Penalty notice for unauthorised holidays

This is my first post please be kind my punctuation and spelling is not great

My husband and I have just received penalty notices for my 12 year old ASD son as we took him on holiday during term time my son can not deal with crowded places and lots of over excited children we obviously want our son to experience every opportunity we can give him but find if we take him away during school holidays it is too stressful and overwhelming for him so we have no choice but to take him during school term time when it is quieter and he can enjoy his break away. My son is in mainstream school and the school are well aware of why we take him away during term time. Has anyone else had this issue and is there anything we can do about the penalty notice as it states we have no statutory right to appeal but feel there is exceptional circumstances for the leave 

  • I've tried very hard to be clear that I am providing non-mainstream information, and not recommending a course of action, other than the one we should all be taking, that of opposing oppression and injustice whenever we find it using whatever tools are at hand, 

    My actions pararalell those of my leadership, which is currently giving the "tools to fight oppression" to the Ukrainian leadership.

    I felt compelled to offer these people the tools to make it at least a more difficult process to extract penalties from them for the act of trying to give their child a decent holiday in line with their needs. There are so many other posts I read of parents complaining about the extra effort and accomodations required to give an Autistic kid a decent start in life, that I made what I consider to be a "brave and edgy" post.

    The (inevitable) argument has been presented very eloquently, and I've no intention to post further in this topic, or influence anyone's decision. I have read the rules at least once, and I do remember that I did consider whether I was promoting illegal activity or putting people at risk. It could doubtless be written better, I do know that presentation isn't my forte. 

  • To be honest I wasn’t overly concerned about my ‘credibility’ with the school. My children’s Primary school failed them over and over - and as a result I felt no obligation to the school - my obligation was (and is) to the well being of my children. Obviously term time holidays were less of an issue a few years ago and I was never even asked about it. My children had excellent attendance for the rest of the year - so that helped probably. 

  • Were a parent to be found out in a lie, their credibility with the school would be finished. Your idea of contacting the school to explain the circumstances makes more sense.

    To be honest, I never really understood why the government wanted to issue FPNs to parents who took holidays, but took a more lenient approach to those whose kids were "sick" on Fridays and Mondays -  we had families with Caravan Syndrome (treated by long weekends at their caravan) or hungover Mondays, but it was easier to go for the families with 90% attendance otherwise who wanted a week off. I would rather spend my time trying to help dysfunctional families than sending out FPNs to families with 90+% attendance. The policy did not make sense to me ... but it was what senior management required due to pressure from the DfE.

    It is all about politicians and statistics -  by banning term-term holidays it looks as though attendance is improving nationally, and there are fewer schools whose "persistent absence " figures are below the (arbitrary) national targets. It is about quick political gains.  I was once asked to "intervene" when a school's attendance dropped. The nursery had an epidemic of rubella, at the start of term, followed a few weeks later by a spell of influenza. Anybody with Early Years experience knows that a lot of kids are off sick the first few weeks of term, then they share out all the bugs to create a stable biome. They were all legitimate sicknesses, but the statistics looked bad.  So for six weeks I visited each week, checked the register and had a cup of tea with the admin officer.  By the end of term, the average had improved, and I was congratulated on my effective intervention!

  •  Used to do this years ago with my children (I’m autistic too) - used to say they were ill but we would go on holiday to somewhere really quiet during term time. There were no fines when they were young (they’re adults now). I didn’t like lying to the school (I actually HATE lying and dishonesty) but my children found school so stressful and they really NEEDED a holiday that they could enjoy (and so did I!).  Did you tell the school you were taking them out for a holiday? 
    I have no idea if it would help but if I was in your position (having been ‘caught out’) I would right a letter to the school explaining your situation and how this relates to autism. I’ve got to be honest though I doubt they’ll make an exception for you. This must be the case for many autistic families - I’m not sure if anyone has ‘tested’ this legally? 

  • Please remember:

    Rule 11: Posts which are deemed by the moderation team to be promoting illegal activity or putting a person at risk will be deleted without warning. 

