obvious option. We are talking about people who don't have loads of money trying to get their kids into the best school.

[Bobochic]

There is no way that homeowners can be forced to use the property they own as their main residence when they have decided to live in a rented property elsewhere. The strategy Thomsina describes is a perfectly rational response by careful parents to a competitive schools market.

[Dontyouopenthattrapdoor]

Thomasina if a family can afford a huge mortgage AND a monthly rental then I don't think the term wealth is inappropriate at all. That would be out of reach for 90% of applicants to most schools.

[Bobochic]

Dontyou - I expect that the strategy Thomasina describes is a lot cheaper than several sets of private school fees.

[Dontyouopenthattrapdoor]

Bobo they can't be forced to USE it as their primary residence, no.

But the LA can absolutely choose to use it as the address from which they calculate distance and make school place offers.

[Dontyouopenthattrapdoor]

I'm sure it IS cheaper, Bobo. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise?

[Bobochic]

No they can't, not if it is not your main residence and never has been. Say the family owns a house on the coast and rents a flat in London, where the parents have always worked and DC were born and have always attended school?

[prh47bridge]

No they can't, not if it is not your main residence and never has been

Yes they can.

An increasing number of LAs state that if the parents own a home in the area they will use that address and ignore any rented address. Having made that rule they are entitled to apply it. The family can argue that the property they own is not and never has been their main residence but, unless it is uninhabitable, they will struggle to convince an appeal panel.

In the scenario you suggest where they own a property that is miles away from the area it is unlikely the LA would attempt to use that address. But if they own a property in the area the LA can use that address for admissions purposes.