Penalty notice for unauthorised holidays

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".

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".

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

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.

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.