    Liz Mod

  • Talking of acronyms ... what does DQST mean?  Google came up with " drug quality sampling and testing "  "drag queen story time " and " De Quervain's stenosing tenosynovitis " - not of which seemed relevant to public libraries and/or the curriculum.

    As to my acronyms -   EWO - Education Welfare Officer ; PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Codes of Practice ; ESO - Education Supervision Order ; EA96 - Education Act 1996.

    Some of your arguments seem similar to those of the US " sovereign citizen" conspiracy theorists, with maybe a bit of Rousseau's education theories thrown into the pot ... or have I misunderstood? I take it the Klaus you refer to is Klaus Schwab?

    A counter-argument is that the mass media are in thrall to advertising and artificial intelligence. Maybe the role of schools should not be the inculcation of facts (rote learning) but the ability to search out and evaluate evidence. Kids need to learn that just because something is on social media and has the image of some "influencer" attached does not make it credible. Good schools are teaching critical thinking skills ... the ability to seek out evidence, generate and test theories and work collaboratively. I still have a rather worn copy of Darrel Huff's "How to Lie with Statistics " recommended by my maths teacher in the mid-60s, and still surprisingly relevant.

  • Yes, I am a professional - see my profile.  I always cite my sources where possible, including references to legislation, so you can check for yourself.

    I am not sure what you mean by following the money. As an Independent Social Worker I charge for some of my work and some I do pro bono - in either case I am bound by the same ethical standards.  I understand that some participants may feel aggrieved at professionals, but please don't take it out on me. Even autistic social workers have feelings.

  • Ultimately, we all live in this system and have to find our accomodations with it or ways to push back and accept the consequences. When there are some. 

    Ian is a professional by the sound of it, (the copius use of acronyms & complexity gives it away) and can be completely trusted to follow the money, as all "professionals" do.

    I honestly don't know if he is providing us useful and cogent information that completely discredits the truths I passed on, and will avert disaster f these guys give what I said any credence, as he seems to be saying, or if he is just obscuring the issue, in the furtherance of his profession. 

    Perhaps this song fits:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX8szNPgrEs 

    I am daily being exposed to people who make a fairly solid case that for some Parents & Children conventional schooling is simply dangerous as it is now conducted. Since we seem to heading into a post multicultural world where no one needs to learn how to fit in with different thinking people, because all dissent will have been engineered out. It could be argued that the only reason kids need to go to school now is to be subjected to the stuff everyone needs to know, like how to comply effectively with the legal system, why we need banks and how banking (alledgedly) works, and of course, they mustn't miss out on DQST lessons at the local library..  

    Once the kids can be educated in these matters at home and the methods of surveillance and social control over the parents are properly in place. Schooling will become much more "flexible" and these issues won't be such a problem. But right now, Klaus and his WEF need your kids to attend state schools so they can start trialling the new insect proteins they want us to "transition" to...

    Some of us Autists will love the micromanagement of our lives that the future holds, some of us (and I suspect you are one, Caelus! will suffer greatly because of it).

    Maybe they should just pay the FPN for a quiet life. But equally maybe, people who try and make the automatic money harvesting process (and there are so many of those now) more awkward, or even try to push back are an essential part of the checks and balances an overall decent society requires. But if people don't even know that pushback at any level is an option, then the rules will just keep getting so manifold that more an more people get criminalised or persecuted for non crimes, as certainly appears to be the case here.. 

  • If a parent refuses to accept an FPN, the local authority will usually prosecute. That will mean a visit from an Education Welfare Officer, and an invitation for an interview under PACE caution.  If the case comes to court, failure to engage with the Education Welfare Service (known in some areas as School Attendance Service) will form part of the local authority's evidence.   As it says in the caution  " it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned ... "   So if you ignore all approaches and then plead special circumstances in court, the prosecution can, in effect, say "you should have told us that before."

