Rental address used now place withdrawn

Londondad · Post by **Londondad** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:18 pm

Just to pass on some information about someone in Herts getting their 1st choice school last week only to have it withdrawn this week after the council found out they were not living at the address they have given but were using a rented property address. Oh dear, poor child, but why do people take these risks with their children - all the warnings are there - and people do get caught out.

matthews · Post by **matthews** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:25 pm

Hi Londondad.
Do you have any idea what school this was.
X

sherry_d · Post by **sherry_d** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:33 pm

How did they get caught though?

Someone must have grassed on them? They got too carried away in excitement.

SunlampVexesEel · Post by **SunlampVexesEel** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:37 pm

sherry_d wrote:Someone must have grassed on them?

Must have done. And how stupid of them not to make it look convincing between now and the start of term.

Must have been an expensive mistake!

Londondad · Post by **Londondad** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:49 pm

Yes very silly. But also becoming very common. I won't name the school but I can tell you it's not Parmiters.

As for how they got caught - the councils do extra checks anyway if there is something not quite right about addresses and the necessary proof, also info that later comes to light, so they were not necessarily 'grassed' on.

BarnetDad · Post by **BarnetDad** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:57 pm

It's got to be DAO, then. Groupie will be pleased!

familyinthevalley · Post by **familyinthevalley** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:28 pm

I know of a headteacher who, last year, did checks on some addresses. Showed up at an address three different evenings after 7 pm, and on not one occasion was the child present, or any indication that the child was actually living there. It may seem a bit OTT, but.....in reality, there was another child who had earned the place just as much, but whose parents hadn't lied on the application form in order to get a preferred position. Feel bad for the kids involved though - hardly their fault!

C. J. · Post by **C. J.** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:17 pm

While I do feel sorry for the child who has lost the place, (he/she has had to learn the hard way that lying and cheating at the expense of another person is Not a Good Thing), I feel more thankful that a school has acted to protect the interests of another child and pleased for that family who were number 1 on a distance waiting list when they should all the time have had a place. I also feel sorry for that child who, despite now having a place, did have to face disappointment they should not have had on March 1st.

Renting short term close to a favoured school and gaining a place at the expense of local residents is morally wrong. That is it legal within the letter rather than the spirit of the Admissions Code is loophole that I hope (probably in vain) might be redressed in the new Code. Until it is I would hope that individual Admission Authorities could tighten their own arrangements (like Clement Danes now and the Watford Grammars from next year).

That temporary renting (and moving in for the admissions process) is widespread is certainly true. If I were planning an appeal and found myself to be high up on the waiting lists for distance, I would be arguing that in all likelihood I should already have a place and that admission arrangements that did not take 'cheating' into account had disadvantaged my child.

HCC also need to sort themselves out - their policy at the moment if they find actual 'fraudulent' applications after the start of the school year is to remove sibling rights for that family but to leave the child in place so as not to disadvantage them. This I can see, but what about the child still at number 1 on the distance list? Because they are 'faceless', any disadvantage to them doesn't seem to be considered.

Personally I think that when / if fraud is uncovered, then by all means leave that child there but in addition a place should automatically be offered to the child at waiting place 1 for distance, and the school will have to operate over PAN.

Golly, rant over!

NorthLondonMum · Post by **NorthLondonMum** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

I have been told that DAO have withdrawn the places for all children of families applying from rented addresses (I assume only if they have got in on distance?), whether or not they are living there and have been since before the applications.

Of course it may be be more complicated than I have been told.

Post by **hermanmunster** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:56 pm

NorthLondonMum wrote:I have been told that DAO have withdrawn the places for all children of families applying from rented addresses (I assume only if they have got in on distance?), whether or not they are living there and have been since before the applications.

Of course it may be be more complicated than I have been told.

Interesting - could be considered to be discriminatory against children whose parents cannot afford to buy a house (I mean their main house) and hence rent.