Fines issued to families of children with the highest level of special educational needs are rising sharply across England, more than doubling in a single year in some areas, a Freedom of Information investigation of 100 councils has found.
The findings come from requests sent by Teneo International School asking councils how many school absence fines were issued to families of children with special educational needs (SEND), and whether they record the medical or mental health reasons behind a child’s absence.
The overwhelming majority of councils do not record whether the children they fine were too ill or anxious to attend.
Fines rising fastest among the most vulnerable
An Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is a legally binding document issued only to children whose needs are significant enough to require enforceable support, frequently including conditions ranging from severe anxiety to complex additional needs that can make regular school attendance genuinely difficult.
Fines issued to families of children with an EHCP rose in 10 of the 18 councils able to provide comparable year-on-year data, more than doubling in some areas. The steepest increases were in Halton, up 135% from 23–54, and Redcar and Cleveland, up 110% from 20–42. In larger authorities, the rises were substantial in absolute terms: Liverpool was up 71% from 149–255, Stockport was up 80% from 70–126, and Surrey was up 40% from 226–316. Manchester issued the most, with 617 fines, up from 489.
Across the 27 councils holding EHCP data, families of children with an EHCP were fined 3,553 times in 2024 and 2025. Across the 41 councils holding wider SEND data, families of children with special educational needs were fined 16,160 times. Not every council saw an increase, and in some the numbers were flat or fell. But among those able to provide comparable figures, the majority were rising.
Prosecutions in Blackpool
The starkest figures in the investigation came from Blackpool, whose FOI response shows that in 2024 and 2025, 35 children with an EHCP accounted for 62 penalty notices, while the parents of five were prosecuted over school attendance. It is the clearest illustration of the pattern uncovered nationally: among the families being fined, and in some cases taken to court, are those of children with the greatest and most formally recognised needs.
A near-total recording gap
A penalty notice is issued for unauthorised absence, but whether an absence is treated as authorised often depends on whether the school accepts a medical or mental health explanation. Once a fine is issued, the investigation found, almost no council records the reason behind it. Asked whether it records the medical or mental health reason behind a fine, Manchester’s response was two words: “Not held”. Of the 93 councils that answered, 75 gave the same response, and just one could say whether the children it fined were unwell.
Because most councils do not record the SEND or medical link, the true national totals are unknown and may be substantially higher.
Questions over the “support first” approach
The findings raise pointed questions about the government’s “support first” approach to school absence, which is intended to help struggling families before resorting to fines. The data suggests that, for the families of many of the most vulnerable children, fines are instead rising, while most councils cannot answer the basic question of whether a fined child was ill.
Taryn Jankes, Chief Marketing Officer at Teneo International School, said: “The data shows the fines rising fastest among exactly the families least able to absorb them, those of children with the highest level of legally recognised need. In some areas they’ve more than doubled in a year. These are children whose difficulties, in many cases, are the very reason getting to school is hard. A fine doesn’t solve that, it punishes the family for a problem the system has failed to solve. The most troubling part is that most councils can’t even tell you whether the children they’re fining were unwell, because they don’t record it. You cannot claim to support vulnerable children while fining them at a rising rate and declining to look at why they were absent.”