Girl with £4 school dinner debt given bread and jam

Hazel Lebby from Mitcham with her six-year-old daughter Hannah Hazel Lebby from Mitcham with her six-year-old daughter Hannah

A mother has threatened to take her child out of school after she was given bread, butter and jam instead of school dinners.

Hazel Lebby, 37, from Warminster Way, Mitcham, was shocked to discover her six-year-old daughter Hannah had been denied a school lunch after she fell behind in her dinner payments to St Thomas’s School in Commonside East, Mitcham by just £4.

Unbeknown to Mrs Lebby, who works for the catering company that provides the school’s dinners at another school, her daughter had been given a substitute of two slices of bread and jam for two days.

She said: "I was supposed to pay it on Monday but my car broke down so I totally forgot about having to sort it out.

"Then the next morning I woke up with a leak. My carpet was soaking wet.

"I managed to get her to school on time but had to come back home and sort out the leak.

"I would never in a million years think they would refuse a child dinner because I’m a couple of days late.

"No one had made an attempt to phone me and tell me my daughter had not been having a dinner.

"The only reason I found out was because my daughter let it out."

Mrs Lebby received a text from the school to say that because she was in arrears by £4 and that there "may not" be a school lunch for her child today.

The mother has since made an official complaint to Merton Council and has said she does not want her daughter to return to the school.

But the school has defended the decision and the need to take drastic action after parents racked up £1,730 in unpaid dinner meals last year.

The school's headteacher, David Feasey, said: "We are liable for those arrears and if parents don’t pay we have to foot the bill and it’s taking money away from resources we could be spending on the children.

Sometimes people experience difficulties and we can work around that."

However did say he would "look into" the wording of the text message to make it clear to parents whether their child would be refused a school lunch.

He added: "It’s a parent’s responsibility to make sure their child is fed, not the schools. It’s a service we provide but it has to be paid for."

Has your child been affected?

Contact the newsroom on 020 8722 6333 or email newsdesk@wimbledonguardian.co.uk

Comments(8)

JPR says...
8:31am Fri 30 Mar 12

Shame... Only red tapes as excuses, no humanity, not a common sense word, just the New Order. To obey or to die. Too polite, these civil servants hide behind the rules. It would be better to employ robots these people are of no use and instead of helping people they fight thus who pay them.
Did any politic speak on that matter ? Another open door to lie.

Angela M says...
10:49am Fri 30 Mar 12

In a way, I can see the school's point - where do they draw the line on debt? They didn't let her daughter go hungry - they gave her a cheaper alternative lunch at their own expense. They should, however, have phoned her mother instead of texting. It's a useful method of communication, but the message may not have been received.

BlogOff says...
3:42pm Fri 30 Mar 12

I support the school's position - it is the responsibility of parents to ensure their child is provided with a packed lunch or pay for their school dinner in advance. The school ensured the child was fed. In this case it is the neglect of the parent not the school. Perhaps a few more parents need to go back to school to improve time management and financial planning skills.

kelliep1970 says...
10:39pm Sat 31 Mar 12

i could say so much here FOR and AGAINST this story....
on the one hand as a parent i can see it seems petty as 'its only 4quid' but in the business world i can also see that every 4 quid is 4quid.
As mum of a large family and speaking from experience its awful knowing yr child has gone without lunch due to an oversight of payment dates be it from the schools side or parents...
I think the fact that the school made sure she didnt go without is more important a point to make... well done for not completely following the rulebooks and actually HAVING a heart and making sure that little girl didnt go without FULL STOP.

Eviloops says...
11:00am Sun 1 Apr 12

This negligent parent was informed of the schools procedure and refrained from responding by contacting the school to make the necessary arrangements and/or making payments to clear her debts. The school fulfilled it's responsibility to look after the child ie providing a cheaper alternative to a hot meal. A jam sandwich shouldn't be shunned as many of our schools pupils only ever eat jam sandwiches provided in their packed lunched, provided by parents/carers - there is nothing wrong with this lunch. Why this negligent parent feels its her right to complain about the school providing a meal for her child when in fact, she's highlighting her inadequacies in fully providing for her child. It is the schools resp

zaqataqer says...
3:04pm Sun 1 Apr 12

Why is this such a surprising outcome? Irresponsible parenting is nothing unusual. Is it impossible for this child to make her own lunch to take to school if she has not cafeteria credit. In my day and age you were lucky to get a piece of anything if you didn't bring it along yourself in your lunch box. There were no food handouts from ANYONE!

Wise little 'un, your problems have just begun!

kittylion says...
8:18am Mon 2 Apr 12

So how does going to the paper help this problem? It just embarrasses her child further.

How does having a leak stop you paying £4?

Once my son, through a teacher oversight, missed his lunch altogether. I enquired - it was an honest mistake and they apologised - end of story.

Even at 6 he would have been mortified to be in the paper about it.

She didn't go hungry - get over it and pay up next time.

Mr Flange of Wallington says...
1:31pm Tue 3 Apr 12

The mother doesn't look like she's a stranger to a knife and fork, nor for that matter does the child. One missed school dinner will not do her any harm, unless she is diabetic.

The school has obviously had an issue with non payment in the past, and is making an effort to ensure the theft (taking something without paying for it) doesn't continue.

A child of 6 is not legally entitled to be given credit, so any failure to pay is the parents responsibility.

Bread AND jam! She was lucky to be GIVEN either.

And as for the excuses, well obviously sorting out your car and a water leak are far higher priorities than ensuring your child is properly nourished at school. Sounds a bit like the lame excuse of "the dog ate my homework".

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree