Half-term holiday warning from Mum facing criminal record

The 44-year knew ahead of going abroad that her child was missing six days of school and would be marked as an unauthorised absence, which could result in a £60 fine.

But after returning from their £900 trip, Natalie claims she never received a penalty fine notice in the post and presumed she had dodged it this time around.

The 44-year knew ahead of going abroad that her child missing six days of school would be marked as an unauthorised absence, which could result in a £60 fine. But after returning from their £900 trip, Natalie claims she never received a penalty fine notice in the post and presumed she had dodged it this time around. (Image: Kennedy News & Media) The mum-of-one, who works in risk and compliance, says she never chased up her daughter’s charge with the school or local authority as she claims she had heard it was ‘not guaranteed’ to receive one.

However Natalie says she was ‘devastated’ to receive a letter from West Sussex County Council on August 24th saying she had failed to pay her child’s fine and could now be taken to court.

She has now received a single justice procedure notice outlining she is being charged under Section 444 (1) of the Education Act 1996.

As a result, Natalie says she is now facing a potential criminal conviction and a £1,000 fine despite claiming she never received a letter about the fine in the first place.

Section 444 (1) of the Education Act 1996 states that if a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at school, his parent is guilty of an offence.

A person charged with the offence has to prove they had a ‘reasonable justification’ for their child’s failure to attend regularly at the school.

Since receiving the initial investigation letter, Natalie says she has been in ongoing contact with West Sussex County Council but claims they are continuing with legal proceedings.

She slammed the ‘madness’ of the law as she has reportedly been told the onus is on her to ‘prove she hasn’t received the letter’, rather than on the council to prove they sent it.

Even when she claims to have paid the fine late, the sums were refunded into her account and has been now been given 21 days from November 5th to plead guilty or not to the charge.

Natalie, from Crawley in West Sussex, said: “We went on holiday from May 13 to May 20 which meant she missed six days of school.

“When I took her out of school, the guidance was anything over five days you were likely to receive a fine so I knew I was likely to receive a fine.

“I weighed it all up and was happy to pay the £60 fine. It was a lot cheaper [to take her in term time]. She was eight years old and didn’t have any important exams or tests.

“Her attendance record was good and she is also exactly where she needs to be in terms of capabilities. I just thought it was only six days.

“I never chased up the fine because friends and family said you don’t always receive a fine. The fine wasn’t guaranteed, it was just that you could receive one.

“Because I hadn’t received one I just didn’t think I was going to get fined so I didn’t chase it up.

“The first letter that I received, which would have been the second letter they sent [West Sussex County Council], was dated July 18 but I didn’t receive it until August 24.

“This letter was telling me that because I didn’t accept the offer of the fixed penalty notice it said that it was now down to the local authorities to prepare court papers for the offence.

“It’s not nice to receive letters like this. It’s now the intention of the local authorities to prepare court papers and it said I could get a fine up to £1,000 and receive a criminal record.

“The idea of getting a criminal record is devastating. I’m a good person. If I wasn’t, I would have just taken my daughter off ‘ill’ for those six days. Even if the truth is bad, it is better than lying.

“It’s a criminal record. I don’t want this against my name. I’ve got a good job and work in risk and compliance and I am studying for a diploma to further my career and this could stop me in my tracks. It could ruin this.”

Natalie said this was the first time she has ever taken her daughter on holiday during term time and says she did it because trips were dramatically cheaper.

She claims she has never been given a ‘fair’ chance to pay the fine and claims the council has had her email address the whole time so could have reached out electronically regarding the fine as well but never did.

And despite raising ‘mitigating factors’ to West Sussex County Council including the alleged ‘poor’ postal service in her area, she says they are still set on taking her to court.

After receiving her initial court letter, Natalie claims she requested a copy of the fixed penalty notice letter that was ‘lost in the post’ and says she was still able to pay the fine late online.

But after successfully making a £60 payment and then the increased £120 fixed penalty payment to West Sussex County Council, she claims these amounts were refunded straight back to her account.

Natalie said: “After all of this, I would never take my daughter out of school in term time. We were going to rebook for next year but we’re not going to anymore.

“I’ve been told now I’m better off pleading guilty because the offence is that I’ve taken my daughter out of school. It’s a mess.

“They said if I plead not guilty I would have to have a court hearing and would be found guilty anyway despite all the mitigating factors I have raised.

“I am guilty of taking my daughter out of school but I would have paid the fine if I received it but I never did.”

West Sussex County Council said they are directed by headteachers to take a strong stance against parents taking their children on holiday during term time.

A West Sussex County Council spokesperson said: “The DfE is clear in its position that every moment in school counts and it has directed headteachers to take a strong stance on unauthorised holidays in term time.

“We follow the DfE National Guidelines on the use and issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices in such cases, ensuring a consistency of approach and practice.  

“Unpaid fines are referred to the court process where parents are able to give their mitigation should they choose.

“In all cases the Fixed Penalty Notice and legal services teams follow the established legal process and the published code of conduct to ensure consistency and fairness to all cases.”

Peter Lamb, Natalie’s Crawley Labour MP, who she has been corresponding with over the matter, said not letting her pay the fine late is putting her child’s wellbeing at risk.

Mr Lamb said: “We can all appreciate the importance of avoiding unauthorised absences, but the county council’s decision to prosecute Ms Saunders when she has indicated that she would pay a fine, putting at risk her employment, amounts to risking the future wellbeing of a child while wasting taxpayer money in the process.”

After Natalie claimed the fixed penalty notice was never delivered, she says she also contacted the Royal Mail to chase this up but claims they couldn’t help any further.

A Royal Mail spokesperson said: “We take the delivery of mail very seriously and work to ensure all items are delivered on time. We have taken strides to improve our service in Crawley and nationally.

“If a customer is concerned about deliveries on their route, we encourage them to contact us directly so we can investigate.”