Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
EmmaRoid

Tenancy Terms For Selective Secondary Schooling

Recommended Posts

I found the following clause as part of the admissions policy for my local selective secondary schools.

Applicants moving into the catchment area prior to the 15th October and who submit an on- time application

to their Home Authority including Altrincham Grammar School for Boys as a preference, may be considered

from their new address if:

a) Evidence and legal documentation to the effect they have purchased or exchanged contracts on a

property is produced and documentation relating to proof of disposal of the previous home.

b ) For leasing agreements, a minimum of 24 months is required and legally supported documentation

produced also proof of disposal of the previous home.

2 yr tenancy with an AST? You'll be lucky. Disposal of previous home? For many, it will be what previous home?

Anyone heard of any instances where someone has been refused a place at a selective secondary because of a clause b type arrangement when they rent legitimately in the area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the following clause as part of the admissions policy for my local selective secondary schools.

2 yr tenancy with an AST? You'll be lucky. Disposal of previous home? For many, it will be what previous home?

Anyone heard of any instances where someone has been refused a place at a selective secondary because of a clause b type arrangement when they rent legitimately in the area?

Extraordinary. How does one prove that you have no previous home to dispose of, in that circumstance?

FWIW, the missus and I are on a multi-year AST. The agent wasn't keen at all, the LL agreed immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary. How does one prove that you have no previous home to dispose of, in that circumstance?

FWIW, the missus and I are on a multi-year AST. The agent wasn't keen at all, the LL agreed immediately.

The wording leaves me slightly confused by refering to "new address" but not explicitly excluding anyone who already lives in the catchmebt area nor a child attending local primary ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I think I get it. If you move into the area between taking the exam and getting the results this clause applies.

Presumably id you are served notice, very possible, you wouldn't be forced to comply?

Edited by SeeYouNextTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just re-read, it looks like it's in place to stop people from "cheating" to get into a catchment area

Yes - we have issues with our local primary school taking too many kids from far away.

It causes big problems - and the most obvious one is the number of cars dropping off and picking up kids.

Which in turn means longer journeys for the local kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is disgusting.

It's a state school, funded by tax payers, but only those rich enough to buy a property, or rent for 24 months nearby are allowed to apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a state school?

Horrible stuff.

Yes, a state grammar. Another local non selective state school has a similar clause when talking about moving home between offer of place and starting year 7. It is of some concern that thee is little in the way of exclusions for legitimate cases.

I know successful schools need to prevent parents cheating the system but so heavily against tenants? ONe third of households and growing...

Edited by SeeYouNextTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is disgusting.

It's a state school, funded by tax payers, but only those rich enough to buy a property, or rent for 24 months nearby are allowed to apply.

Not quite but as the rule stands, if forced to move, quite possible you could fall foul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite but as the rule stands, if forced to move, quite possible you could fall foul

Even having a catchment area in the first place is the problem.

They are state schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonstrates how out of touch the "policy makers" are in general in this country. The people who implemented this clause are obviously happy home owners who think renters are scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very common for people wanting to get into a particular school to rent short-term in the catchment area (and keeping their 'proper' house, which they will move back into as soon as they get accepted). They're trying to catch them out, that's all. TBH it's actually a move against home-owners rather than renters (although both will suffer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But naturally, no-one sending their gifted darling to such a prestige grammer school would want little Tristram sharing class space with someone living in rented accomodation. No kid should be exposed to that sort of thing at a formative age, unnatural friendships might develop and he could be led into a life of drug taking, benefits dependence and in the worst case, even socialism.

If only he could go to a proper fee paying public school, admittedly he might get the drug exposure and hard core dependence much earlier, but at least there would never be much risk of him voting for the wrong sort once he hits 18. Maybe in this particular case he could avoid all three evils, if only the pupil profile was more appropriate. Young Tristram and his cohorts are the future of our great nation, his type will lead the financial sector to world dominance.

It's only right that the school should actively pursue policies to make sure they have the right sort of kids in place.

Edited by Stainless Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this clause brought up in some tenancy/school placement law test case. i.e. renters are being set up to fail on account that 24 month AST's are not the norm and neither are they abundantly available without a willing landlord and some serious negotiation beforehand.

