Revealed: The area where parents would pay £81,000 MORE to buy a home near a good school
According to Santander, parents would pay an average of £45,000 extra to secure a home in the catchment of an Ofsted-rated 'good' school.
Almost three in four parents say they would be willing to pay over the odds to live in an area where their children would be prioritised for a place at such a school.
On average, parents would be willing to pay 15 per cent more to live within 'good' catchment boundaries, some £44,736 extra on top of the Halifax House price index's average price tag of £298,237.
School catchment areas are the geographic areas around a school and children who live in that area are usually considered first when it comes to places.
Some 73 per cent are willing to pay a premium to secure a spot in one of these areas - and this has jumped compared to 63 per cent last year as competition heats up for state school spots.
Private school fee hike drives up competition
Places in top state schools are the latest hot commodity after January's VAT hike of as much as 20 per cent on school fees.
VAT had never before been charged on private school payments, but Labour's manifesto revealed it would scrap the exemption for private schools, which previously saw them free of the 20 per cent tax.
This came into force in January of this year in a bid to bolster the Treasury's dwindling coffers.
And competition for state school spots is only set to get hotter, as 21 per cent of parents say they plan to pull their children out of private schools in the wake of the higher fees.
Of this group, some 69 per cent say they would relocate to get their children into the best state school catchments, Santander says.
David Morris, head of homes at Santander, says: 'Parents are understandably digging deep into their financial and emotional reserves to give their children a great education.
'There is good news for parents however, as a record number of properties coming to the market, combined with stabilising interest rates and improved affordability, will hopefully help some of them bag an outstanding home in their dream catchment area.'
What's the good school premium in YOUR area?
London parents willing to pay an extra 15 per cent to buy their home would have to fork out an extra £81,000 on the average house price, bringing the total to £620,901.
In the south east it's a £58,239 hike to £446,499, while in the east of England it's a £50,174 jump to £384,668.
In the east midlands, parents could pay £36,777 more, in the west midlands it's a £39,040 premium while in the southwest parents are happy stumping up £45,346 more.
For the north west the premium works out at £36,344, in Yorkshire and the Humber it's £32,330, while in Northern Ireland it's £32,225.
For Scottish homes, a 15 per cent premium is an extra £32,286 while for Welsh homes it's £34,189.
The lowest premium is on homes in the north east homes where a 15 per cent premium works out at £26,588, hiking a home's price tag to £203,839.
Such is the clamour for a place at a top school, that some parents say they would be willing to pay an extra 25 per cent on top of the average home's price tag.
That's an extra £74,559 on the typical property, which hikes the purchase price to £372,796.
NOT all state schools have catchment areas
Parents should do their research before they decide to move to a particular area, however, as not all state schools have catchment areas.
Admissions could instead be based on entrance test results, so it is vital to check the school's criteria.
Even if a school does have catchment area, living in one doesn't guarantee a child's place in a school.
The school could be oversubscribed, or prioritise applicants within the catchment area based on test scores.
Catchment areas can also change, so there's no guarantee if you buy a house now that your child will later be admitted to the school of your choosing.
And not only could that derail any plans for younger children to attend that school, it could cause your house price to take a tumble when it's time to sell as demand falters.
But the fight for a spot in a hot catchment area is doing more than just squeeze the finances of these parents.
One in three parents say the stress of not getting the desired catchment led to them considering home schooling.
Meanwhile three in ten parents have lost friends in the fierce competition for a place in a top school and one in six have had sleepless nights.
The new research shows families would also be willing to uproot and move an average of 31 miles to bag a place in a top-tier school, which is nine miles further than a year ago.
> Are you pulling your child out of private school? Email l.evans@dailymail.co.uk
Best mortgage rates and how to find them
Mortgage rates have risen substantially over recent years, meaning that those remortgaging or buying a home face higher costs.
That makes it even more important to search out the best possible rate for you and get good mortgage advice, whether you are a first-time buyer, home owner or buy-to-let landlord.
Quick mortgage finder links with This is Money's partner L&C
> Mortgage rates calculator
> Find the right mortgage for you
To help our readers find the best mortgage, This is Money has partnered with the UK's leading fee-free broker L&C.
This is Money and L&C's mortgage calculator can let you compare deals to see which ones suit your home's value and level of deposit.
You can compare fixed rate lengths, from two-year fixes, to five-year fixes and ten-year fixes.
If you're ready to find your next mortgage, why not use This is Money and L&C's online Mortgage Finder. It will search 1,000's of deals from more than 90 different lenders to discover the best deal for you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Aviva took six months to transfer my pension - and it cost me £7,000: SALLY SORTS IT
I had three pensions with Aviva worth £140,607 that I wanted to transfer to investment firm Vanguard. I made the request on November 27 last year, as I wanted the money in my Vanguard account in good time by April 5, 2025, so I could have some income from it in that tax year. However, this was not possible because Aviva delayed transferring them. Please can you help? G.W., Maidstone, Kent. Sally Hamilton replies: When you asked to transfer your pensions from Aviva, Vanguard suggested it would take around four to eight weeks. This gave you plenty of breathing space – or so you thought – to get the transaction done, so you could take an income from the transferred pot before the tax year ended. But it wasn't until April 2 – with just three days left of the last tax year – that Aviva finally told you by letter that the payment had been issued, including £2,638 in late interest. You checked your Aviva account online and found it was indeed closed, with no funds remaining. But to your frustration it had not reached Vanguard. The delays continued. Two weeks (and nine chasing phone calls to Aviva customer service) later, Aviva revealed that the payment couldn't be made as the bank had not authorised it. It gave no explanation but told you not to worry as it would go through in a couple of days. It didn't. Your blood pressure climbed when staff said it would take four weeks to investigate your complaint. After four weeks your frustration was off the charts, when they told you they were still looking into it and asked you to allow them another four weeks. All this time you had neither access to your pension – and nor was it invested. Every time you tried to speak to someone with authority, you ended going round in circles, with calls either not returned – or missed – and when you called back, the manager who had left you a message wasn't known to the call handler. It was time for me to give Aviva a serious prod. Within a few days Aviva finally got a grip on your case and your money landed with Vanguard a few days later. Details were not given of what exactly went wrong except the company admitted a blunder. A spokesman says: 'We are extremely sorry for the delay in transferring Mr W's pensions, and the distress this has caused him. 'This was due to an error on our part. I can confirm that the full payment has now been transferred and received by Vanguard.' Last week, Aviva finally completed a loss assessment after liaising with Vanguard. This took several weeks of to-ing and fro-ing between it and Vanguard. In the end, taking into account late and lost interest, plus potential tax liability faced by you for taking the money in the current tax year rather than last year as planned, plus £750 as an apology, you have received total recompense of £8,096. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
