Dr Challoner's admissions policy

[igloo126]

Hi there,

I want to know if having an investment property in the catchment area scuppered your child's chances for admission? Want to know if any other parent had difficulties because of owning another property in the catchment area? The school has the following statement in the admission's section.

If a parent of the applicant student still owns a property within 20 miles of the school, which has been the ‘Normal Home Address’ after April 1st in the year before the proposed date of admission, a property closer to the school will not be accepted as the basis for a legitimate residence qualification, even if the former property is leased to a third party, or has been sold to a company of which
parent(s) are a director.

That's quite clear isn't it? The investment property will be ignored in favour of the child's residential property regardless of where it is in a 20 mile radius.

What's the specific circumstance?

Assume that means if you are trying to use the investment property as residential address for an application they will use the address further away.

I see they don't mention anything about investment property so I wanted to double check if I understood it correctly.

We live in a catchment area and was wondering if there is an opportunity to buy an investment property within the area, would this be a violation of admission policy?

Assume that means if you are trying to use the investment property as residential address for an application they will use the address further away.

If you buy an investment property now that won't make any difference to your application as long as you truthfully put down the current residential property. The rule refers to a property that has been used as the residential one the year before where there is also a nearer property - in that case the nearer property will be ignored. If you buy now and it's nearer then you won't be using it as their residential address anyway will you - you're using your genuine further away address.

That would cover rented property as well IMO, it's stating that if your normal address was changed to one nearer and you still owned the first property, they'd take the address of the first property. It doesn't matter if the closer-to-the-school property is owned or rented.

Nothing to stop you buying a second property in the area, but they'll take the address of the first one you owned for admission purposes and the investment property wouldn't scupper any chances of admission.

The problem only arises if your investment property is closer to the school and you try to use that address for admissions purposes.

I am rather confused though as we have also been looking for an investment property in the area and have concluded that Amersham, Chesham etc actually aren’t great places for an investment property due to sky high prices right now. In fact, you would get a lower return than you could get putting it into an investment account……..

Are you referring to the girls' school or the boys' school @igloo126?

You're fine to own more than one property in the area, whatever the reason. The rules are regarding trying to claim somewhere is your principal residence when it isn't, as PP have explained.

@igloo126 This rule is not really written to cater for investment properties. It was added to Challoners admission policy to try and filter out people who typically rented a property in Amersham to be close to the school and get their kids a place. I.e. short term rent to get a school place, once place secured they would then give up that property and have their kid commute to Amersham from Harrow (or other out of catchment place) each day. Challoners had to do this as they are over subscribed each year and even being in catchment is not enough to get a place, you need to be quite close by.

In reality quite a lot of people have done this rental property trick in the past as can be seen from the Army of boys getting off at Amersham station and walking to school each day.