Property 2 and C4 was recorded as resident at Property 1. The phone number
for both addresses was the same and was registered at Property 2.
29.
There was some urgency in establishing the truth about the Complainants’
residence, as offer letters were due to be sent out on 14 March 2008. It was
therefore decided to apply for an authorisation under RIPA for directed
surveillance.
30.
The Tribunal note that the Council’s Cabinet has subsequently adopted the
recommendation of its Children and Young Persons Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 28 October 2008 that surveillance should not be used in the
schools admissions process. The change of policy does not, of course, bear on
the investigation of these complaints or affect the Tribunal’s determination of
them.
31.
There was evidence before the Tribunal that this Council and other local
education authorities have to deal with what is seen by many as a growing
problem of fraudulent or misleading admission applications by parents, who
want the best education for their children, and are determined to secure for
them places at successful, over-subscribed schools. Complaints about
deception as to residence in the school catchment area, if not properly
investigated and dealt
with,
could
potentially undermine the
fair
administration and integrity of the schools admissions system. The Tribunal
were referred to the Report dated 1 October 2009 of the Office of the Schools
Adjudicator to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and to
evidence from the Council’s Head of Legal and Democratic Services.
II. Complainants’ ordinary residence
Page 9