...ours is a company paid accommodation,company wouldn't go in for such a long term lease...
I would have thought this was relevant. It's not the landlord who won't give a 2 year lease, it's the company her husband works for. If the OP could get written proof that it is company policy to only rent on 6 months leases then it would prove that it is impossible for this family to satisfy the entry criteria. Would that be any help?
Is this 'exception' to be found in the Admissions Code, or in the school's admissions policy?
Reminds me of a case involving a newly arrived Chinese mother who tried to argue that the admission rules didn't apply to her because the "One child" policy of the People's Republic made it impossible for her to satisfy the sibling criterion!
One might well sympathise, but the admission arrangements have to be clear and objective, and rigorously applied.
"Parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places for that school will be allocated.
" [Admissions Code, section 14]
I think the legal position is likely to be as I set out further above.
The question is: Are the admission arrangements lawful, and have they been correctly and impartially applied?
I feel sure the OP would get some sympathy from a brief mention of the circumstances, but we seem to be at risk of overlooking the importance of reasons for wanting or needing a place
. Section 3.8 of the Appeals Code explains:
The panel must balance the prejudice to the school against the appellant’s case for the child to be admitted to the school. It must take into account the appellant’s reasons for expressing a preference for the school, including what that school can offer the child that the allocated or other schools cannot. If the panel considers that the appellant’s case outweighs the prejudice to the school it must uphold the appeal.
We offer further guidance in the Q&As:http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... -school#c2