Fund launched to challenge controversial truancy legislation

Jon Platt is leading a campaign to challenge the unauthorised absence ruling which he sees as “grossly unfair on parents”. He has also started a petition which has gained 15,364 signatures.


Thomas Clayton shares news of this new fund. Ed

A Just Giving crowdfunding page was set up by Jon Platt to fund The Parents Union – an organisation which is campaigning against controversial legislation

Jon Platt lost a landmark case in the Supreme Court in April after a long running legal dispute against the Isle of Wight Council over taking his daughter on a term-time holiday to Florida.

The father who has two daughters and a step-son, is leading a campaign to challenge the ruling which he sees as “grossly unfair on parents”. He has also started a petition which has gained 15,364 signatures.

Used for any unauthorised absence
Writing on his page, Jon said:

“When Parliament passed the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 which introduced penalty notices in respect of truancy, they were specifically told that Penalty Notices would only be used as a quick and inexpensive means to address truancy.

“Now they are being used for any unauthorised absence and the Supreme Court has now made it possible for any breach, however minor, to result in a penalty notice being issued.”

He continued:

“It is now possible for unexpected traffic on the school run to result in a ‘fine’ of hundreds of pounds being imposed on a struggling family, with no right to pay by instalments or have their ability to pay considered. This often causes terrible financial hardship.”

Jon added:

“There is no appeals process. If you don’t pay a Penalty Notice you get taken to Magistrates Court and get a criminal record. If this doesn’t stop we are going to see an unprecedented number of parents become criminalised by this legislation.”

Most committed offence in the UK
The campaigner stated:

“More than 300,000 parents have been fined to date. 8.5 million offences were committed in the Autumn term last year.

This is the most committed offence in the UK – more so than speeding.”

He added:

“A PCN should only be issued when children are truanting – the vast majority of PCNs issued are to parents whose children have not truanted.”

How to support
At the time of writing the JustGiving page had reached £3,322 of its £10,000 target, with 235 donations.

To support the Fund, please visit the Just Giving Page.

Image: Doug88888 under CC BY 2.0

Friday, 14th July, 2017 3:02pm



Filed under: Education, Government, Island-wide, Isle of Wight News, Top story, Youth

Any views or opinions presented in the comments below are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.

Leave your Reply

7 Comments on "Fund launched to challenge controversial truancy legislation"

newest oldest most voted
Email updates?



I had this distinct impression that Mr Platt said that was the end of it.

Please go away and get on with your life and leave us alone.


I think Mr Platt needs to read the definition of truancy. the action of staying away from school without good reason. The courts have decided a trip to Disneylsnd is not a good reason ..time to move on Jon!

You are incorrect. The problem is that this law and, particularly the new high court ruling, has now redefined the meaning of truancy as being any time, whatsoever, missed from school is now classed as truancy. Car breaks down on the way to school? Truant. Chain come off child’s bike on the way to school? Truant. 10 minutes late because alarm didn’t go off? Truant. And, of… Read more »
Suruk the SM for your info the law makes allowance for cars breaking down, chain coming off bicycle etc. Below is what the law says: (3)The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school— (a)with leave, (b)at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause,… Read more »

You are missing the fact that the supreme court ruling has the changed the basis of that interpretation.


No, it upheld it. The law has not been changed.