Redcar family furious over school policy on holiday fines

Paul Benson, from Redcar, said the current system of dishing out financial penalties was “unfair” and holidays away from term time were “significantly cheaper”.

Another Redcar parent, Gemma Dunmore said the price of holidays when children were off was “extortionate”.

Redcar and Cleveland Council said it would review the current criteria for issuing fines and explore other solutions after council members recently agreed to a motion proposed by Councillor Carrie Richardson, which questioned whether fines were in the public interest.

Figures show that the amount of fines issued in Redcar and Cleveland for school term-time absences fell substantially during the coronavirus pandemic because of virus-related restrictions, in line with other parts of the country.

In 2021/22 £12,941 worth of fines were issued in the borough – compared to approximately £57,000 in 2019/20.

But post pandemic the annual fine total has has leapt by 257%, coinciding with an increased number of term-time holidays that parents have communicated to schools, to £46,235 in 2022/23.

Department for Education guidance means local councils have to draw up and publish a code of conduct for issuing fines for non-attendance to be adhered to by schools, local authority officers and the police.

Paul Benson boarding a holiday flight abroad with his family. (Image: LDR)

In Redcar and Cleveland headteachers have discretion as to whether a fine for absence is issued or not, depending on whether exceptional circumstances are involved.

In many instances term-time holiday absences are seen as unarguable and lead to parents being referred to the local authority in order that a fine can be pursued and issued.

But depending on where a parent and child lives, the approach is not always uniform with some schools turning an occasional blind eye to term-time trips and councils taking a more relaxed position on fines.

Labour’s Cllr Richardson said her motion had cross-party support with a number of councillors speaking in favour of it.

A handful of members did oppose the motion, including cabinet member for children Alison Barnes, a former teacher, although they were in the minority.

Meanwhile, it was criticised by Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland MP Conservative MP Simon Clarke who, writing on his Facebook page, described the approach taken by Labour and those councillors who gave their backing as “absolutely staggering”.

Councillor Carrie Richardson, the Labour member for Newcomen ward on Redcar and Cleveland Council. (Image: LDR)

He said: “Of course it matters that children are in school and parents take responsibility for this.”

Cllr Richardson said: “We want it to be investigated as to whether the fines are still in the public interest and what effect they have on attendance.

“Some councils don’t issue fines at all, it is a bit of a postcode lottery.”

Cllr Richardson claimed the cost-of-living crisis meant some families were struggling to pay the fines.

She said: “They fine £60 per child per parent.

“Two parents with one child will pay £120.

“A family of four would face a £240 fine.

“If they don’t pay within 21 days it [the fine] doubles and then if they don’t pay that court costs get lumped on.

“You also get the same fine if you went for one day or two weeks.”

Cllr Richardson said she had asked people on Facebook how they felt about the fines before bringing the motion.

She said: “Lots of people reached out, including teachers, who said it damaged relationships with families.

“I don’t think the fining system works and it doesn’t improve attendance, it is not a good system.”

What did the motion say?

It was worded thus: ‘This council understands it has a legal duty to ensure that parents send children to school but, in these unprecedented times where the working poor cannot afford a break in the school holidays, considers that alternative options to a fine should be explored.

These fines disproportionately affect families with two parents and more than one child. 

For a family of four the fine is £240. 

Holiday companies are quoting up to 95% rises on prices for school holidays. 

Families are facing massive pressure with rising bills and food costs and their position is made worse if they are then fined for taking a break and having some time off together. 

There are potential solutions that could be investigated to ease this pressure such as, for example, the introduction of staggered holidays for schools.

Therefore, this council resolves that before 1st September, it should review the criteria for issuing fines to parents solely for taking their children on term time holidays.

And investigate whether issuing these fines is still in the public interest, or if other solutions can be found to allow pupils and their families to afford to take a holiday at a time that suits their needs and circumstances.’

‘You are penalised for it’

Mr Benson and his wife Jessica took their children, Ruby and George, who attend Newcomen Primary School, to Florida twice previously, being fined £240 on each occasion.

