Jump to content
citizenB

School holidays row: Isle of Wight man loses legal fight over daughter's absence

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 652 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Looks like Jon Platt has been found guilty

 

Jon Platt’s legal battle over his daughter’s term-time holiday ends in disappointment – and bill of £140,000 to taxpayer

A father who took his child out of school for a holiday during term time, sparking a long-running legal fight, has been found guilty of failing to secure her regular attendance.

Jon Platt’s campaign had previously gone all the way from Isle of Wight magistrates court to defeat at the supreme court, at a cost of nearly £140,000 to the public purse, and his latest disappointment came in a hearing back at the same magistrates court on Friday.

“This has gone on far too long and far to much money has been spent on it by me and the taxpayer,” he told reporters after the hearing, adding his relief that it was over. Platt was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,000 costs and a £20 surcharge

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/23/school-holidays-row-isle-of-wight-man-loses-legal-fight-over-daughters-absence


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to

donatelink3.gif through PayPal (opens in a new window)

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-40381825

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-23/government-spent-140-000-of-taxpayers-money-on-term-time-holiday-court-battle/

 

Government spent £140,000 of taxpayer's money on term-time holiday court battle

The government paid out nearly £140,000 in taxpayer's money pursuing a court case against a father who took his daughter on holiday during term time, new figures show.

The revelation comes as the case, which was closely watched by families across the country hoping for cheaper family holidays, returns to Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court.

A Supreme Court ruling earlier this year backed the government's position against unauthorised absences, but figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request show that the government spent the equivalent of six newly-qualified teachers' salaries pursuing the case.

As of May 10, the Department for Education (DfE) bill for the court cases was £139,891.93, the figures show.

 

There was no way the government were going to let this go!


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to

donatelink3.gif through PayPal (opens in a new window)

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course, the supreme court decided that "regular" meant every possible occasion. There is no compusion to send your children to school at all, just that they are "educated"

so the original fine of £60 was actually a charge for breaching the terms of the agreement the parents and pupil signed whan accepting a place at that school. Now that the courts have re-engineered the law and the meaning of words councils can if they wish start a battle with those who home school or use other methods of educating their children . I bet we dont see a series of raids on religious schools though, just on the home groups.

Also, does it mean if I order a "regular" cofffee at a well known retail outlet I can be taken to court for not buying one the next day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I was at school, (and we are going back 25 to 30 years here), holidays were permitted during term time but it needed the approval by the Headteacher or senior member if teaching staff for a special form to be filled in. I think I remember that being mentioned in the parent's handbook that the school gave out when I was in Year 7.

 

 

Mind you, I suppose that the current rules prevent the envy and resentment of one pupil enjoying himself on the beach on the other side of the world while his peers have to attend normal lessons at school and so on. I am someone who has an August birthday, sand so therefore because of English term times, I never had to go to school on my birthday - in other words, I was able to do something special on that date without school getting in the way of it - I don't know how lucky I was to have my birthday at that time of year.

 

 

I remember there was a school Referendum to change the school terms and to have the school work all the way through August, and obviously hardly anyone supported it - I bet that the amount of truancy that would have gone on in August would have caused a U-turn in those plans as a result. And, that would have frustrated families who wanted to take holidays at that time of year as well.

 

 

As Eric's Brother has just said, there isn't and compulsion to send children to school, but school is the default legal way of a child being educated - unless plans are officially made, it would be regarded that as a child is absent from school, they are not being educated, and so the EWO would be brought in, visiting parents and so on. I hated school when I was a pupil, and I often wished that I was home educated, and that my parents were rich enough for me to spend two weeks on the other side of the world, forgetting the misery if being bullied and so on.


A CAG member is who I am

I really hate things if they are a [prob-lam]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the original fine of £60 was actually a charge for breaching the terms of the agreement the parents and pupil signed whan accepting a place at that school

 

No it wasn't. If your child is a registered pupil at a (local authority) school the fine is for breach of the relevant Act and Regulations. Parents accepting a place at a local authority school don't sign any legally binding agreement. Some schools ask parents to sign up to various forms of home-school agreement, but these are just vague promises to support the school. They have no legal status, they aren't contracts, and no-one can be fined anything under them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the fine is for breach of the Act. That's a given. The Act, however, is vague. Regular can mean anything, and the Supreme Court were tasked to clarify what it Parliament intended it to mean in this context.

