completed. The letter informed them that the Council was minded to treat the
application as though they were out of the catchment area.
41.
A meeting with the Council took place on 18 March 2008. There was a
discussion about the Complainants’ residential arrangements. At that meeting
Ms Paton and C2 were told about the surveillance. They were given a copy of
a report on the surveillance dated 4 March 2008.
42.
Following completion of its directed surveillance operation and its
investigations the Council concluded, on balance, that at 11 January 2008 the
Complainants had been ordinarily resident at Property 1 in the catchment area
of the preferred school. C5 was offered a place at the preferred school on 14
March 2008. It was accepted on 28 March 2008. At about the beginning of
March 2008 the Complainants had begun to move out of Property 1 to live in
Property 2.
III. The surveillance operation
43.
The surveillance was undertaken by an education officer employed by the
Council. He conducted the surveillance from within a vehicle, usually by
driving past one or other of the Properties in order to see whether the
Complainants’ car was present, or whether the Properties were being used. As
evidenced by his report dated 4 March 2008, surveillance of the Complainants,
of Property 1 and of Property 2 and of target vehicles began at 0805 hours on
Sunday 10 February 2008. Part of the period following was the school half
term. From that date to the end of surveillance on 3 March 2008 daily visits
were made by the education officer to Property 1 and to Property 2.
Page 12