    For a term-time holiday and a student whose attendance was otherwise good, it is possible that the LA might decide not to prosecute. Prosecutions are expensive and court time is limited. But if they do, expect a fine at least equivalent to the FPN, plus a victim surcharge and possibly costs, and a criminal record on top.

    The FPN is a chance to avoid a morning in court, a fine and a criminal record. Ignoring it is a high risk strategy. You might get magistrates who will throw the case out, or you may get a hard time.

    My experience as an EWO was that if a parent came to me with a reasonable explanation, and was prepared to engage with me and the school, it was possible to have the FPN withdrawn.  In some areas, the School Attendance Service is privatised, and there is an expectation that officers will issue FPNs more or less routinely. However, it is the local authority that has to present the case in court, and the Courts Officer should at least listen to your argument.

    An EWO does not have a power of entry into your premises. If a parent was avoiding me, that was reasonable grounds to ask the police to attend and do a welfare check.  If it was a council or housing association property I would usually have a housing offer visit - if you are not getting my letters you might have moved or be sub-letting. One bright person opened the door, took the letter, tore it up and told me where to stick the pieces. Once he had the letter in his hand it was legal personal service, whether he read it or not.

  • eh what does it even mean? they cant do anything and have no power right? so just tell them to suck on a fart and ignore them. they have no power over you or your kid, they can kick your kid out of their school maybe but then if they are that way hed probably be better off.

  • 1. I did not provide advise, I provided information.

    2. Your skepticism is warranted, and I find it hard to believe but I've watched someone doing the "ignorance" for 2 decades now, and it works. Of course it should not but it does, very single time. My informant seems to be totally fireproof. he have the attitude, that if they actually turn up at his home, he'll not be fighting the law, because as we all know the law will win. But he does hope that will be the one day a week he pops out to the shops... 

    I had rather hoped someone would pop up who'd explain why my informants tactic works, I know he only entered into it in a state of advanced desperation, 20 years ago, but he has tested it on every occasion since. This is someone who's word I know I can rely on beyond question, who I have trusted on several occasions with my well being, if not my life. 

    If I have a special interest it's divining the truth or figuring out how a system works. (so that I can defeat or repair it as the situation warrants). I've spent a fair bit of time trying to figure out why the ignorance works, but as my friend says "There is no actual compulsion to open every letter you get", along with, "Some letters simply are not worth opening, so I don't." 

  • Dear I Sperg ... I have looked at your profile, and I hope you won't mind if I am somewhat sceptical about your advice. Are you a lawyer or other expert?  I was an EWO for seven years and worked with our Courts Officer, have interviewed parents under PACE Caution and drafted cases for prosecution, but at no time have I heard mention of joinder. Again, the usual disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and what follows is a speculative discussion and should not be regarded as legal advice.

    I found a reference to joinder of summary offences in  Indictments Act 1915 s.4 " Subject to the provisions of the rules under this Act, charges . . . F1 for more than one misdemeanour . . . F1, may be joined in the same indictment, . . . F1"  but I struggle to see the relevance of your argument - please could you explain what I have missed?

    Basically the FPN is a way of avoiding prosecution. Education Act 1996 s.444(1) is an absolute offence - the prosecutor has to prove only that an unauthorised absence took place, and that is proven by the school register. The parent need not even be aware of the absence, e.g. if a pupil goes off to school but then truants, then hides the letters from the school. I had a case where the student also intercepted the legal letters.

    The offence in s444(1A) is the offence of "knowingly" causing your child to be absent, and is an imprisonable offence, although usually for a first offence it is often a small fine or conditional discharge. We did get a parent who got three months for a third offence, but there were aggravating circumstances and calling the District Judge something rather unpleasant did not help her case. But I digress...   An FPN under s.444A(2) " is a notice offering a person the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence under section 444(1) to which the notice relates by payment of a penalty"

    s447 EA96 requires that, before instituting a prosecution under s.444(1) " a [local authority] shall consider whether it would be appropriate (instead of or as well as instituting the proceedings) to apply for an education supervision order with respect to the child."  An ESO refers to s.36 Children Act 1989.  I am speculating here, but if a child has a disability s.17(10)(c) applies, and he is a "child in need", the social services authority will need to carry out a s.17 assessment before an application for a s.36 can be justified.  In my experience, LA officers often neglect to take this into account, and many social workers do not understand EA96 s447.