 

As you can see in Paragraph 1 of the Judgment:

 

1. This case is all about the meaning of the word “regularly” when describing the attendance of a child at school. Under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996, if a child of compulsory school age “fails to attend regularly” at the school where he is a registered pupil, his parent is guilty of an offence. There are at least three possible meanings of “regularly” in that provision: (a) evenly spaced, as in “he attends Church regularly every Sunday”; (b) sufficiently often, as in “he attends Church regularly, almost every week”; or © in accordance with the rules, as in “he attends Church when he is required to do so”. When does a pupil fail to attend school regularly? Is it sufficient if she turns up regularly every Wednesday, or if she attends over 90% of the days when she is required to do so, or does she have to attend on every day when she is required to do so, unless she has permission to be absent or some other recognised excuse?

 

The Court quickly and unsurprisingly decided that (a) could not have been the intended meaning of regularly. The Court went into a lot of detail as to why (b) could not be the correct interpretation. I can't find a reason to disagree with the following:

 

40. Ninth, and this is the reason why the local authority have appealed and the Secretary of State has intervened in support, there are very good policy reasons why this interpretation [(b) in Para 1] simply will not do. It is not just that there is a clear statistical link between school attendance and educational achievement. It is more the disruptive effect of unauthorised absences. These disrupt the education of the individual child. Work missed has to be made up, requiring extra work by the teacher who has already covered and marked this subject matter with the other pupils. Having to make up for one pupil’s absence may also disrupt the work of other pupils. Group learning will be diminished by the absence of individual members of the group. Most of all, if one pupil can be taken out whenever it suits the parent, then so can others. Different pupils may be taken out at different times, thus increasing the disruptive effect exponentially.

 

41. Finally, given the strictness of the previous law, Parliament is unlikely to have found it acceptable that parents could take their children out of school in blatant disregard of the school rules, either without having asked for permission at all or, having asked for it, been refused. This is not an approach to rule-keeping which any educational system can be expected to find acceptable. It is a slap in the face to those obedient parents who do keep the rules, whatever the cost or inconvenience to themselves.

 

In deciding that © was the right approach the Court said two striking things:

 

43. First, there are many examples where a very minor or trivial breach of the law can lead to criminal liability. It is an offence to steal a milk bottle, to drive at 31 miles per hour where the limit is 30, or to fail to declare imported goods which are just over the permitted limit. The answer in such cases is a sensible prosecution policy. In some cases, of which this is one, this can involve the use of fixed penalty notices, which recognise that a person should not have behaved in this way but spare him a criminal conviction. If such cases are prosecuted, the court can deal with them by an absolute or conditional discharge if appropriate.

 

44. Second, this had not been thought an objection under the pre-1944 law. It was recognised that this sometimes produced harsh results, but the aim was to bring home to parents how important it was that they ensured that their children went to school. The offence in section 444(1) is an offence of strict liability, whereas the offence in section 444(1A) is not.

 

I think the Court called it right, and the Council/Govt were right to pursue this as the situation could not be left in limbo - affecting every LEA in the country.

 

 

Looking back to when it came to the school making their original decision, I don't think it helped Mr Platt, that on the week he submitted his request to take the child out of school, the former Mrs Platt had taken the child out of school for a holiday without authorisation. It also didn't help that she paid her fine. And furthermore that the school warned him (as they are required to do so) that he would be fined if he ignored their refusal to allow him to remove the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a child absent in term time disrupts the class, but come to middle of June at least in primary school they don't do anything.

They just play, read books and do art and craft.

It seems that teachers are already on holiday mode, no homework, no new lessons, nothing to miss.

So if a parent takes a child on holiday 3 days before the official school closure to avoid paying double the price, he is fined to line the council's pocket.

This is legalised theft if you ask me.

Every case should be analysed individually.

For example, a child taken to a fishing trip would learn much more than a child locked in a classroom making the umpteenth rocket out of a cardboard tube.

Unfortunately this will not bring money in so a penalty is imposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he is fined to line the council's pocket.

This is legalised theft if you ask me.

 

The Council don't keep the money from Penalty Notices for school absence. Councils collect it on behalf of the government and it goes to the Treasury. Councils are allowed to deduct only the cost to them of administering the Penalty Notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Council don't keep the money from Penalty Notices for school absence. Councils collect it on behalf of the government and it goes to the Treasury. Councils are allowed to deduct only the cost to them of administering the Penalty Notice.

 

Same offence (theft), different offender.

