WhatsApp at work: the UK case register

How this register was compiled

Each case here comes from a published source: the Teaching Regulation Agency's and the employment tribunals' decisions on gov.uk, the National Archives' Find Case Law service, CQC, Ofsted and the devolved inspectorates, the Scottish Social Services Council and the other professional regulators, published safeguarding practice reviews and safeguarding adults reviews, the ICO's enforcement and decision notice pages, ombudsmen, coroners' reports, Parliament, the authorities' own published replies to FOI requests, and established news outlets reporting an incident and its outcome. A researcher read every case at its source, and a separate reviewer read it again and checked the date, the summary, every quotation and the lesson against it. Cases that did not survive that check are not listed.

Three rules apply throughout. No private individual is named: tribunal and conduct decisions are cited by their reference, and employers in employment and fitness-to-practise cases are described by type rather than named. Public bodies and organisations that received a published regulatory action are named, because the action is published in their name. And each entry says only what its source says; where a decision is under appeal, the entry says so.

The register covers decisions published up to October 2026. On 30 September 2026 the Information Commission took over from the Information Commissioner as the regulator, still known as the ICO; every ICO decision listed was made by the Information Commissioner.

Schools, academies and colleges (373)

Teaching Regulation Agency decisions, employment tribunal judgments, inspection findings, safeguarding reviews and reported incidents in which messaging with pupils, staff group chats or parent groups were part of what went wrong. Schools and staff are described by type and area, not named.

• A school in Surrey, 15 October 2026. Shortly after an informal warning for sending a female colleague unsolicited, inappropriate WhatsApp messages at night and in school hours, a teacher sent a male colleague Instagram messages with unsolicited sexually explicit photographs. He and the female colleague had swapped personal numbers because staff had no work phones, and he was prohibited from teaching, with a five-year review. Where staff lack work phones, provide a work messaging channel and make clear that the dignity at work policy and code of conduct cover messages between colleagues. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school's governing body in west London, 21 September 2026. Details of safeguarding allegations against a special needs teaching assistant, and his suspension, leaked onto a parents' WhatsApp group the evening pupils' statements were taken. The head teacher took advice, met the parent and emailed the year group's parents. The tribunal held the panel could weigh the school's reputation among parents; unfair dismissal failed. Plan for allegations leaking onto parents' WhatsApp groups: take local authority advice, involve the LADO and governors, and communicate with affected parents promptly. Employment Tribunal judgment 3304495/2024
• Department for Education, 1 September 2026. Keeping children safe in education 2026, in force from 1 September 2026, says school and college staff behaviour policies should cover acceptable use of technologies, including mobile devices, and staff–pupil relationships and communications, including social media. It gives staff photographing children on their phones contrary to school policy as an example of a low-level concern. Check your staff code of conduct covers staff mobile devices and how staff communicate with pupils, as KCSIE 2026 says it should. Department for Education statutory guidance (KCSIE 2026)
• General Teaching Council for Scotland, September 2026. GTC Scotland refreshed its 'Engaging online' professional guide in September 2026, drawing on its Fitness to Teach Insight report. It warns that emojis and text-speak can blur teacher–learner boundaries and tells teachers to communicate with learners, parents and carers through official school or college platforms. Give staff an approved platform for contacting learners and parents and make it the only sanctioned route. GTC Scotland professional guide
• A secondary school in Aberdeen, 21 August 2026. A secondary teacher texted a former pupil and messaged two pupils on Microsoft Teams after school hours, at weekends and in holidays about matters unrelated to school, continuing after an informal warning. A GTC Scotland panel found his fitness to teach impaired and imposed a three-year conditional registration order and a three-year reprimand. Remember that out-of-hours personal messages on a school platform still breach boundaries, and follow up after any warning to check the behaviour has stopped. General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach decision
• A school in Surbiton, Surrey, 14 August 2026. A teacher used his personal phone to message a child he had met through an earlier school post, by text, Messenger and Snapchat; the contact moved from emotional support to sexual content. He was prohibited from teaching with no provision for review. Treat private messaging between staff and a child on a personal phone as a safeguarding concern however it starts, including children met through school but not on roll. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in the Sheffield area, 10 August 2026. Over four years a teacher moved from daily personal exchanges with a pupil on school email to personal email, Google Hangouts and WhatsApp, with sexual content and encouragement to take drugs, and asked her to tell no one. The panel found a sexually motivated relationship, and a prohibition order was made with no provision for review. Treat frequent personal exchanges between a member of staff and a pupil on school email as an early safeguarding warning sign, and act on it. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Milton Keynes, 6 August 2026. A class teacher sent sexual images of himself on Snapchat to a teenage boy who was not a pupil; the boy used Snapchat's map to find him at school and reported him. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. Staff guidance on personal social media should cover accepting unknown connections without checking ages, and location features that show where a teacher works. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A multi-academy trust in Nottingham, 4 August 2026. A trust chief executive sent twenty messages to two colleagues in a closed message group on work devices; the panel found 17 inappropriate and discriminatory, in breach of the trust's acceptable use policy, and noted the trust's smartphone agreement barred WhatsApp for school communication. A prohibition order was imposed with a two-year review period. Write down which messaging channels staff may use for school business; the panel relied on the trust's acceptable use policy and smartphone agreement. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Scotland, 29 July 2026. A computing teacher exchanged personal mobile numbers with a 16-year-old pupil from another school, texted her most days – about 1,500 messages in a month – and met her at his house. A GTC Scotland panel found his fitness to teach impaired in the public interest and imposed a one-year conditional registration order. State plainly in the staff code that swapping personal mobile numbers with any child, including one not at your school, is a boundary breach. General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Manchester, 24 July 2026. A teacher emailed a former pupil, still a child, his personal number, then sent her sexual WhatsApp messages and an inappropriate photo. He also sent sexually motivated messages to a colleague. He was prohibited from teaching with no provision for review. Codes of conduct should cover contact with former pupils, especially those under 18, and forbid giving them a personal number. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' school in Aberdeen, 23 July 2026. A music teacher messaged pupils privately during lockdown and, after one pupil left, asked for her personal mobile number and messaged her on WhatsApp several times a week until she asked him to stop. A GTC Scotland panel found the conduct sexually motivated and removed him from the Register with a two-year bar on reapplying. Treat a teacher's private messaging with a pupil as a boundary breach to report, especially any suggestion of moving to WhatsApp or text when the pupil leaves. General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach decision
• A high school in Cardiff, 17 July 2026. A learning support worker gave a pupil her personal number to join a pupils' WhatsApp group, stayed in it into the summer holidays and did not tell the headteacher or DSL about inappropriate messages posted there. An Education Workforce Council committee found unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a two-year reprimand. Tell all staff, support staff included, that joining a pupils' group chat on a personal number is reportable, and that anything seen there goes to the DSL. Education Workforce Council Fitness to Practise outcome
• A secondary school, 16 July 2026. An assistant head posted sexual and innuendo-laden messages in a three-person WhatsApp group with two colleagues and sent sexual messages to another colleague. The panel found the group connected to his job because some messages concerned work such as timetabling, noted the seniority gap, and a prohibition order was imposed with a three-year review period. Make clear the staff code of conduct applies to staff WhatsApp groups that mix personal chat with work arrangements such as timetabling. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A council secondary school in Dumfries and Galloway, 14 July 2026. A biology teacher had personal Snapchat contact with an 18-year-old sixth-year pupil that, after she left, led to a sexual relationship in which he behaved in a controlling way; he also made sexual comments to other pupils on social media. A GTC Scotland panel removed him from the Register with a two-year bar. Make sure pupils and staff know to pass concerns and screenshots of staff messages to the child protection officer; here that started the investigation. General Teaching Council for Scotland Fitness to Teach decision
• An academy in Somerset, part of a multi-academy trust, 7 July 2026. A science teacher exchanged Instagram and TikTok messages and an Instagram call with a student, did not report it, and messaged the student on TikTok the day after being suspended and told not to contact students. He was prohibited, with a review possible after two years. Spell out social media in any instruction not to contact pupils during a suspension, since contact during an investigation can influence a witness. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in London, 1 July 2026. A maths teacher sent a pupil in his class a long Instagram message declaring love and wanting a future with her, without having followed the safeguarding process. The pupil reported it the next morning. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. Require staff to tell the DSL when they believe a pupil has feelings for them, or they for a pupil, and give pupils a trusted route to report unwanted contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A summer English-language programme for visiting students in London, 26 June 2026. After a programme for visiting students aged 14 to 16 ended, a teacher kept two girls' numbers and held personal WhatsApp conversations with them, sending a photo of himself, saying he had added one on Snapchat and asking whether the other had a boyfriend. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order. Limit staff contact with students to the official group channel, and check that staff follow that rule, including after the activity has ended. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in southern England, 12 June 2026. An early-career teacher was dismissed partly for a private message to a student from the school's Instagram account and for not logging a student WhatsApp message about him. The tribunal found the Instagram message not inappropriate and, with an unbalanced investigation and a panel chair's undisclosed connection, held the dismissal unfair and wrongful. Before relying on staff messages in a disciplinary case, check what was actually sent and from which account, and make sure panel members declare any connection to those involved. Employment Tribunal judgment 3311626/2024
