26.
The Tribunal find that there was a factual basis for the Council’s concern
about the accuracy of the application for a school place for C5 at the named
school and for further investigation by the Council of where the Complainants
were ordinarily resident at the relevant date (11 January 2008).
27.
The Council’s concern arose from the following matters. It was aware that the
preferred school was successful and was oversubscribed. The Council had
received two phone calls from members of the public making formal
complaints and alleging that the Complainants were not living at Property 1.
The first was on 28 January 2008 and the second was on 8 February 2008.
The second formal complaint from a separate source was to the effect that Ms
Paton had boasted that she had gained a place at the school by pretending to
live at Property 1, which was up for sale and was being advertised as available
for rent. That complainant alleged that lights had been left on in Property 1
and that windows were opened to make it look as though the family was living
there.
28.
The Council records showed that Ms Paton and C2 owned both Property 1 and
Property 2, the latter being outside the catchment area for the preferred school.
The official documents provided by Ms Paton (her driving licence and vehicle
insurance document) in response to the Council’s request for documents
verifying her home address appeared to confirm that the vehicle was registered
at Property 1, but they did not conclusively establish that the Complainants
were ordinarily resident at Property 1. Further inquiries showed that, at the
schools attended by the children of the family, C3 was recorded as resident at
Page 8