    This is a complex argument, and I would like to know if there are any lawyers who can help. My experience is that a number of prosections take place without proper consideration of an ESO, but criminal defence lawyers often do not challenge this.

  • IF you have not replied to the penalty notice, then this bit of rare and useful law applies.

    They HAVE to get a reply out of you before taking enforcement action. It's called "joinder" in law,and it's a basic neccesity.

    Think about that for a moment...

    Do not apply this knowledge to speed camera notices, T.V. licence demands etc. or other penalty notices however, unless are really alienated from our society as it really needs your money from all those extra little "digs". This is way different to those people on you tube who argue with bailiffs, in those cases "joinder" has been established, and the people are now engaged in a "controversy" usually because they answered a letter.

    BUT if you don't agree with a penalty notice or similar, on political or other grounds, "ignorance" is a very powerful tool. In the case of a speeding camera notice, when ignored you get a second more threatening notice. If you do not break at that point then you get a third notice, and some of those can be terrifying, but if you wait for the fourth one it doe not arrive. And they don't seem to keep any record. The system has been extensively tested over a greater than twenty year period, and unbelievably works as I describe. 

    It's part of the criminal "just us" system where "those in the know" can drive as fast as they bloody well like in tehri huge powerful cars with almost no chance of incurring the costs and penalties that afflict the rest of the population. Next time one blows past you on the motorway, now you know how they get away with it. 

    "Ignorance" is no excuse, it's a functional legal weapon! 

    Of course, it is a weapon that is nullified by personal service, but since signed for post doesn't actually require your personal signature any more, even that just got a whole mot more expensive and difficult to implement for systems that rely on your co-operation.  

    If the system is unfair, then always remember that they need you to play the game, or in this case respond to the letter, otherwise the game can't get started.

    NOW. It could be argued that it is extremely irresponsible of me to publish such a workaround in a public forum. People could use this knowledge to avoid legitimate penalties. (and probably will). BUT in your case you could use it to ward off an unfair penalty, and have a legitimate need to know what is behind that penalty notice...

    There is a principle that our laws operate with "the consent of the governed" which as some of the "Freemen" know is not always followed, but it underpins all but the oldest of our legal systems. You give that consent, automatically by responding. All (or most of the criminal classes learn this, and this, and other legal tricks is why it's so hard for the poor police force (when they do make an effort) to get the smarter or well connected criminals convicted.

    BUT most GOOD people (like yourselves appear to be) are not criminals and would not converse with the criminal class when they get an opportunity, and equally are not part of the ruling classes either, so they dutifully answer the letters, and pay the subsequent fines, fees, and tariffs, that keep this deeply flawed, over complicated and under effective legal and money harvesting system working where YOU are the victims!!   

    I am not suggesting anyone break the law, but I am telling people the generally hidden bit of knowledge that you have a lot of choice in when and how you engage with it, or even in many, many case IF you choose to engage with it. This sort of knowledge is generally hidden because it is widely believed by the people who know that the average individual has no moral compass, and will use it to avoid any and all just penalties.

    NOW a small subset of 1 in 50 of the population just got exposed to it, and the "conditioning" will ensure that most people reject it, so really it's only you guys and a handful of other readers who are likely to use it at all, so I feel quite justified in hitting "reply".

  • I have just seen that the original post post was four years ago when HMG was still getting up tight about term-time holidays ... hopefully this was resolved. However.post-Covid some schools will be looking at getting their attendance statistics back on track, and FPNs may rear their ugly head again. Although I am a former EWO, this reply is for information only - if it happens to you, please, seek qualified legal advice!

    With respect to Trishy, the LA does not make the rules -  the >Statutory guidance< is contained in " School Attendance : Guidance for maintained schools, academies, schools and local authorities "  (which in turn lists the legislation) - This current to the end of the 2022 school year.  