• A Catholic multi-academy trust in the West Midlands, 10 June 2026. WhatsApp messages between the principal and a head of department showed a preferred candidate had accepted a languages post before it was put to an agency teacher. The tribunal found the job had been promised and the process a formality, but the reason was perceived merit, so her discrimination claims failed. Do not run a recruitment process whose outcome is already settled; side-channel WhatsApp messages between leaders will be read as evidence of what really happened. Employment Tribunal judgment 1311276/2024
• A school in Essex, 8 June 2026. A teacher behaved in a sexualised way towards four female colleagues, including unwanted touching. His own WhatsApp messages to colleagues afterwards undermined his claim that the contact was consensual. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. When staff report a colleague's behaviour, keep the messages: here the teacher's own WhatsApp messages showed he understood the contact as flirtatious and sexually charged. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Stafford, Staffordshire, 3 June 2026. A teacher convicted of sexual offences against a pupil was prohibited from teaching with no review. The panel relied on about 39,400 messages exchanged with the pupil and noted around 5,000 Snapchat contacts, including pupils at the school. Bar staff from personal social media connections with pupils, and act at once on any report that a member of staff is connected to pupils on Snapchat or similar apps. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A multi-academy trust running a secondary school, London South tribunal, 29 May 2026. A claim of delayed welfare contact during sickness absence failed: the line manager sent a WhatsApp wellbeing check a week in, the employee asked not to be contacted, and a deputy head later offered support on WhatsApp alongside emails and calls. The tribunal found the contact prompt and in line with policy; all claims failed. Record welfare contact during sickness absence, including WhatsApp check-ins, and respect a stated wish not to be contacted; the record can show the absence policy was followed. Employment Tribunal judgment 2306584/2024
• A secondary school with a sixth form, 5 May 2026. A teacher exchanged personal numbers and email addresses with a pupil and sent personal texts and emails, including out of hours and in holidays, as part of a sexual relationship the panel found proven despite his criminal acquittal. He did not report a sexualised text from her. He was prohibited with no provision for review. Make clear that staff never give pupils their personal numbers, and that any inappropriate message from a pupil must be reported to the school. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Surrey, 30 April 2026. A director of sport admitted sending and dictating WhatsApp messages while driving a minibus carrying about 13 pupils to a football match, contrary to the school's minibus code. The panel made no prohibition order; the findings were published. Set out in a written minibus code, and brief every staff driver, that messaging, including dictated messages, is not allowed while driving pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Portsmouth, 20 April 2026. After a school trip, a teacher exchanged over-familiar WhatsApp messages with a pupil that showed emotional dependence on her, and messaged a second pupil. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after three years. After residential trips, check that staff and pupils have not swapped personal numbers or started private chats, and require staff to report any developing relationship to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community academy in Cornwall, 17 April 2026. A PE teacher and cover supervisor gave a distressed junior colleague his phone number, then sent her flirtatious text messages that led to physical contact at school. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and in breach of final-warning conditions, and imposed a prohibition order with a five-year review period. Treat inappropriate private messaging between staff as a possible first step towards physical misconduct, and act on it under disciplinary procedures. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Epsom, Surrey, 13 April 2026. A maths teacher gave pupils her personal mobile number and sent a high volume of over-familiar texts, including fabricated stories, which the panel found caused two pupils stress and worry. She was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. Bar staff from giving pupils a personal mobile number, and have the DSL act on any report that a pupil holds a staff member's personal number. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Crewe, Cheshire, 9 April 2026. During the summer holidays a teacher used teacher-themed usernames in an online chatroom, then moved to Snapchat, to talk to a child who said she was 13 and was not a pupil, asking intrusive sexual questions. The panel found this exposed her to the risk of grooming; he was prohibited, with a review possible after five years. Make clear in the staff code that sexualised online contact with any child, not only pupils and including during holidays, is a professional conduct matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in North Yorkshire, 8 April 2026. The designated safeguarding lead sent the headteacher late-evening private texts disparaging colleagues instead of using formal routes, which the panel found could bring the profession into disrepute. The prohibition rested mainly on failures to report safeguarding disclosures; a review is possible after two years. Raise concerns about a colleague's suitability through the formal safeguarding or management route, not informal texts; heads should redirect such texts into that process. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in West Yorkshire, 2 April 2026. A maths and PE teacher searched out a girl he had taught on Snapchat, posed as a 16-year-old and groomed her into sending indecent images, then used fake accounts to pressure her friend. He was convicted and imprisoned, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Teach pupils that a 'peer' account may be an adult and that telling someone works: here the abuse came to light when the victim's friend spoke up. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school, 27 March 2026. A teacher asked a pupil for her personal number, then exchanged WhatsApp messages with her late at night, at weekends, on Christmas Day and on New Year's Eve. Sexual motivation was not proved and the panel recommended publication only, but the Secretary of State imposed a prohibition order with a two-year review period. Write down that staff contact pupils only through school email or school phones and never give out personal numbers; it gave the panel a clear standard. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Somerset, 27 March 2026. A head of department joined a pupil-created Instagram group chat through a private account and used it to invite four pupils to an unauthorised meeting, which took place. She was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. State in policy that staff added to a pupil-created group chat must leave it and report it, even when the pupils set it up. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in West Sussex, 27 March 2026. Over three years a teacher sent a pupil personal emails from his school account, then gave her his personal number. After senior staff warned him to limit contact, the exchanges moved to private texting, over 100 in one evening. He was prohibited, with a review possible after two years. After warning staff to limit contact with a pupil, check it has stopped and has not simply moved from school systems to a personal phone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Church of England first school in Dorset, 23 March 2026. Told in writing to keep a disciplinary investigation confidential, the headteacher used WhatsApp, other messages and calls to contact two witnesses and tried to influence the investigation. The panel found this dishonest and lacking integrity but made no prohibition order; the findings were published. When investigating staff, instruct them in writing not to contact witnesses by any means, including messaging apps, and record any breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Two academies in Essex, 23 March 2026. At one academy a teacher befriended pupils on his personal Facebook and did not remove them when told to. Years later, as a DSL, he texted a vulnerable child, sharing personal information and pet photographs; the texts may have come from the school's safeguarding phone. He was prohibited with a review after four years. Ask applicants directly about previous disciplinary proceedings, and treat personal disclosures to a pupil as a boundary breach even on a school safeguarding phone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy, 16 March 2026. An early career teacher admitted giving a pupil her personal mobile number, exchanging text and WhatsApp messages with pupils and telling a pupil to delete messages. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct and decided that, for these proceedings, WhatsApp was not 'social media'. No prohibition order was made; the findings were published. Name private messaging apps and personal numbers in the staff code rather than relying on 'social media'; one panel, reading its own allegations, treated WhatsApp as not social media. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Edinburgh, 11 March 2026. The school chaplain messaged a 17-year-old pupil on Facebook, gave her his mobile number and texted her, tacitly endorsing her contact with a much older teacher despite a no-contact direction and discussing a prospective relationship between them. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order. Have an explicit policy on staff contacting pupils through personal social media and phones; without one, the panel did not treat that contact itself as misconduct. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A music education provider for schools in north London, 10 March 2026. An instrumental music teacher sent a pupil he taught a lengthy run of WhatsApp messages, including comments on her attractiveness; a parent noticed one arrive at around 7am. He was convicted of sexual communication with a child and prohibited from teaching with no review period. Apply the same ban on private WhatsApp contact with pupils to visiting and one-to-one music tutors as to classroom staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Milton Keynes, 4 March 2026. A teacher gave a pupil his personal number, which spread to a 38-pupil WhatsApp group, and exchanged over-familiar messages, some late at night, telling pupils to keep quiet. Told to stop, he messaged a pupil on WhatsApp from a new SIM and sent her part of his statement so she would lie; he was prohibited, with a four-year review. Keep pupil contact on school platforms, and tell staff to report to the DSL at once if their personal number reaches pupils; failing to report was itself proven. