A dad has branded his daughter’s school “disgraceful” after he and his wife received fines for taking her to Normandy in term-time to commemorate the D-Day landings.

Neil Young says he informed St Anselm’s Catholic School in Canterbury a month in advance of their plans to take Year 9 pupil Emily to France for the 80th anniversary of the historic event.

Having not received a response, the military vehicle restorer assumed there was no issue with the 14-year-old missing class to join the “once-in-a-lifetime” trip.

But on Monday, June 3 - two days after arriving in France - an attendance officer at St Anselm’s called asking why Emily had not arrived at school.

Mr Young, who lives in Shepherdswell, says he explained he had sent an email requesting the leave, and was asked to forward it again.

He did, and a member of the office team replied, describing the trip as “an amazing opportunity” and adding: “I hope Emily and yourselves enjoy the experience and get a lot out of it.”

But the following day Mr Young received an email informing him the absence had not been authorised and that a decision would be taken on whether to issue £60 fines to him and his wife, Annette.

“It was a bit of a blow and was not what we were expecting,” he added.

“I am disappointed in the school for being like this.

“She had 100% attendance last year and this year so far.”

Mr Young says his family – including Emily’s 22-year-old sister Leahnie – were invited to attend the anniversary events by the Invicta Military Preservation Society.

He told the school when requesting Emily’s leave: “This is an educational, historic trip, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Emily and us to meet and thank the last remaining veterans and be a part of history at such an iconic landmark year, and such opportunities cannot be missed.

“This year could be the last year any veterans may see.”

Mr Young says the family visited museums and three different war cemeteries, paid their respects at memorials and met surviving Second World War veterans.

They even laid a plaque for Emily’s great-grandfather near the Standing for Giants installation, which has 1,475 silhouettes across the British Normandy Memorial.

“It was no holiday and every day was educational,” he said.

“It wasn’t a trip to Spain where we sat on the beach and did nothing.

“We went to different places, speaking to new people and learning new things.

“We started at 6am to get to certain places, which we left at 10pm.

“Emily wants to do history as a GCSE. I think it is disgraceful the school has done this.”

After being told Emily’s absence was not being authorised on June 4, and while still in France, Mr Young challenged the decision.

But on June 5, the day before D-Day, the school’s assistant head teacher, Harriet Holmes, replied: “I understand you are upset regarding the decision of the school to not authorise this event.

“I recognise that this is a fantastic opportunity for Emily, however, unfortunately the decision not to authorise this is due to Emily not being a direct part in the activities listed above. Although she is experiencing these she is not required to attend and therefore we cannot authorise the absence from her education."

Under the Education Act 1996, head teachers can ask Kent County Council (KCC) to issue fines to the parents of any child who misses school without good reason.

Penalty notices from KCC arrived at the Youngs’ home this week, giving them 21 days to pay £60 or the fine would be increased to £120.

But despite Mrs Holmes seemingly making the school’s stance clear in her email on June 4, just hours after being contacted by KentOnline yesterday she blamed an “administrative error” for the fines being issued.

Mrs Holmes said: “The parents are not being fined as this was an administrative error that has been rectified.

“Whilst we are carrying out Kent County Council (KCC) policy, we do acknowledge these are exceptional circumstances and have reviewed the coding."

When informed of the school’s response, Mr Young said: “They are trying to think of something to blame it on other than they did not agree with [the absence].”