Parents who “steal” places for their children at the most popular schools should face tough new penalties, a report by a government adviser recommended yesterday.

Submitting a false address to get into a school’s catchment area was theft, Ian Craig, the Schools’ Adjudicator, said. Parents who used duplicitous means to ensure that their child was educated at an oversubscribed school were guilty of stealing that place from another family.

Dr Craig’s study revealed that two fifths of councils wanted the power to prosecute parents who used underhand tactics to get their children into good schools. Many authorities argued that they should face the possibility of a jail term — or at least a substantial fine.

The sanction that Dr Craig himself proposed was that parents who had used fraudulent means to get their child into a good school should be denied the normal guarantee that any other child of theirs would join their sibling at the school.

However, Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has asked the adjudicator to compile a report setting out the possible sanctions, and criminal prosecution is likely to be included.

Dr Craig said: “Parents need to be persuaded that to take a place by deception is to deprive another child. It’s the theft of a school place that belongs rightfully to another.”

His survey of local authorities found that the majority had experienced parents trying to trick their way into the best schools in their area. Many said that parents acted with impunity because there was no real punishment if caught. The child normally stayed at the school because heads were reluctant to disrupt his or her education.

The report, published yesterday, said of the councils favouring prosecution: “Almost all suggested that it should be available as a sanction, either for fraud, perjury or as a specific criminal offence.

“Most respondents considered that this was the only way in which the parents, rather than the child, could be punished. Many respondents considered that the possibility of a custodial sentence and/or a substantial fine was needed as a deterrent.

“Many thought that the failure of one London borough to pursue a case through the courts, and the subsequent publicity, reinforced parents’ views that they have nothing to lose in providing false information. There was a clear view that the only way in which what many identified as a growing problem would be turned around would be for ... high-profile cases to be successfully prosecuted.” The case referred to was that of Mrinal Patel, who was prosecuted by Harrow Council under the Fraud Act, after allegedly applying for a school place for her son using her mother’s address. The case was dropped because of doubt that the legislation was suitable.

Councils are reporting a rise in deceitful applications. The report said that this had become more commonplace because “many parents do not consider the consequences of their actions for others any longer, and friends and neighbours, as well as family members, collude with one another to play the system”.

The 123 (out of 152) local authorities that responded to the survey reported 1,100 cases of deception, but this was thought to be the tip of the iceberg. Most authorities estimated that there were at least twice as many cases again, and one council thought that there were at least 100 cases for every one that had so far been discovered.

Councils also complained about the amount of money and time they had to spend checking addresses and pursuing parents.

A growing number of councils were using lawyers from a very early stage to defend their positions, the report found, involving even more expenditure.

Many parents felt that they had nothing to lose by lying, the study said. “There is a view that there are probably many more parents ‘getting away with it’ than are caught and [this] makes it a risk worth taking.”

While Dr Craig had favoured criminal prosecution initially, he changed his mind after writing the report. He said that this was because parents were unlikely to be imprisoned and would not be deterred by a fine if they had been willing to spend thousands of pounds hiring a false address.

Schools did not escape censure in Dr Craig’s annual report. He said: “There has been some evidence during the year that some schools that wish to avoid taking their share of hard-to-place pupils have sought to introduce unnecessary delays into the process.”

Others had tested potential pupils on the basis of ability, which is banned at non-selective schools, in the guise of testing their aptitude for a certain subject, which is allowed at some schools, he added.

Confusion had emerged this year over the school starting age, Dr Craig added. Schools appeared unsure of the rights of parents to request a deferral if they won a place at a popular school but did not want their child to start straight away.

The report said that parents were allowed to defer the place until the first day of the term after their child’s fifth birthday, but that many schools did not make this clear.

Playing the system

• Use a relative’s address The grandparents’ is a popular choice — particularly if they have the same name, as utility bills can be used as evidence of residence

• Short-term rental or tenancy agreement Stump up for a property near the school just for the duration of the application period

• Falsely reporting marriage breakdown The mother moves to a small one-bed flat within the school catchment area before being “reconciled” with her husband once the children are at the desired school

• Genuine separation or divorce But the child actually lives with the other parent . . .

• Tenant’s address You do own the property but it is rented out to tenants. You pretend that you are living there

• Unexpected move Use an address on the application form and then move out without telling the school

• Business address Use your office or another commercial address within the catchment area

• House-swap Switch houses with a friend for a short time

• Unoccupied house Find an empty property and use its address

Times Recommends

• In Margot Fonteyn's footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power