Threat of a £2,000 fine if parents take child on term-time holiday

7,575

PARENTS could be fined up to £2,000 if they take a child out of school for holidays during term time, it was revealed yesterday.

Councillors in Lancashire, which has more term-time holiday penalty notices than any other region, are considering an increase in the current fine.

At present, parents in the county face a £120 fixed penalty notice per child for taking them out of classes. But this could rise to £1,000 per parent per child.

The potential plan was revealed in a letter to parents from Sara Richardson, head of Balladen Community Primary School in Rossendale, Lancs.

“Lancashire County Council is currently trialling a new system for dealing with unauthorised holidays and breaks during term time,” she wrote.

“This involves an increase in the financial penalty to parents of up to £1,000 per parent per child.”

Cllr Susie Charles, cabinet member for children, young people and schools, said: “We are considering any possible action that could be taken in the future to reduce unauthorised absences. This is at an early stage.”

The Conservative-controlled council issued 7,575 fines last year, up from 6,876 in 201617, sparking concerns that the current fines are not an effective deterrent to parents.

Last year, it was reported that almost four million school days had been lost in one academic year to unauthorised holidays.

According to the HM Government website, parents can only take their children on holiday during term time if there are “exceptional circumstances”.

It says: “Your local council can give you a fine of £60, which rises to £120 if you don’t pay within 21 days.

Battle

“If you don’t pay the fine after 28 days, you may be prosecuted.”

The maximum penalty is three months in prison and a £2,500 fine.

In 2017, Jon Platt lost a longrunning court battle against Isle of Wight council after challenging a £120 fine for taking his seven-year-old daughter to Disney World in Florida.

The High Court ruled that he was not acting unlawfully because his daughter had a good attendance record.

But the Supreme Court later overturned that ruling, saying “regular attendance meant in accordance with the rules prescribed by the school”.