Fixed penalty notices for unauthorised absence from school

[NotaDisneyMum]

Is a NRP (court order in place) liable for a FPN for unauthorised absence from school, issued because the RP has taken the DC on holiday?

Not sure I have read it correctly, but if I have, wouldn't the rp have applied for the leave and had it denied, or failed to have applied for it, thereby making them liable? Why would the Nrp be responsible for what the rp did?

Well, that's what I'm wondering because the local authority policy quotes section 576 of the education act 1996 - definition of a parent and goes on to state that Throughout this document, references to ‘parent’ mean each and every parent coming within the definition, whether acting jointly or separately, and should not be taken to mean that provisions only apply to ‘parent’ in the singular.

Whilst it would be unusual for a fixed penalty to be issued against the NRP there is nothing in the relevant law to prevent this from happening. Indeed, the RP can receive a fixed penalty even if they are not aware that their child is missing school.

If it states it is a fixed penalty notice, please challenge it with your LA as they are not fixed.

IIRC it is a £50 fine issued per child, per parent/carer, and is payable within 21 days.

If unpaid after 21 days it increases to £100 (so therefore not fixed) and the recipient has a further 42 days in which to pay.

If still unpaid, the recipients will be summonsed before the magistrates under section 444 (1) / (1a) if not a first offence, where they can be fined upto £2500 and face up to 3 months in prison.

If it does state it is fixed, and you challenge it, there's a good chance they will drop it anyway :)

To answer the original question, yes, all parents/carers, whether living at same address or not, will/should be issued with a penalty notice if they have PR for that child.

To make it legally binding, the penalty notice would also have to be addressed correctly, ie not just to Mr or Mrs Smith, but to Mr J Smith as a very minimum. Notices issued without either a first name or at the very least an initial, are not legally binding.

I used to issue these for a living

thank you!

There has been a change to the amount of the penalty recently and MumVsKids' memory is not entirely accurate on the timescales.

The amount is now £60 rising to £120 if not paid within 28 days, not 21 days. Also proceedings can be started 42 days after you receive a penalty notice, not 42 days after the figure goes up to £120 - you only have 14 days to pay the higher figure before the LA can take you to court.

Note that the level of fine quoted by MumVsKids and the possibility of a custodial sentence only apply where the parent is aware that the child is not attending school. If the parent is unaware of the child's non-attendance or has reasonable justification for failing to ensure the child's attendance the maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 with no custodial sentence.

The law does not require the school/LA to issue penalty notices to all those with PR but it allows them to do so.

The Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 include a long list of items that must appear on a penalty notice. Note, however, that the courts may take the view that minor non-compliance with the regulations does not invalidate the penalty notice.

Sorry, I blame baby brain!!

The only thing I am certain of is that if you are tried under section 444 (1) education act 1996, then the maximum fine is £1000 and no custodial sentence.

If you are tried under section 444 (1a) - which is usually for second or third offences, then this is prosecution at the higher level and carries the higher fine of £2500 and/or up to 3 moths in prison.

You are right about the number of days though, it is definitely 28 not 21 and prosecution can be sought after 42 days of non payment, after the original pn has been issued.

And I blame inflation for the rise in the fine

You can also appeal them - the school/local education authority should have a policy document (online) outlining when they will be issued.

They are usually issued to act as a deterent in the future. If the NRP was unaware that the children would be taken out of school, or had been consulted but did not consent but they were taken anyway, you could argue that the issue of the penalty is not likely to achieve the aim as the NRP never indended for the child to be out of school and would never authorise future non attendance (and say may apply for a Prohibited steps order) to prevent it (even if you would appl for such an order...)

IME if you send them stiff letters appealing they often do revoke them.