I wonder why councils are so keen to collect this money if they only get their costs back.

Maybe they inflate the costs???

Noooo, they are law abiding authorities, aren't they?

Silly me even thinking it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why councils are so keen to collect this money if they only get their costs back.

 

Because Councils are under a statutory duty to secure school attendance and take action to prosecute for breach of attendance rules. And because Councils do actually believe that good attendance is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Councils are under a statutory duty to secure school attendance and take action to prosecute for breach of attendance rules. And because Councils do actually believe that good attendance is important.

This must be the funniest and most naive comment I read on CAG.

Come on!!!

They fine people taking their children to relatives' wedding abroad for a couple of days.

Happened to my friend and after the appeal he had to pay.

If my cousin is getting married abroad on a weekday (yes, they do that) and I can't leave the kids home alone, what can I do???

Councils believe that good attendance is important...

Money is important!

Anything else is just a mean to rake more money in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This must be the funniest and most naive comment I read on CAG.

Come on!!!

They fine people taking their children to relatives' wedding abroad for a couple of days.

Happened to my friend and after the appeal he had to pay.

If my cousin is getting married abroad on a weekday (yes, they do that) and I can't leave the kids home alone, what can I do???

Councils believe that good attendance is important...

Money is important!

Anything else is just a mean to rake more money in.

 

You've an odd sense of humour if a discussion about councils' statutory duties under the Education Acts amuses you, but each to their own.

 

Naive it isn't though, just a statement of facts. I can see you have a personal axe to grind on this king12345, but however many axes you want to grind won't change the fact that

 

(a) Councils have a statutory duty to secure school attendance, and

 

(b) they don't do it for the money because they don't keep the money. It goes to the Treasury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently let my daughter have a week off as she got offered an all expenses paid trip to New York. She is in 6th form and had to miss 2 mock A level exams, which she has subsequently taken. I did put in a request for the absence which was obviously denied but was told off the record that the trip was too much of an opportunity to miss and as long as I was prepared to risk the fine she should go. I am lucky that she is a hard worker with all her A levels predicted to be A's so I have faith in her ability and 1 week will not make any difference.

 

What gets me is I may get a fine for the unauthorised absence but they are ok with teachers having days off whenever they seem to want them therefore not being available.

 

Saying all that my wife is a primary teacher so I see it from both sides!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've an odd sense of humour if a discussion about councils' statutory duties under the Education Acts amuses you, but each to their own.

 

Naive it isn't though, just a statement of facts. I can see you have a personal axe to grind on this king12345, but however many axes you want to grind won't change the fact that

 

(a) Councils have a statutory duty to secure school attendance, and

 

(b) they don't do it for the money because they don't keep the money. It goes to the Treasury.

 

Point b) The money goes to the Treasury, minus their costs...

How much does it cost to send a letter? £60?

I have no axe to grind because I've never been fined in my days and now i take my grandchildren on holiday when they're off, accepting the fact that I have to pay double.

What I don't like is the council pretending to act for the common good when in fact the just rake money in.

See all kind of enforcement and fast declining services.

But if you are a council manager, I understand your point, after all they pay your wages (and bonuses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you are a council manager, I understand your point, after all they pay your wages (and bonuses).

 

Well spotted king12345. I am indeed a very senior council manager on a £100k+ salary and I spend most of my day screwing money out of poor people. On the minus side I still haven't been able to develop your cynicism about local government but I'm working on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the 6th form there is no legal obligatuion for person to receive compusory education so that would be down to contract between pupil and school. Cant be fined for non attendance but possiblt told to leave the school for breach of contract ( I know that isnt going to happen in this case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please give more details about the collection agency. You say that you are able to get something in writing from your ex-partner that you are not responsible. I suggest that you get that immediately. Is your ex-partner prepared to take responsibility for the debt? The jump from £890-£3200 sounds enormous and it sounds to me as if they must've moved this up to the High Court for enforcement. You will get more specialised help soon – but in the meantime send the water company an SAR and get the statement from your ex-partner.  
    • hi. i never actually got any letters from anyone untill i found out about the CCJ then i asked the court for details of who it was from southern water company,  then as soon as i phoned up the collection agency they came around was rude as anything and said they was going to take my stuff.   then told me the bill had gone up from £890 to £3200.  that's when i got a stay at the court, other than that i havnt had any letters at all   
    • Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:-       So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months. Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time. I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality. As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle. It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...