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Lancashire, 3 March 2026. A teacher exchanged sexual text messages, voice notes and an image with an adult unconnected with the school, some sent from school premises while children were on site for an after-school club. The panel found this created a risk to children; he was prohibited from teaching and may apply for review after two years. Make staff phone rules cover the whole site and every hour children are present, including after-school clubs, and treat personal messaging on site as a safeguarding matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Dorset, 3 March 2026. A teacher sent a young adult connected to the school a sexualised photo message and exchanged sexualised messages with her; a screenshot reached a pupil, who reported it. Sexual contact in his classroom was also found, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review. Treat a pupil's report backed by screenshots of a staff member's messages as a safeguarding allegation and act on it straight away. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Kingston upon Thames, 25 February 2026. A teacher moved contact with a profile he believed was a 13-year-old girl from Omegle to Snapchat and sent sexual messages asking to meet. The profile was a police decoy, not a pupil, and he was convicted of attempting sexual communication with a child. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Online sexual contact with a child who is not a pupil still bars a teacher; handle a staff arrest for it as a safeguarding allegation, not a private matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent secondary school in Hertfordshire, 12 February 2026. A senior teacher with pastoral responsibilities was dismissed in 2024 for what the Jewish Chronicle reported as overfamiliarity with students and inappropriate conversations on a messaging platform. After a three-day hearing, Watford Employment Tribunal found in favour of the school. Act on overfamiliarity or inappropriate messaging between staff and pupils; this school did, and defended the dismissal at tribunal. The Jewish Chronicle report
• A tutoring company and an academy in north-west England, 30 January 2026. A teacher who also tutored through a tutoring company messaged a vulnerable pupil he had tutored on WhatsApp, phoned and video-called her and visited her without the company's knowledge; the messages were deleted. Although the content was not found untoward, a prohibition order was imposed on 30 January 2026 with a two-year review period. Route any tutor or staff contact with a pupil through the adult named in your arrangements; the panel found no need for personal contact, even with bland content. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Birmingham and a special secondary school, 23 January 2026. After supply work at a special school, a teacher gave a vulnerable former pupil her number, messaged him on Snapchat and told him to delete the messages and not save her number under her name. She falsely denied the contact until shown screenshots. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order, reviewable after two years. Apply the same rules on contact with pupils and recent leavers to supply staff, and ask for the messages themselves when concerns arise, not just the staff member's account. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school, 21 January 2026. A boarding school staff member and a pupil moved their messages from the school's Google Chat to WhatsApp, which was not an approved channel; the messages became increasingly personal and the panel found them sexual in nature. It did not find the conduct akin to grooming, and a prohibition order was imposed with a four-year review period. Name the school's approved messaging channel and state that others are not approved, so any move to WhatsApp is plainly outside school arrangements. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school on the Wirral, 21 January 2026. A teacher kept up Facebook Messenger conversations with a pupil from June to October 2019, often late in the evening, despite an earlier warning from senior leaders, and contacted her again in 2023–24. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application to set it aside before January 2031. After warning a teacher about social media contact with pupils, check that it has stopped; here messaging continued despite a recorded warning and a written promise to follow policy. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Gloucestershire, 21 January 2026. A teacher moved contact with a pupil who had just left from Microsoft Teams on a school trip to Instagram and Snapchat, then met her socially. He did not report it and was dishonest with the safeguarding lead. He was prohibited, with a review possible after two years. Make the staff code require staff to report social media contact with pupils and recent leavers, and check rather than accept a denial of ongoing messaging. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary college in a multi-academy trust in Cornwall, 20 January 2026. The college's DSL and assistant principal contacted a vulnerable former pupil, then under 18, on Facebook Messenger to help her find work, then moved to Skype. Messages after 9pm and before 8am went beyond career advice and included one sexual comment. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order. Remind all staff, including DSLs and senior leaders, that the code of conduct bars using personal social media or phone numbers to contact pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic multi-academy trust, 2 January 2026. Parents' FOI request to a multi-academy trust was found not vexatious and a fresh response ordered. The Information Commissioner had called the use of a staff member's personal email account for the parents' personal data poor practice; the tribunal observed that if an unauthorised third party processed the data, it would appear to be a clear personal data breach. Keep parent and pupil personal data off staff personal email accounts; a tribunal said this may be a data breach, not just poor practice. First-tier Tribunal (GRC) judgment [2026] UKFTT 2 (GRC)
• A multi-academy trust in the Plymouth area, 22 December 2025. A caretaker was summarily dismissed for crossing professional boundaries, with over-familiar texts and WhatsApp messages to the headteacher among the evidence. Refusing interim relief in his whistleblowing claim, the tribunal said a final hearing could well conclude the panel genuinely believed the messages were inappropriate; the full claim was still to be heard. Include messaging between staff and senior leaders in professional-boundary rules, and keep the messages any disciplinary investigation relies on. Employment Tribunal judgment 6037963/2025
• A county council music service in Surrey, 19 December 2025. A peripatetic music teacher used an anonymous Instagram account to message an adult former pupil's partner, then sent private sexual photographs of the former pupil by WhatsApp from a phone that was not her own, and accepted a police caution. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order, with review possible after four years. When an allegation concerns peripatetic staff, identify every school and private-tuition role they hold so that safeguarding action covers each setting. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Berkshire, 17 December 2025. A teacher emailed a pupil her personal number marked 'WhatsApp', then exchanged extensive WhatsApp messages and a call with him, mostly unrelated to her subject, continuing after disciplinary procedures began and after she resigned. Training had named WhatsApp as prohibited. She was prohibited from teaching and may apply after two years. State which channels staff may use with pupils, name prohibited apps in training, and check contact has actually stopped once a teacher is suspended or leaves. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school in Berkshire, 15 December 2025. A head of music sent pupils and former pupils sexualised texts and Instagram messages, including late at night and at weekends, and told them not to tell anyone. The contact continued after senior staff spoke to him about boundaries. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. Record any instruction given after boundary concerns, check whether private messaging continues, and treat a request to pupils to keep messages quiet as a safeguarding escalation. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Enfield, 9 December 2025. A teacher acting as a pupil's 'Trusted Adult' exchanged personal emails with pupils and, after two had left, WhatsApp messages on his personal mobile, although the DSL had told him not to contact former pupils. The panel found breaches of the code of conduct and safer working guidance; a prohibition order was imposed with a two-year review period. Record when staff are briefed on contact rules, including for former pupils; the panel relied on the code having been drawn to the teacher's attention. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A multi-academy trust in London, 8 December 2025. A junior colleague's messages in a PE department WhatsApp group questioning a teacher's lesson were found to be a detriment because they were unwanted and public. Her whistleblowing, race and age claims still failed because the sender did not know of her disclosures and the conduct was unrelated to race or age. Set the expectation that criticism of a colleague's practice is raised privately or with their line manager, not in a department WhatsApp group. Employment Tribunal judgment 2303791/2024
• A secondary academy in Greater Manchester, 8 December 2025. An English teacher messaged pupils still on roll on Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook from personal accounts, was in a Snapchat group with former pupils, and messaged two pupils about the school's investigation into him. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order; the findings were published. Apply staff contact rules to leavers who are still on roll, and tell any member of staff under investigation not to contact pupils about it. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A London borough council, employer at a primary school, 2 December 2025. A teacher complained that the headteacher had corrected her criticism in front of colleagues on the all-staff WhatsApp group set up for the first Covid lockdown. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment and no link to race; all her claims, including race-discriminatory constructive dismissal, failed. Take a disagreement raised in an all-staff WhatsApp group out of the group and deal with it directly, because replies posted there may have to be defended at tribunal. Employment Tribunal judgment 3301532/2023
• A multi-academy trust, East London tribunal region, 28 November 2025. The trust escalated a sickness-absence case after four unanswered contact attempts by phone, work email and Teams, although the line manager had previously messaged the employee on WhatsApp and that route was never tried. The tribunal found the trust had not used all reasonable methods of contact; unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims succeeded. Before escalating an absence process for non-response, try every channel the employee has actually used with their manager, including WhatsApp and personal email, and record the attempts. Employment Tribunal judgment 3204197/2022
