Timing house renovations with school application window to 'legitimately' rent in catchment

[Sadmissions]

Just reading the other thread by the mum who recently had their school place withdrawn due to moving out of rental address that she had made the application from and it struck a nerve...

Can I take a MN barometer reading on this scenario: where we live lots of families (I personally know of two this year) deliberately time renovations to their home during the school application window. They move into a rental property close to their desired school mid-Oct, bag their place, sit tight until Oct half term following year, and then move back out of catchment into their improved family home. Job done.
Siblings then follow. They've ticked all the boxes, actually lived in the rental for 12 months so can prove residency, but never severed ties to the old home and all the while actually future-proofing it for them by extending/ remodelling etc.

It might be within the letter of the law but I think it sucks. Countless kids here are not getting into their nearest schools, our roads are grid-locked and rents are soaring.

Does it rile you as much as much as it does me? What can be done about it?

In our local authority area if you move out of catchment then you have to reapply for your child’s place. If there are catchment children on the waiting list then you are likely to lose the place.

Number of years in the catchment primary is also a criteria when allocating places for secondary.

This was brought in to stop people moving into catchment for a year then moving back out again.

You need to lobby your council about it
Our London borough doesn't accept a rental address if you already own another place in the borough

It’s a joke, local school catchment should mean you live inside the catchment area permanently. 12 months is not a long enough time to asses if a family has a genuine home within catchment.
Our primary turns people away for places who live on the doorstep because of parents who have moved miles away for secondary place catchment.

This is why siblings out of catchment need to come behind others in catchment children for a start. (where catchment means pre-defined area). And even if no 'formal' catchment area, maybe siblings should only count if living same or nearer distance than when the first got in.

There just needs to be something to protect the family who get assigned a school miles away (that they didn't apply for), so if they wish, siblings can attend the same school.

Balloon flowers that does happen in my LEA. If you are allocated a place which was not a preference the siblings are counted as in catchment for admission purposes.

In a number of LAs, this wouldn't be allowed - if they retained ownership of another home in the LA and rented elsewhere, the owned home would be treated as their main address regardless of whether they technically resided at the rented home during the time of application.

In our local authority area if you move out of catchment then you have to reapply for your child’s place. If there are catchment children on the waiting list then you are likely to lose the place.

If that's in England, it's massively illegal.

It's not a tactic that necessarily works. Have a look at this report for instance where a council refused to allocate a place in the nearest school to where the family was living when they moved out of their home during renovations. Nothing further was ever said about the court action referred to, so I assume it didn't get off the ground.

Whatever the process there will always be someone that feels aggrieved and that the process should be changed.

A mum at our school has had to move because she was a victim of dv. The closest flat she could get that would take benefits is outside of catchment (just) and she therefore didn't get her second child into the school which is oversubscribed. She now has two children at two different schools, doesn't drive and is beyond stressed. Her situation was not of her own making and a straightforward sibling priority would have helped her. Personally I don't agree with separating siblings but can see why many authorities have criteria which allows it to happen.

I think if you move further away from the school then you should lose the right to sibling place...

The whole thing is incredibly messy and the wealthiest benefit by being able afford to work their way around the system

The flip side is that when we were renovating our house and had to rent elsewhere, we were forced to apply from the rental address, even though the renovated house is our genuine long term family home and we were applying to the nearest school. It never occurred to me that this would be an issue when we planned the timetable for our building works. Thankfully we did end up with the right school, but it was stressful.

I have no idea what the answer is.

I don't agree it's the wealthiest that benefit.

It is far cheaper for families in rental properties to move to a home within catchment than for someone who own a home to sell and buy another.

We couldn't afford to sell and buy again (agent fees, stamp duty, removals etc) but another family we know moved rental properties easily and far more cheaply than we could.

On paper we are wealthier, but they had the better set up in order to gain a school place (and they did, we didn't).

I personally agree with sibling prioty. If it is removed especially from primary school children, then a lot of single parents would suffer. Punctuality is very important in school and a single parent would struggle to get their children in on time. Rich parents can over come this by arranging and paying for childcare to handle one of the kids transport to and from school. But what about the financially struggling single parent?

This also affects couples who are struggling finacially but have no flexibility in their work contracts for both parents to take and pick up both or several children from school.

Only people this would benefit is rich or people who have friends and family who are willing and able to help with this. Sadly there are to many people that don't have this.

How would ownership of another - commutable - home come to light during allocation process. Council tax checks?

@GnotherGnu

That child is still at the school she was allocated, so I imagine the mother came round to the idea eventually.

How would ownership of another - commutable - home come to light during allocation process. Council tax checks?

Yes

They must not happen routinely in this county... council website says 'Examples of cases that will be fully investigated and applications withdrawn: Renting a property close to a popular school but retaining another property'. And yet both these families were allocated, and have apparently held onto their places despite applying from what are clearly temporary addresses (smaller rental properties right next to v. popular school, whilst doing up bigger houses nearby that they've previously lived in for years). Why state it if it's not enforced?

@ellsbells2 the wealthiest can afford a rental and a home they own... also the "poor" can't afford the higher rents around the best schools they are pushed out.

I lived somewhere with a very diverse income level and shortage of school places- quite scary being witness to what was going on. Difference in price of the same houses a mile apart £100k just because of proximity of school.

@GnotherGnu no not in England