    The Head Teacher alone may authorise absence (although in practice this may be delegated to other staff, the Head is still responsible. [Education (Pupil Registration)(England) Regs 2006 Reg 7(1) and 7(3)(B) apply.]

     The penalty notice is in respect of an "unautorised absence" contrary to s.444(1)  Education Act 1996. by paying the FPN you are admitting that you have broken the law.  However ... If your child has ASD and needs to take a break as a "reasonable accomodation then the Head should authorise it.  I am not a lawyer, but as the Head Teacher has personal responsibility for authorising absence, presumably they are personally liable if they exercise their discretion without considering the Public Sector Equality Duty. That might focus their attention! You may find the HT will choose to authorise the absence ...

    The FPN will have been issued either by the governing body or the LEA depending on local arrangements. Contact either the Courts Officer at the Education Welfare Service, or the Head Teacher, or both, and ask for the notice to be withdrawn. For a prosection under s.444(1) will involve the authority in a lot of time and expense, and they may back down. If they refuse, seek expert advice immediately.

  • Oh my gosh, that school sounds horrendous, get your son out ASAP!! They are not meeting his needs for sure!! 

    It's a shame about the fine but by the sounds of it it's the type of thing that school do.

    I wish your family and especially your son luck for the future, don't give up, not all schools are bad 

    Kez x

  • Thankyou 

    we have contacted the local authority that the fine came from but have had no reply or acknowledgement from them we have been adviced from people we know to contact our local mp as he is very good when it comes to disabilities etc so we emailed him yesterday we have also contacted our local Sen iass but again have had nothing back it is looking like we will end up paying this fine as we can’t afford to wait till after the date it doubles £120 is bad enough if we don’t pay and it goes to court we just can’t afford the money we will have to pay if we lose. We are also looking into changing our sons school as they have been promising us for 2 years now to apply for his ehcp and additional funding and still have not done it keep coming up with different excuses we want to send him to a special Sen school that would understand his needs so much more but can’t do this until we have the ehcp in place so in the meantime while we wait for them to do what they have promised my son is suffering :( 

  • Hi.  I think its disgraceful that parents of special needs children get penalties for taking their children out of school to go on holiday.  Its a lack of understanding and I feel its just another way of  local authorities making money out of people.

    I think policies should be changed to take this into account.  I have taken my son away in school holidays but he really struggles too as everywhere is busy and a lot of waiting is required which he struggles to do.  When we went to a theme park in Spain other kids were climbing under and over barriers to get into the queues first which pushed us even further back.  It was just too stressful for all of us.

    I would say you have exceptional circumstances to appeal but whether you get anywhere is another matter.  I have battles with my local authority all the time as I have to fight to get any help and support from them.

    Best of luck.  I hope you get the penalty overturned. Xx

  • Hi Trishy,

    Sounds like you have had some good advice from the community.  In addition, I am going to give you links to the NAS Education Rights information because I think it will prove useful especially if you need to appeal the fine:

    You may want to contact our Education Rights Service who provides information, support and advice on educational provision and entitlements. Please see the following link for further information: http://www.autism.org.uk/services/helplines/education-rights.aspx

    The following article contains a lot of helpful information about education for a child with an autism: http://www.autism.org.uk/about/in-education.aspx  - this includes information regarding getting extra support for your child in their education setting.

    It can help to pass on information specifically for education professionals about autism spectrum disorders. The following link contains information written for education professionals: http://www.autism.org.uk/professionals/teachers.aspx

    Best wishes,

    Nicky-Mod

  • I understand most schools have different policies they decide what they will authorise or not  it’s at the head teachers discretion if he wanted to authorise it on these grounds it is my understanding that due to my sons extra needs he could have x

  • I work in a school. The local authority makes the rules on absence. The school follows the rules and issues the penalty notice. Exceptional circumstances tend to be funerals etc... If you pm me, i'll send you a copy of our attendance policy.