• An independent school, 26 November 2025. A director of music privately messaged a former pupil who was still a child, including on WhatsApp, asked for a photograph and asked for the messages to be deleted. The panel found the WhatsApp messaging contrary to the school's code of conduct and the conduct sexually motivated; a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Word the staff code to bar private contact with children on any platform; the panel applied such general wording to WhatsApp. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic primary school in Manchester, 25 November 2025. A teacher sent inappropriate messages, including sexually explicit images, to four former female colleagues on Facebook Messenger without their consent. The panel rejected his claim that they were sent by mistake, found sexual motivation and imposed a prohibition order with a five-year review period. Make clear in the staff code of conduct that unwanted sexual messages to colleagues on personal social media can amount to professional misconduct. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Warrington, 24 November 2025. Over about four months a teacher exchanged daily personal WhatsApp messages and calls with a child under 16 from another school, including sexual content. The child's parent reported it. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and a breach of the school's policy, and she was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Make sure the staff social media policy covers children at any school, not only your own pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Kent, 18 November 2025. A teacher had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable former pupil she had tutored at another school, sent him images, and on WhatsApp told him to delete the messages and pictures. She did not tell her new school about his allegation or her police report. She was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Require staff to disclose at once any allegation or police contact involving a current or former pupil, and treat an instruction to delete messages as concealment. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Hertfordshire Constabulary, 17 November 2025. Two parents at a Hertfordshire primary school were arrested after a dispute with the school over their emails and comments in a private parents' WhatsApp group. No further action was taken, and the force later admitted the arrests were unlawful because the reasons were not clearly explained, paying £20,000 in total. Handle parents' criticism in WhatsApp groups through the complaints and communications policy, and keep a record of what was actually said. Jewish Chronicle report
• A secondary school, 12 November 2025. A head of faculty gave a pupil his personal mobile number, exchanged texts and emails with her, followed her on social media and asked her to destroy correspondence. A witness told the panel the school's social media policy applied even after a pupil left and required incidental contact to be reported; a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Make the staff social media policy cover former pupils and require staff to report any incidental contact, as the school's policy in this case did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school, 10 November 2025. A primary teacher about to become assistant headteacher exchanged inappropriate Instagram messages with a pupil who had just left but was still on roll, after being told not to message pupils on social media; the school emailed that rule to all staff the next day. The panel found the allegations proved; no prohibition order was made. Follow up verbal instructions on staff contact with pupils in an email to all staff; it helped the panel find the instruction had been given. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Essex, 14 October 2025. Off duty, a teacher contacted a child he knew to be of school age directly on Instagram to arrange a hotel photoshoot, bypassing the modelling platform, then texted her not to disclose what was discussed. The panel found sexual misconduct and an attempt to avoid detection; a prohibition order was made with no review. Treat a staff member moving contact with any young person onto private social media as a safeguarding concern, including off-duty contact with children who are not pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An international school in Vietnam, 13 October 2025. During lockdown a teacher set up an unauthorised Discord group chat with nine pupils without parental consent, messaged a former pupil on Skype and Discord, and let pupils add him on Facebook and follow him on Instagram. No prohibition order was made; publication of the findings was judged sufficient. For remote learning, staff should use only school-approved platforms, with leaders' sign-off and parental consent; this unofficial pupil group continued after the school moved to its approved app. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy, 1 October 2025. A teacher asked a student for her personal number or email, exchanged personal numbers with another and sent over-familiar emails and WhatsApp messages, some through personal accounts outside the school's oversight, and did not report safeguarding concerns. Parts of the conduct were found sexually motivated; a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Bar staff from contacting students through personal phones and email accounts outside school oversight; the panel treated teacher–student WhatsApp as inappropriate in itself. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Secondary schools in Greater Manchester, 29 September 2025. A teacher gave a vulnerable pupil his personal number and messaged her by text and Facebook Messenger for over two years, during and after her time on roll. A 2017 school check found the content not of significant concern. Later he used Messenger to seek an indecent image. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. When concerns are raised about a teacher texting a pupil, end the personal channel and check it has ended, rather than only reviewing the content. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Information Commissioner's Office, 11 September 2025. The ICO analysed 215 insider personal data breach reports from the education sector between January 2022 and August 2024. Students caused 57%, and 20% were caused by staff sending data to personal devices; the ICO called on schools to improve cyber security and data protection practices. Stop staff sending pupil or staff data to their personal devices; in the ICO's analysis this caused one education insider breach in five. ICO news release
• A secondary academy in Northamptonshire, 1 September 2025. A head of year exchanged around 100 Facebook Messenger messages over about seven months with a former pupil who was under 18 and at college, and accepted invitations to her performances. The facts were admitted; the panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order, and the findings were published. Make sure the staff code of conduct covers private messaging with former pupils who are under 18, and that staff know to decline such contact and report it. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school, 26 August 2025. A February half-term trip WhatsApp group held staff and pupils' personal numbers, so a teacher and a pupil had each other's numbers. Four months later he took her to his home and engaged in sexual activity with her, and afterwards messaged her from his personal phone. He admitted the allegations; a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Avoid collecting pupils' personal numbers in trip WhatsApp groups: here the numbers stayed on phones and were still in use months after the trip. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community primary school in Norfolk, 26 August 2025. A primary teacher who coached girls' football messaged young players privately on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and a team app, after an earlier concern about texting a 15-year-old. The panel found sexual motivation, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period because the misconduct was repeated. Keep adult contact with young people to group channels that include parents, and treat an earlier messaging concern, even an unsubstantiated one, as relevant to later reports. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent special school in Herefordshire, 22 August 2025. A deputy head and safeguarding lead exchanged phone numbers with a vulnerable pupil, ostensibly to help get him to school, and their WhatsApp messages and voice notes became sexual within about three weeks. She told him to delete them, was convicted of sexual communication with a child and was prohibited with no review period. Run attendance and welfare contact with pupils through school-owned, recorded channels rather than personal numbers, and make the rule bind senior leaders and DSLs too. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Midlothian Council, 16 August 2025. More than 80 pupils at a Midlothian primary school were added to an outside WhatsApp group in which they were allegedly asked to send indecent images. The head teacher emailed parents and the matter went to police; the council found the group was not on council devices and said it would issue online safety guidance. When pupils are drawn into an outside WhatsApp group, report it to police, tell parents promptly in writing and offer pupils support. STV News report
• A further education college in South Yorkshire, 11 August 2025. Soon after a lecturer's grievance, the academy director sent her a WhatsApp message from a personal phone pointing to a job at another college. The tribunal accepted such a message could be a detriment but found this one was not, given the follow-up message, their friendly history and her reply, and the claims failed. Keep managers' contact with a staff member who has raised a grievance on work channels, and avoid sending job suggestions while the grievance is live. Employment Tribunal judgment 1804061/2024
• A Catholic secondary school in Bristol, 30 July 2025. A pupil who had just left contacted a teacher on social media after a school-organised event; the Facebook Messenger messages quickly became sexual and led to a sexual relationship. An anonymous report started the investigation. The panel rejected the argument that she had technically left the roll, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Make clear that staff must not take up social media contact from pupils who have just left, and act on anonymous reports, as this school did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Gwynedd, 21 July 2025. A review into a secondary head teacher's sexual abuse of pupils found that senior leaders had shared concerns about him among themselves in WhatsApp and other social media messages in 2020 and again in 2023 without making a referral. The review called these missed opportunities. Make clear to senior leaders that sharing a worry about a colleague in a staff WhatsApp chat is not a referral; it must go through the designated safeguarding route. North Wales Safeguarding Board Child Practice Review