He said he was warned before the last trip, in September, it would have a detrimental effect on one of the youngsters’ education.

Mr Benson said: “My wife is a hospital theatre nurse who worked during the covid crisis and they have a massive backlog of operations they are doing at the moment and it is difficult for us to get time off when we can all go together.

“It’s not like they are truant students, they might have had a two week holiday and two or three sick days.

“It’s significantly cheaper to go outside term time.

“A family of four like us to go to Florida during the summer holidays – we’d never be able to afford it.

“To go in August you can be looking at twelve grand, but then a week or two later in September its £3,700, so you think ‘Well we’ll take the fine’.

“If you can’t afford to go during the holidays, you are penalised for it, that’s how it makes you feel.”

Mr Benson, who works in events and hospitality, confessed he and his wife were in two minds about whether to do the same again after they were warned about their children’s attendance.

He added: “Some parents may be on a higher income and be able to afford the inflated prices during the summer holidays.

“But I work hard full-time and my wife works for the NHS so why can’t we have that entitlement to go on a holiday?

“We seem to be one of the few countries in the world that has this system [of fines], it seems unfair, and should be properly approached on a case by case basis.

“If you are taking the mick with poor attendance to start with, maybe you shouldn’t be granted that holiday, but if you are not abusing the system you should be entitled to take a family holiday when you want without being fined.

“It’s a time to bond and for children to learn new life skills.”

Ms Dunmore, who works in the NHS as a nurse and midwife, has two children Ellie and Mia, who go to St Benedict’s Catholic Primary School and Newcomen Primary School, in Redcar, respectively, and has previously been fined for their holidays.

She said: “The price of holidays when the kids are off is extortionate and with covid and things like that they deserve a break.

“Booking a holiday within the six weeks is more expensive than just paying the fine.”

Ms Dunmore said Mia had previously been to Florida for a fortnight and both children went to Benidorm for a week last year.

She said: “You just send a letter to the school saying when you are taking them on holiday and the school writes back saying you are not allowed to within school time.

“If they had major exams coming up, I would think about it.

“But schools do residentials and trips out so if they can organise those types of things a holiday to another country, which can be educational, is beneficial as well.”

Ms Dunmore, who said her children had about 98% attendance, added: “If you have a child that is not attending school at all and the next minute they are going on holiday, I kind of get it.

“But if they are attending regularly and the only time they are off is when they are unwell, and they put in a holiday, why shouldn’t they be allowed to go on it?

“Would I go on holiday in term time again? Yes I have booked another one this year to Tenerife, the 13th to the 20th of June when the kids would be at school.”

A spokesman for the council confirmed the motion on school fines had been agreed in line with the wording.

It said head teachers took decisions on a  “case by case basis”, but if a term-time holiday took a pupil below 95% attendance it should be refused, opening up the prospect of a fine.

Other considerations included whether a holiday was being taken at any time in September, as this month was deemed to be a crucial transition period for students, or at any time during formal external exam and assessment periods.

They also took into account if a holiday warning letter or penalty notice had been issued in the previous 12 months.

Asked what happened to the money raised, the council said it was used to support its school inclusion and welfare team.

What is the Department for Education’s position?

A spokeswoman said: “Regular school attendance is vital for a child’s education, wellbeing and future life chances and parents have a duty to make sure their child regularly attends school.

“Whilst we always encourage schools to offer support to families in the first instance, it is right for fines to be used when there is no lawful reason for a child’s absence, such as an unauthorised holiday.”

The DfE said where support with attendance issues is not appropriate in a case, such as an unauthorised holiday in term time, or is offered by schools, local authorities and other agencies and is not successful or is not engaged with, the law protects a pupil’s right to an education and provides a range of legal interventions to formalise attendance improvement efforts.

It said the decision to prosecute rested solely with the local authority and it had published guidance to support them.

The DfE said money collected through fixed penalty notices should only be used by the local council to administer the system, or to cover the costs of prosecution in cases of non-payment, or otherwise be returned to the Secretary of State.