Parents who took their teenage son out of school without permission for a five-day holiday ended up with a £1,200 bill and a visit from the bailiffs.
The couple were originally fined £120 over the 14-year-old’s unauthorised absence from Sweyne Park School, an academy in Rayleigh, Essex.
Parents must be allowed to take children out of school for holidays, council leaders say
Why term-time holiday fines are worth the risk for some. Term time holiday parents handed criminal record
But after an unsuccessful appeal the unnamed couple were taken to court under the Education Act 1996, which allows education authorities to impose fines on parents who fail to send their children to school.
They were convicted in their absence and ordered to pay fines of £200 per parent plus costs and a victim’s surcharge.
The amount was left unpaid and court bailiffs arrived on the family’s doorstep threatening to remove items to settle the debt.
They were even threatened with prison if they refused to co-operate.
Essex County Council was accused of acting like the Stasi over the methods used to secure the sum, although a council spokesman said the decision to employ bailiffs was taken by the courts service.
The boy's grandmother, from Benfleet, Essex, paid the bailiffs in full to avoid goods being confiscated.
The grandmother, who asked not to be named, said: "My son rang me in a state of panic and I in turn rang the bailiff who informed me that if the eye-watering fine of £1,230 wasn't paid immediately they would force entry and remove goods to the value.
"These goods would then be auctioned and all charges would be added to the bill, making an estimated total of £3,500, while inability to pay would have automatically incurred a three month custodial sentence for both parents.”
She added: "He's a bright boy, my grandson, and he could easily hack five days off.
“I know it was wrong to take him out of school, but I thought the punishment was completely out of proportion - I thought it was a bit Stasi and Big Brother."
The couple took their son on holiday to Spain last year, pulling him out of the 1,300-pupil academy, which was rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, in its most recent report in 2010.
In November they were convicted of failing to ensure their child regularly attended school under the Education Act 1996.
The family appealed unsuccessfully against the fine, and did not pay.
On March 6 bailiffs arrived at their home in Hullbridge, Essex, they were visited by bailiffs demanding the full sum.
The grandmother said the action to send in the bailiffs was "draconian".
"My grandson had never been in an aeroplane and [his mother] wanted him to have the experience,” she said.
"Part of the problem is the tourism industry, which deliberately hikes up prices during the summer holidays.
"It's quite a sober warning to other parents."
A spokesman for Essex County Council said: "Parents have a legal duty to ensure regular school attendance for their children who are registered at a school.
"Where there is concern for a child's attendance, schools will work with the family to address the cause of the absence.
"If this is not successful and the absences are not authorised by the school, the matter may be referred to the county council's Education Welfare Service (EWS) which will arrange a meeting between the school and family.
"If the situation does not improve the EWS will escalate the matter as appropriate, which may include issuing a penalty notice, prosecution or education supervision order.
"If a penalty notice is not paid within 28 days the EWS would proceed with prosecution.”
He added that changes to the legislation in September 2013 made clear that headteachers should only permit term time absences in “exceptional circumstances”.
A 'Victim surcharge' I fail to see whom the victim is... Kids should be left to grow up and have creativity, form intelligence. Apparently "daydreaming is a condition'... http://www.theguardian.com/society/s...der-rival-adhd you couldn't make this stuff up...
Originally Posted by Dabz
Yeah they make it clear, but on what grounds? We're supposed to live in a free society where we have choices... The f**kin worlds mental. They can worry about kids going to school, but not our elderly growing cold and hungry.