• A secondary academy in Essex, 14 July 2025. A head of department gave a departing pupil his personal email and phone number and sent over-familiar messages, including 91 WhatsApp messages in under a month, often late at night, without telling managers. Sexual motivation was not proven; he was prohibited with a two-year review period. Require staff to get senior leaders' agreement before sharing personal contact details with any pupil, including one who is leaving, as this academy's code of conduct did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Gloucester, 11 July 2025. A teacher with a leadership role admitted a sexual relationship with a colleague on school premises and sexually explicit WhatsApp messages with him on her phone during school hours, after screenshots put to her at the school's investigation led her to drop her first denial. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, reviewable from 2027. Make the staff code of conduct cover messaging on personal phones during the school day; the panel was not swayed by the messages being private and encrypted. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Gloucester, 9 July 2025. A teacher sent sexually explicit WhatsApp messages to an adult colleague during school hours, arranging liaisons on school premises. A third party alerted the school, which put the message screenshots to him at interview. All allegations were admitted; he was prohibited from teaching and may apply for review after two years. When a third party reports concerns about staff messaging, put the screenshots to the staff member at the investigation interview, as this school did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Oxfordshire, 30 June 2025. A head of computing contacted a vulnerable pupil on an unapproved Discord chat, gave her his personal number and email, and exchanged over-familiar WhatsApp messages late at night and in the holidays, then asked her to delete them. The panel found sexual motivation and dishonesty; the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Allow staff to contact pupils only through approved school systems, and treat a personal number, an unapproved app, late-night messages or a request to delete messages as red flags. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy trust running a mixed secondary school in east London, 27 June 2025. An academic mentor was dismissed over late-night Microsoft Teams chats with students, including pressing a pupil about a trip and telling her to be 'discreet'; an earlier letter of expectation had followed an incident involving messages on his personal phone. The tribunal held the dismissal fair, finding the chats showed a pattern of behaviour. Set a written rule on staff messaging students out of hours, including on school platforms such as Teams, and keep that contact on channels the school can retrieve. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200750/2024
• A Church of England secondary academy in Lancashire, 26 June 2025. Outside school, a teacher exchanged sexual messages on Kik and Snapchat with a profile he believed to be a 12-year-old girl; it was a police decoy, and he was convicted. The school and LADO learned of his arrest the same day. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. When told a member of staff has been arrested over online contact with a child, involve the LADO the same day, even if no pupil is involved. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A university technical college in Oxfordshire, 23 June 2025. A SENDCo exchanged around 1,700 text messages with a vulnerable pupil, some saying she loved him and joking about exploitation, and later messaged him on Facebook Messenger. The messages came to light when police examined the pupil's phone. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order; the findings were published. Put any agreed phone-contact arrangement for a vulnerable pupil in writing, with a named overseer and periodic review; here the role was never defined. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A high school with a sixth form in Northumberland, 9 June 2025. A teacher's personal messages with a sixth-form pupil on Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp developed into a sexual relationship while she was a pupil. In the school's investigation he falsely claimed he used only school email and told her to delete their messages; he was prohibited with no review period. Do not accept a teacher's assurance that they contact pupils only by school email; ask the pupil early to keep any messages before they are deleted. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Cornwall, 27 May 2025. A teacher sent Facebook Messenger messages to a 16/17-year-old former pupil commenting on her looks and pressing her to meet, which the panel found sexually motivated. He also set up and stayed in a Facebook group of recent leavers that carried sexualised jokes. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. Staff should not set up or join social media groups with pupils or recent leavers; the panel found his presence in the group was part of an inappropriate relationship. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Essex, 23 May 2025. A history teacher messaged a pupil from her personal Instagram account, often at night and weekends, about personal matters including relationships, drugs and alcohol, gave him her number and did not report safeguarding concerns he disclosed. The panel found sexual motivation and dishonesty, imposing a prohibition order with a five-year review period. Remind staff in annual training that any disclosure made to them over personal messaging must still be reported to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An online education company, 20 May 2025. An online education company sued the seller of an online school it had bought, who accepted deleting WhatsApp chats with colleagues from his personal phone and had declined access to them. The court accepted one set was cleared as routine housekeeping, drew no adverse inference and dismissed the company's claims. Messages on a staff member's personal phone can be deleted at any time, so keep important work conversations on systems the organisation controls. High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 1236 (Ch)
• A secondary academy in Grimsby, 13 May 2025. A PE teacher messaged a former pupil on Instagram with sexual innuendo and requests for photos, and contacted another pupil from his school email, then on Instagram and Snapchat as she left, leading to sexual misconduct; he asked her to delete messages. A prohibition order was made with no provision for review. Treat staff contacting individual pupils from school email, or adding pupils on personal social media as they leave, as a safeguarding concern to act on. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Warwickshire, 9 May 2025. An assistant headteacher was sent an indecent video of a 15-year-old over WhatsApp by an adult he met online. He kept it for almost a year without reporting it to police and accepted a police caution. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Train all staff, senior leaders included, that an indecent image of a child received on any messaging app must be reported to police at once, never kept. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy trust, 16 April 2025. An employee complained that colleagues discussed her in staff WhatsApp groups. The trust told her it had removed work devices from the group, shut it down and told staff WhatsApp was unsuitable for work, but could not supply data held on personal devices under her subject access request. Her whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. Staff groups on personal phones leave the organisation unable to investigate a grievance or answer a subject access request about what was said. Employment Tribunal judgment 3302498/2023
• A secondary academy in Nottingham, 16 April 2025. A deputy head teacher gave a 17-year-old pupil his personal mobile number for a school matter, then sent her text messages of a sexual nature, including invitations to his house. The panel found this proven on her consistent accounts, and the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Bar staff from contacting pupils on personal phones, whatever the reason, and route any necessary contact through school systems. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Worcester, 14 April 2025. A teacher, at one stage the head teacher, exchanged affectionate and sexual messages with a pupil on Facebook and Skype, often late at night, over about five years from her time as a pupil. He had her save his number under a false name and asked her to delete emails, and was prohibited from teaching with no review. After a boundaries warning, check whether the contact continues, and do not assume a new social media policy ends existing contact between staff and pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in London, 10 April 2025. A deputy head used a pupil's personal number, taken from school records without her consent, to text her privately; the texts became romantic and led to sexual activity while she was a pupil. Years later he sent her WhatsApp messages urging her not to take part in the proceedings, found dishonest. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Keep pupils' numbers in school records and on support phones away from staff's private use, and keep staff contact with pupils on school channels. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Wolverhampton, 31 March 2025. A drama teacher exchanged a large volume of over-familiar messages and emails with two pupils, including on WhatsApp late at night, at weekends and in school holidays, and did not pass safeguarding disclosures to the DSL. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct; no prohibition order was made, but the findings were published. Set clear limits on staff messaging pupils: high-volume, over-familiar messages out of hours were found to be unacceptable professional conduct even without a ban. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A boarding school in West Sussex, 31 March 2025. After being told on leaving not to contact pupils, a teacher messaged a current pupil almost daily for months, mainly on Instagram and sometimes by WhatsApp call, and met her alone. He had earlier messaged another pupil on Instagram. Sexual motivation was not proved. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Treat private social media contact between a former teacher and a current pupil as a safeguarding concern, and do not rely on the teacher's own account of contacts. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A special school in County Durham, 20 March 2025. A teacher sent a female colleague social media messages with sexual remarks about her, and touched another colleague in front of a pupil, after two earlier letters of management advice. The decision maker gave weight to the messages' link to school matters. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Treat private messages between staff about school matters as professional conduct, keep advice letters on file, and escalate a repeat to formal action. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An education centre in Wolverhampton, 13 March 2025. During the pandemic a teacher texted the head teacher implying she would take a Covid test and confirming a temperature, without disclosing an earlier negative test or that she had flown to India. The panel found the conduct dishonest but made no prohibition order; the findings were published. Keep staff absence messages on record; text exchanges with leaders can be relied on as evidence in conduct proceedings. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school, name and area not published, 12 March 2025. A maths teacher set up a Google Classroom on the school system so he and a pupil could exchange private, largely personal messages, assuring her they were not reviewed; the relationship progressed to sexual activity. He also contacted a second pupil on Instagram late at night, and was prohibited with no review period. Check private messaging on school learning platforms periodically and tell staff it can be reviewed, so it cannot become a route for personal contact with pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Girls' grammar schools in Essex and Devon, 12 March 2025. A teacher exchanged over 200 pages of informal Microsoft Teams messages with pupils, late at night and at weekends and unrelated to school. He also sent personal messages, mainly on Twitter, to former pupils. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct but made no prohibition order; the findings were published. Restate that classroom boundaries apply on Teams and similar school platforms, and set out guidance in the code of conduct on staff contact with former pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic academy in Stoke-on-Trent, 12 March 2025. While at a new academy, a teacher exchanged phone numbers and personal WhatsApp messages, including declarations of love, with an under-18 former pupil, and met him outside school. The panel found the messages inappropriate and the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application before March 2029. State in the code of conduct that personal numbers and private messages with under-18 pupils are banned, including former pupils; leaving and parental knowledge did not make it acceptable. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Alresford, Hampshire, 7 March 2025. After a 2018 advisory letter for messaging a pupil on Instagram, a teacher messaged her on a self-deleting chat site, using coded school emails to signal when to log in. The messages became sexualised, and he also sexually assaulted her at school. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. A warning for messaging a pupil is not the end of the matter; check that pupil's contact with the staff member, including heavy school email traffic and requests to delete. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Hertfordshire, 3 March 2025. A teacher contacted a pupil on Instagram and WhatsApp, and kept messaging her after being told on suspension not to contact pupils. The panel found the communications sexually motivated, and a lack of integrity based on that instruction, school policy and evidence that phone contact was limited to a trip phone; a prohibition order with no review period followed. Put in writing that staff never message pupils from personal accounts, with any phone contact limited to a school device such as a trip phone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Merseyside, 25 February 2025. A manager's work-related calls and messages to two staff on sick leave were found substantiated but to have reasonable cause, given an urgent need to manage the start of term, so they were not a breach of trust and confidence. Both constructive unfair dismissal claims succeeded on other grounds; one claimant's disability claims over the messages failed. Keep work messages to staff on sick leave to what is genuinely necessary, and be ready to show why each contact was needed. Employment Tribunal judgment 2402751/2022
• A secondary academy in Nottingham, 19 February 2025. A teacher exchanged Facebook Messenger messages with a pupil while she attended the school and after she left, including messages of a sexual nature, and carried on after a 2014 written warning about professional boundaries. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. After a written warning about boundaries with a pupil, check actively that contact has stopped, including on private messaging apps the school cannot see. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Derby, 5 February 2025. On leaving the school a teacher gave a vulnerable pupil his personal email and phone number, then kept up contact for years by WhatsApp, text, email and phone. Messages became sexual, and the conduct after he left was found sexually motivated. He was prohibited with no review period. Forbid staff from giving pupils personal contact details, including when they leave, because private channels keep messages outside school systems. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Bolton, 28 January 2025. Around his last day, a teacher let pupils add him on TikTok, exchanged sexualised messages with one pupil, moved her to a Snapchat account set up only for her, threatened her if she told anyone and failed to report her disclosure. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Treat a member of staff's departure as a risk point: remind them boundaries continue after they leave, and stop pupils swapping social media handles with staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Bedfordshire, 23 January 2025. A teacher ran a Facebook Messenger group chat with two pupils, then moved to private messages with one that included sexual comments and plans to meet, and later sexually touched her while she was on roll. The panel found the escalation akin to grooming. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Ban staff-run group chats with pupils on personal social media, and act straight away on any you hear about. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary academy in Northampton, 14 January 2025. In 2016 a teacher sent one sexual message through an online account to a child, not a pupil, she had been told was 16, and did not report it for up to two years. The panel found sexual motivation, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order, reviewable after two years. Tell staff that any sexual message sent to a child, however it came about, must be reported to the DSL at once. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Nottingham, 23 December 2024. A teacher guessed a colleague's passcode, unlocked her personal phone in a staff office and tried to send a private video from it to his own phone by WhatsApp. The send failed and her screenshots of the chat became evidence; he was prohibited from teaching, with a review after two years. When a colleague reports misuse of their personal phone, treat it as a conduct matter and ask them to keep screenshots before deleting anything. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community primary school (area not stated), 19 December 2024. A headteacher wrote a derogatory comment about a colleague in a text and accepted she might have made derogatory comments about pupils in a senior leadership group chat; screenshots of staff messages were central evidence. Unacceptable professional conduct was found, but no prohibition order was made. Treat senior leadership group chats on personal apps as within the code of conduct: screenshots can surface years later, and leaders set the tone of them. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school, 13 December 2024. A primary teacher who was the designated safeguarding lead was Facebook friends with a former pupil, still a child, tried to add her on Snapchat and sent her inappropriate messages, including requests for photos. The panel found he acted directly contrary to the school's social media code; a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Make staff contact rules cover former pupils as well as current ones; the panel applied the school's social media code to a former pupil. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A university technical college in the East Midlands, 5 December 2024. Outside work, a teacher sent unsolicited sexually explicit images of himself to adult women he had met in a business context, using Snapchat and a WhatsApp group. The panel rejected his argument that disappearing messages left no evidence and relied on the college's social media policy. A prohibition order was made with an eight-year review period. Make the staff social media policy cover personal use outside working hours, and tell staff that disappearing messages are no defence. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school (former employer redacted), 21 November 2024. In a linked case from the same school, a teacher exchanged WhatsApp messages with male colleagues that were offensive about female colleagues and inappropriate about a parent and students. Because some concerned school events or were sent in school time, the conduct was found linked to his role; a prohibition order followed, with a three-year review period. Treat staff chats that discuss colleagues, pupils or parents as school conduct: the regulator treated them as linked to the teacher's role, not private life. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Milton Keynes, 20 November 2024. During the summer holiday a teacher used the Instagram account of his subject channel, which students followed, to send a pupil sexualised messages and images. The panel rejected his hacking and lost-phone explanations and criticised the school's investigation, which relied on undated, clipped screenshots. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. When a parent reports messages, view them on the pupil's device and keep dated, complete records; oversee any staff-run social media account that pupils follow. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, 8 November 2024. While on management leave with a no-contact condition, a teacher texted a pupil about meeting up, supplements he had supplied, a refund and his suspension. He also emailed another pupil from school and non-school accounts to arrange meetings. The panel found boundaries breached; he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Do not assume a no-contact condition stops private texting: tell pupils and parents how to report contact during an investigation, and treat staff using non-school accounts as a warning sign. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Dudley, 31 October 2024. A teacher obtained the numbers of two former pupils still of school age and contacted them on Snapchat and Instagram, sending them sexual images of himself and inviting them to his home. The panel found the facts proved although the police took no further action, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Refer at once any report that staff are in contact with pupils or school-age former pupils on Snapchat or Instagram; disappearing messages leave little evidence. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Post-primary schools in Northern Ireland, 22 October 2024. Post-primary schools warned parents about a WhatsApp group trend in which pupils were invited to join and share personal contacts, and the group held inappropriate content and images. The PSNI confirmed it was aware and investigating. When a trend invites pupils to post their contacts into a large group, issue a safeguarding notice to parents and pass details to police. The Irish News report
• A secondary school in Devon, 21 October 2024. A teacher exchanged inappropriate Snapchat messages with a vulnerable former pupil, sent her indecent images of himself and met her outside school, some of it during a school trip, and asked her to delete the messages. Other students saw the images; a prohibition order was made with no review. Teach staff that contact with former pupils, especially vulnerable ones, is a position-of-trust issue; disappearing messages and deletion requests do not stop screenshots circulating. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Bristol, 18 October 2024. A teacher exchanged phone numbers and frequent personal text messages with a pupil, around 20 a day by the pupil's account, and kept texting about personal matters after a written warning on boundaries. A prohibition order was made; sexual motivation was not proved. After a boundaries warning, check that private contact has actually stopped, and do not treat missing messages as evidence that nothing was sent. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in England, 15 October 2024. Around 2006 a teacher who had given pupils his email address held a sexualised MSN Messenger chat with a recent former pupil who was still a child and twice tried to start a webcam call. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after five years. Staff should not give personal contact details to pupils, including when moving schools, and the code of conduct should cover contact with former pupils who are still children. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Kent, 7 October 2024. WhatsApp messages recorded a teacher's repeated late arrivals, including one where a colleague had to start his class, and a half-term text exchange contradicted his account of keeping his manager updated. The tribunal used them to find the attendance concerns genuine; his race discrimination claim over dismissal during probation failed. Keep a dated record of attendance concerns raised in messages during probation; contemporaneous messages helped show the real reason for dismissal. Employment Tribunal judgment 2302230/2023
