Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello, before I start, I do realise this is a very controversial topic! 

I’ll be straight - we are looking at renting a place to live near the Charter North school with the aim of applying for our eldest to get in.  We would actually be living there permanently but due to circumstances would only have been there about 6months by the point of making an application 
 

I’ve read old threads on this forum about a “Renters Row” and the somewhat terrifying prospect of kids being ejected from the school if the parents were deemed to be manipulating the system, and then being offered the least subscribed school on the Borough as a result.

Does anyone have recent experience of this?  
 

 

 

 

 

If this is your only residence, the length of time you have lived there before you apply won’t matter.  
 

You may be asked to show a tenancy agreement that is of at least 12 months. They will check council tax records to see if you have any  other properties but if your previous property was a rental you can show proof that tenancy ended it will be fine. 

The only way we could do it financially would be to rent out our current place.  So yes our sole residence would be the new rental but we would be landlords for our current place (also in Southwark). 
 

The tenancy would be over 12 months. 
 

So if we could prove we’ve rented out our current home over 12months, does that mean we’d meet the admission criteria, or is the fact of owning another place enough to mean your application is unsuccessful regardless of whether you don’t live there anymore?

Edited by Iyael
Edit for grammar

Obviously renters can apply for places at Southwark school places just like everybody else but this seems, by your own description, like deliberate gaming of the system, the net result of which would be to deprive a child who genuinely meets the admissions criteria of this place. Help me out if I've missed something.

And what you're asking is simply 'will I get caught'? Again, please help me out here if I've misunderstood.

In this case I think, as others have pointed out the answer is: yes, you probably would.

Hope this helps.

Thanks @gebbjane that’s useful info 

 

@duncanw I do understand where you’re coming from but I’ve been totally open about what I was thinking/planning.  Personally I think it’s open to debate if the school should only be available to those rich enough to purchase a house in the area as opposed to those who can only afford to rent.  Having said that I’m not wanting to start any arguments so it’s all good 👍 
 

At the end of the day we’re all just parents trying to do the best for our kids, with the resources available to us

 

 

It’s not really an argument from my side. Like I said, if there’s something I misunderstood in the OP, please feel free to set me straight.


Appreciate the candour and the good-natured response, but it doesn’t really serve as a free pass to do whatever suits you best regardless of impact on anyone else. 
 

And the comments about the fairness of owners and renters having access to school places read as disingenuous. There are plenty of rental properties within catchment of that school including some large tracts of social housing.

You said that you own your own home. That places you in a minority in this borough. You also seem to have the financial wherewithal to juggle things around at will if it suits. So sorry if I’m not buying the ‘poor me’ aspect of this.

On the upside, there are many other great schools in the borough, mostly rated as Good or Outstanding. Good luck in your search for the right school.

 

 

  • Like 1

I'm attaching a  PDF of pp7-8 of the CSND 24-25 admissions policy, as downloaded from https://www.charternorthdulwich.org.uk/key-information/school-policies, to complement the screenshot.  Para 3 is the one highlighted.  Actually, I might as well paste it here:

"If both parents or any parent, with whom the child is resident for the majority of school nights, owns an alternative property, which has been the main family home within the last 3 years, this will be treated as the permanent home address. Therefore, if this parent is renting a property closer to the school, the rental property will not be accepted as the designated permanent home address, when applying the admissions Criteria."

TCSND_Admissions Policy 2024-2025-1_pp7-8.pdf

  • Like 1
On 17/03/2024 at 12:05, Iyael said:

The only way we could do it financially would be to rent out our current place.  So yes our sole residence would be the new rental but we would be landlords for our current place (also in Southwark). 
 

?

Its not the 'only way you could do it financially' though is it - you could sell your house and move into rented.  Then you could ultimately buy somewhere else either close to school or far away once you've satisfied the criteria published.  What is very clearly not allowed is moving out, but retaining your home, renting in catchment for a year and then moving back.  Its not about 'not being rich enough to buy closer' - renting is fine, but it needs to be your only residence you have access to. 

  • 1 month later...
On 17/03/2024 at 13:53, Iyael said:

Thanks @gebbjane that’s useful info 

 

@duncanw I do understand where you’re coming from but I’ve been totally open about what I was thinking/planning.  Personally I think it’s open to debate if the school should only be available to those rich enough to purchase a house in the area as opposed to those who can only afford to rent.  Having said that I’m not wanting to start any arguments so it’s all good 👍 
 

At the end of the day we’re all just parents trying to do the best for our kids, with the resources available to us

 

 

I don’t think there is any debate to be had. It’s wrong. 

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm pleased that Charter North have caught on to the dishonest practice of owning elsewhere and renting nearby to get a place at the school. It wasn't the case a few years ago and I knew several families who exploited the loophole.

I'll admit to finding it funny when I met a family who rented in Dulwich Village to get their first of three children into the school. But then their second child wanted to go to a school in Lewisham ... and they were out of catchment for that! I wonder if they did it again ... 

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...