11 Plus Exams Forum

What about disposing of the previous house? The PDF document states that we have to provide evidence that it's disposed and no more available. Is anyone providing this evidence?

You risk not getting a place if you do not hand in all the documents requested.

It sounds a little unreasonable though. There are people who own two houses and live in the new one but take a while to sell the old one because one can't always sell a house when one wants to.

mystery wrote:It sounds a little unreasonable though. There are people who own two houses and live in the new one but take a while to sell the old one because one can't always sell a house when one wants to.

I've long thought this unreasonable. There are also people who own one house and let another or even others out - often in the same area for convenience! I have never really got why this is the schools business! How can they effectively make you sell a house! I understand there will be a (very) few parents who abuse this - and they should understand that they run the risk of losing their place at any point in their childs schooling if they are found not to be living in catchment (if that was the requirement).

Not sure we will ever solve this completely though!

How can they effectively make you sell a house!

Especially at those times when the economy is in a downturn .......

One of our forum members (with a background in law) took this issue to the Schools Adjudicator, and lost.

I understand why the Adjudicator route was taken, but my feeling at the time was that a judicial review might have come to a different conclusion.

The reason is simply because education holidays became a real problem for a few schools in more affluent areas. We still have families buying small properties near their chosen school, and returning to their real home 10 miles + down the road shortly after the child has started at the school.
This effectively caused a double kick in the shins for families with lower income, a)They cannot afford to play this game, so a child who genuinely lived 2 miles away would lose out to the child with more affluent parents who bought the holiday home. B) the property prices of smaller homes near to the school were driven up in price, far beyond normal expectations of that type of property, even taking into consideration the school.
The reason these measures are in place prior to starting school, is because it is very upsetting for children to be removed, after the parents have been caught cheating the system, and this is not unknown.
I can understand how people who are genuinely failing to sell their first property due to the recession may feel aggrieved, but how many people can afford to move before selling their home? We are talking eyewatering bridging loans, or huge loss of rental income here!

Why not simply check the address for residents?
It would be obvious to a head if the new property was a 2 bed cottage, and the old one was a 7 bed detached that something fishy was going on, but there is a third local anomaly, in that there are. Super Rich in the area of one particular school, who can afford very luxurious property portfolios, and therefore luxury holiday homes on the doorstep of the school, again this means children from a local housing estate are pushed further away in chance of a place in catchment.

So we mostly all laud the head of the grammar for upholding his convictions with such vigour.

I do sympathise with the reasons why the school felt the need to tighten up, and no one on here is condoning cheating.
The question being posed is rather the point at which 'vigour' may become disproportionate - or possibly unlawful.

For example, in 2010 a LA was concerned to establish whether a family really was living in a certain school catchment area. Very laudable.
But it misused the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and was found guilty of improper use of surveillance powers.

Blimey....we're they searching the bins and telescoping the bedrooms?

I don't think they went quite that far
- but they were certainly 'monitoring' the family's movements (if one approves of what they were doing),
or 'spying' on the family (if one disapproves).

It was a purely legal point, however. The use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was disproportionate.

I know that a popular Upper school in Bucks does scrutinise addresses for one-bed flats etc. It has removed offers of places in the past.