• A primary academy in a multi-academy trust in Devon, 3 October 2024. A head of school sent explicit messages to two junior colleagues in undeclared relationships, including a text suggesting sex in her office, and engaged in sexual conduct during a video call with one of them on school premises. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Give staff a route to raise concerns about a head of school directly with the trust; here a teacher's disclosure to the trust uncovered the conduct. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Birmingham, 27 September 2024. A teacher sent sexual Facebook Messenger messages to two former pupils of his previous academy, one still a child, and accepted a police caution. The panel held his current school's policies applied, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review. Make sure the staff online-conduct policy covers messaging with current and former pupils of any school, and make a LADO referral at once, as the former academy did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community college in County Durham, 17 September 2024. A teacher contacted a pupil under 16 by email, then moved to Snapchat, where he sent sexual messages and images of himself. He was convicted, imprisoned for 30 months and prohibited from teaching with no review. Keep staff–pupil contact on school systems and treat any move to a personal app such as Snapchat as an immediate safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A boys' grammar school in Kent, 13 September 2024. An agency cover teacher added pupils on Snapchat and exchanged sexual messages with them, including over the Easter holidays, and used Snapchat to try to arrange meetings outside school. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Brief agency and cover staff from their first day that personal social-media contact with pupils is banned, and act quickly when pupils mention such contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Lancashire, 6 September 2024. After her dismissal a trainee lecturer posted her account in a PGCE colleagues' WhatsApp group, and her removal from three work WhatsApp groups was pleaded as race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The tribunal found the removal it examined was requested because she had left and because of her post, and those claims failed. Record who controls staff WhatsApp groups and why members are removed, so changes for leavers can be explained if challenged. Employment Tribunal judgment 2403598/2022
• An independent boarding school in Wiltshire, 28 August 2024. A music teacher sent pupils many Microsoft Teams messages on the school's system with swearing, innuendo and declarations of affection, often late at night and in holidays, and used Teams to arrange buying vape equipment for a pupil. The school's Teams search found the messages; he was prohibited, with a review possible after three years. An approved platform does not make one-to-one staff–pupil chat safe; review Teams messages for tone, timing and volume, and route pupils' personal worries to safeguarding. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A comprehensive school with a sixth form in Nottinghamshire, 23 August 2024. A teacher gave a pupil his personal email address and a mobile number written in code and pursued a relationship that became sexual. He had separately been suspended for 12 months over inappropriate texts and emails to another pupil in 2010, which weighed heavily in a prohibition order with no review period. Keep and pass on records of earlier sanctions for staff texting or emailing pupils: the decision maker gave a previous suspension considerable weight. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school near Bath, Somerset, 21 August 2024. A teacher at a secondary school near Bath, acting as a volunteer Scout leader, sent a child under 18 personal, over-familiar text messages and used texts to arrange meetings outside Scouts. He admitted the allegations, and the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with a two-year review period. Make sure the staff code of conduct covers messaging with children in out-of-school roles such as youth groups, and tell staff to stop personal one-to-one texting at once. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Lincolnshire, 14 August 2024. A class teacher was convicted of sexual communication with a child and also sent unwanted Facebook Messenger messages to an adult work-placement student, found sexually motivated. Messages in a staff group chat were found inappropriate but not shown to be unwanted. He was prohibited with no review period. Cover placement students in the staff code of conduct on messaging, and make sure they know how to report unwanted contact from staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Essex, 26 July 2024. A vice principal who was a designated safeguarding person exchanged thousands of WhatsApp and text messages with a pupil over about three months, including endearments, sexual innuendo and requests to delete messages and not tell her mother. The panel found those requests dishonest and imposed a prohibition order with a five-year review period. Apply the same messaging rules to safeguarding leads and senior staff as to everyone, and act at once on any request to a pupil to delete messages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school with a sixth form in Wirral, 19 July 2024. The head of English messaged a sixth-form pupil on Facebook Messenger and, from another pupil's last day before study leave, sent her sexual texts that led to a sexual relationship while she was on roll. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated; a prohibition order was made with no review. Remind staff before study leave that personal contact with pupils is barred, and treat any concern about staff messaging leavers as a safeguarding referral. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A college in England (name and area redacted), 9 July 2024. A teacher asked an 18-year-old student for her social media details on prom night and used Instagram to arrange a meeting at which he kissed her; later Instagram and WhatsApp exchanges were found entirely personal. The conduct was found sexually motivated, and he was prohibited from teaching with a five-year review period. Set and publicise a clear rule on staff contact with students who are leaving or have just left, including requests for social media details at end-of-year events. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Secondary academies in East Sussex, 8 July 2024. After moving schools, a teacher kept up private, over-familiar WhatsApp messages with a pupil from her previous school for about four months, used them to arrange a meeting kept from the pupil's mother, and did not report welfare concerns to that school's DSL. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, reviewable from July 2026. Make clear at induction that the ban on private messaging covers pupils of former schools, and that welfare worries about them go to that school's DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England, name and area redacted, 27 June 2024. In 2023 a class teacher privately messaged several pupils on Instagram, then deleted most of her messages and misled the school about the extent of the contact. She also kept a pupil's disclosures from the DSL. She was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. Do not rely on a staff member's account of how far messaging went; speak to the other pupils involved, and ensure disclosures made in messages reach the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in Peterborough, 10 June 2024. A fixed-term maths instructor messaged two boys under 16 on Snapchat, whom he did not teach, asked for a video of one of them, offered £10 and paid them in person. The panel found the conduct sexual in nature and he was prohibited from teaching, with a review after three years. Make the staff code bar private social-media contact with all children, not just the school's own pupils, while staff hold a position of trust. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school (former employer redacted), 7 June 2024. A teacher was in a WhatsApp group with three male colleagues in which he sent and received messages demeaning female colleagues and a parent; police extraction reports passed to the LADO brought them to light. The panel found unacceptable professional conduct although it took place outside the education setting, and a prohibition order was imposed with a two-year review period. Tell staff that professional standards reach private staff WhatsApp groups: messages there about colleagues and a parent led to a teaching ban. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school governing body in Waltham Forest, 4 June 2024. A part-time teacher was left out of a WhatsApp group of nursery staff where a colleague posted a hurtful message about her. Although she first asked for no action, the tribunal said staff should have been reminded to use work groups professionally, and listed this among the failings behind her successful constructive unfair dismissal claim against the governing body. When an unprofessional message in a staff WhatsApp group comes to light, remind all staff promptly that work groups must be used professionally. Employment Tribunal judgment 3203960/2022
• A secondary academy in Oxford, 30 May 2024. A teacher had inappropriate conversations with a pupil in person and over WhatsApp between 2015 and 2018, alongside lifts and other contact outside school; at an earlier Oxfordshire school she had inappropriate MSN Messenger contact with a pupil under 16. The panel found sexual motivation and made a prohibition order with no review period. Treat private messaging with a pupil, combined with lifts or contact outside school, as a boundary concern to report to the DSL straight away. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Edinburgh, 3 May 2024. Several P6 and P7 pupils were added over a weekend to a Snapchat group by unidentified adult men who shared sexualised content with them. The school emailed parents and held supportive conversations with pupils, and Police Scotland opened enquiries. Have a ready procedure for online-safety incidents in pupils' group chats: notify police, contact affected families directly and provide in-school support. STV News report