Now, if there was plenty of Council/Social Housing available for rent ONLY on Assured Tenancies that would be a different matter. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonstrates how out of touch the "policy makers" are in general in this country. The people who implemented this clause are obviously happy home owners who think renters are scum.

Not that at all.

The issue is purely parents trying to get their kid into a "good" school by playing the system. In this case, there is a big group of middle class parents who will pretend to live within a school's catchment area; even going to the lengths of renting a house there for 6 months or 1 year, to make it look legit (because that is cheaper than paying private school fees).

All this clause does is that if you move into this school's catchment area between the time that kid takes their exams, and the time of school enrollment (i.e. the time when you would move if you were trying to play the system), then you will have to provide some sort of proof that you are making a stable home, and not just "fronting" an address in a good area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this clause does is that if you move into this school's catchment area between the time that kid takes their exams, and the time of school enrollment (i.e. the time when you would move if you were trying to play the system), then you will have to provide some sort of proof that you are making a stable home, and not just "fronting" an address in a good area.

Yes, but they specifically require a 24 month AST, which is not the norm in private renting. It would not be difficult to fail this standard of "proof" despite fully intending to make a stable home in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1372179986[/url]' post='909347560']

Not that at all.

The issue is purely parents trying to get their kid into a "good" school by playing the system. In this case, there is a big group of middle class parents who will pretend to live within a school's catchment area; even going to the lengths of renting a house there for 6 months or 1 year, to make it look legit (because that is cheaper than paying private school fees).

All this clause does is that if you move into this school's catchment area between the time that kid takes their exams, and the time of school enrollment (i.e. the time when you would move if you were trying to play the system), then you will have to provide some sort of proof that you are making a stable home, and not just "fronting" an address in a good area.

..and for the parents of rented property genuinely not playing the system, what happens to them and their children if they cannot secure a 24 month AST?

This is the reason that I would like to see a test law case. Any potential renter in the catchment area should have the option of a 24 month AST by default specifically for school placement reasons and all landlords must be required to provide one where practical and this would then ultimately sort the players of the system from the genuine renters/parents.

I doubt PROFESSIONAL landlords would see this as a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they specifically require a 24 month AST, which is not the norm in private renting. It would not be difficult to fail this standard of "proof" despite fully intending to make a stable home in the area.

Do you know of anyone who has been refused a 24 month AST? In some of the better parts of London, 24 months is starting to become the "norm", with the asking rent going up if the prospective tenant only wants 12 months on the AST.

I know plenty of people who have signed 60 month ASTs. When I let my home when I was away for work, I had enquiries for 36 month ASTs (which in this case, I couldn't give, as I was only going to be away for 2 years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is disgusting.

It's a state school, funded by tax payers, but only those rich enough to buy a property, or rent for 24 months nearby are allowed to apply.

I quite agree. I'm one of "those" parents that moved to be near a school that we wanted our kids to go to.

We naively moved into an area a mile away and then a couple of years later looked at the Ofsted reports for the local school that said the children "feared each other". Then we saw a house come up right next to the "good" school and went for it.

The thing is, how do you distinguish between those that are playing the system and those that are not? The house is a nice place to live and relatively cheap, so it would have been a good idea for us to move there anyway. Before, we lived in a damp flat in Kensington - I'd loved to have stayed there but couldn't afford it.

The end effect, of course, is socially regressive and warps house prices recursively for young parents (who are generally the hardest-pushed money-wise).

We know of a couple that pretend to be separated for benefits and school reasons.

We know of no couples that don't consider this when looking at property. It's simply the rules of the game.

What is also interesting is how the rabbit hole goes deeper:

The land the school is on is owned by a charitable foundation that also owns rows and rows of tiny flats around the school. They pack families in (some are families of 5 living in less than 500 sq feet) who invariably live there for a few years and move on. A nice little earner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But naturally, no-one sending their gifted darling to such a prestige grammer school would want little Tristram sharing class space with someone living in rented accomodation. No kid should be exposed to that sort of thing at a formative age, unnatural friendships might develop and he could be led into a life of drug taking, benefits dependence and in the worst case, even socialism.

FGS, there are plenty of nice, normal people who'd like their kids to get into the local grammar. We have grammar schools here, and the vast majority of kids who end up in them are not over-privileged Tristrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.