• A secondary academy in Bilston, West Midlands, 2 May 2024. A teacher answered a former pupil's email and moved contact to personal email, WhatsApp and iMessage; the messages became flirty and led to a sexual relationship. He said he believed his duty of care had ended when she left. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. State in the code of conduct that duty of care does not end when a pupil leaves, and treat staff moving former pupils onto personal channels as a concern to report. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A university technical college in Oxfordshire, 29 April 2024. A teacher moved contact with someone he believed was a 12-year-old girl from an online forum to Snapchat and sent sexual messages and images; the 'girl' was an undercover police officer. He was convicted of offences including attempted sexual communication with a child, and a prohibition order was made with no review. Do not discount a staff member's out-of-school online conduct because no pupil was involved; the panel treated the offence as serious although no real child was. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in West Bromwich, West Midlands, 26 April 2024. A head of PE messaged a pupil on Instagram during the summer holidays, asked whether he used Snapchat and gave him a personal number to save under a different name. He falsely claimed in the school's investigation that his account had been hacked. He was prohibited from teaching and may apply after five years. Treat a request to save a number under another name as concealment, refer a family's report to the LADO, and test 'hacked account' denials against the evidence. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Devon, 2 April 2024. A chaplain's pastoral support for a vulnerable pupil continued on WhatsApp, became personal and used codes, leading to off-site meetings and sexual contact. He failed to report disclosures to the DSL and asked the pupil to delete messages and give a limited account; he was prohibited with no review period. Keep pastoral support for vulnerable pupils on school-recorded channels and require every disclosure to be logged with the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Disclosure and Barring Service, 19 March 2024. A secondary school teacher was placed on the children's barred list after a pupil alleged an inappropriate relationship, including private messaging she said was via Snapchat and an app to hide their messages. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel later found the messaging allegations not proved, but the Upper Tribunal found the pupil's account more likely true and confirmed the barring. Treat private app messaging between staff and pupils as a safeguarding concern to report, even where one regulator finds it not proved. Upper Tribunal judgment [2024] UKUT 85 (AAC)
• A secondary academy in Birmingham, 18 March 2024. A teacher posted comments on religion, feminism and how girls should live in a Microsoft Teams group chat that included pupils, and discussed dating and his personal life with pupils. A colleague's safeguarding report led the school to the Teams messages. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order, with review possible after two years. Set clear rules for staff conduct in group chats with pupils on school platforms such as Teams, and check those chats when a safeguarding concern is logged. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school federation, 12 March 2024. A school federation refused an FOI request for governing board records as vexatious; the tribunal allowed the requester's appeal. In passing, it said the requester would have been wiser not to contact a member of the federation's staff privately after relations broke down, and that the WhatsApp reply declining to respond outside formal channels was appropriate and professional. Ask governors and staff approached on personal WhatsApp to redirect the sender to formal channels; the tribunal called such a reply appropriate and professional. First-tier Tribunal (GRC) judgment [2024] UKFTT 189 (GRC)
• A further education college in Plymouth, 6 March 2024. A line manager publicly criticised an employee's lateness in a work WhatsApp group. The college upheld her grievance as bullying but took no action, then began a disciplinary investigation that included a WhatsApp group she had created. The tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation, awarding £10,316.15 plus £14,000 for injury to feelings. Treat managers' comments in staff WhatsApp groups as workplace conduct, and act on an upheld bullying complaint rather than disciplining the person who raised it. Employment Tribunal judgment 1403852/2022
• A secondary school in Grantham, Lincolnshire, 4 March 2024. An English teacher exchanged texts and Snapchat messages with a pupil she did not teach, including intimate messages and inappropriate images, and later gave the school an untrue account. She was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after five years. Treat private phoning or messaging between a member of staff and a pupil as a safeguarding concern even when the content is not itself sexual. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Buckinghamshire, 21 February 2024. Fifteen days after leaving, a cover science teacher messaged a pupil on Facebook Messenger and kept up social media contact for several years, later including sexual messages and an exchange of indecent images. All allegations were admitted and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Tell departing staff, including cover and supply staff, that the bar on private contact with pupils continues after they leave, and tell pupils they can report such messages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Fife Council, 2 February 2024. A teacher employed by Fife Council for about six weeks in 2015 at a secondary school followed a pupil on Twitter from his personal account, asked for the pupil's mobile number and repeatedly sent flirtatious messages. The General Teaching Council for Scotland found his fitness to teach impaired and removed him from the register. Give every new starter, however short their employment, a clear rule against following pupils online or holding their personal numbers. STV News report
• A secondary academy in Essex, 1 February 2024. A pastoral lead gave a pupil his personal and work numbers, joined an Instagram group chat pupils created on their last day, and messaged the pupil on Instagram and Snapchat, with calls into the early hours. The panel found sexual motivation, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Make clear that staff must not join pupil-created group chats, such as one started on the last day of school, or let pupils follow their personal accounts. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in north-west London, 26 January 2024. At the inquest into the death of a Year 10 pupil, the coroner found she had experienced bullying from some male pupils; a video of her had been shared to a boys' Snapchat group chat, where she was mocked. The coroner noted the school had since made systemic changes. Pupil group chats can carry bullying that staff do not see; treat reports of group-chat bullying as safeguarding concerns and act on them. Jewish News report
• An independent school in Leicester, 18 January 2024. A deputy head shared private family details with a pupil and engaged in sexual activity with her shortly after she left. Screenshots of messages between the pupil and a friend, and a photo in a pupils' group chat, were key evidence; he was prohibited with a review after two years. Take disclosures from a pupil's friends seriously and preserve the screenshots they show staff: peer messages proved conduct that both the teacher and former pupil denied. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Somerset, 10 January 2024. A teacher exchanged inappropriate, sexually motivated texts and emails with a pupil. Years later he texted her from an unfamiliar number urging her to call the allegations lies and posted abusive comments online, receiving a harassment caution. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. Treat private texting with a pupil, and pastoral emails from a teacher who meets her one to one about her well-being, as warning signs to act on. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Merseyside, 18 December 2023. In 2020 a teacher messaged a 16-year-old who had just left the school, first on Instagram and then on Snapchat, and the messages became sexual. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Tell staff and leavers that the ban on personal messaging continues after a pupil leaves, at least while they are under 18, and refer concerns to the LADO promptly. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Solihull, 11 December 2023. A teacher obtained a pupil's personal number through a former pupil on leavers' day, texted her while she was on study leave and connected on Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook. The messaging continued after a no-contact instruction and developed into a sexual relationship. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Follow up a no-contact instruction rather than relying on one conversation, and remember that leavers on study leave are still pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy (area not stated in the decision), 8 December 2023. A teacher messaged a pupil on WhatsApp, likely starting while she was on roll, and used school email out of hours and at weekends; the relationship moved to one-to-one meetings and sexual activity shortly after she left. He was prohibited and may apply for a review after five years. State in writing that staff must not message pupils on WhatsApp, and that boundaries continue for a reasonable period after a pupil leaves. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Eastbourne, East Sussex, 5 December 2023. A teacher sent a child he had met online frequent, often late-night WhatsApp, Twitch and TikTok messages, plus gifts and money, and falsely told his school he had deleted all the messages. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and dishonest, and imposed a prohibition order with no review period. When staff say they have deleted messages with a child, ask early for the full record; the school's online safety code applied even though the child was not a pupil. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Farnborough, Hampshire, 23 November 2023. A newly qualified supply teacher accepted a pupil's Snapchat friend request after she disclosed a crush on him, then messaged her on Snapchat knowing the messages delete themselves, including night-time voice notes. He destroyed her note rather than reporting it, and was prohibited with no review period. Brief supply and newly qualified staff that a pupil's disclosed crush must be reported, and that disappearing-message apps are never acceptable for contact with pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, 16 November 2023. A teacher gave a pupil her personal mobile number against school policy and exchanged many texts with her, including sexualised messages and a suggestion to move to Snapchat, carrying on while suspended despite being told not to contact the pupil. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. When suspending a member of staff, state in writing that they must not contact the pupil and check this is followed; here texting continued through the suspension. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Rochdale Borough Safeguarding Adults Board, 19 October 2023. A mother stopped taking her son to school; staff phoned and made home visits but saw neither of them, and her only contact was two text messages. The school reported its concerns to children's social care and the police, which the safeguarding adults review called good practice. When a family's only contact is by text message, keep trying to see them and refer concerns early, as this school did. Safeguarding Adults Review, Rochdale Borough Safeguarding Adults Board
• A secondary school in Cambridgeshire, 17 October 2023. A teacher exchanged Instagram messages with a 16-year-old pupil, including invitations to his home and sexual comments, and followed another pupil and liked her photos. Pupils disclosed it, the school referred to the LADO the same day, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review. Give pupils a clear route to report staff social media contact, and refer such reports to the LADO straight away. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Oxfordshire, 9 October 2023. After being invited to an investigation interview, a teacher sent threatening and offensive messages by email and WhatsApp to the colleague handling the concerns. This became a separate proven allegation alongside conduct towards pupils, and he was prohibited from teaching with a review possible after two years. Keep copies of any threatening or offensive messages sent to staff handling an investigation; here they became a separate proven allegation and weighed in the sanction. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Kent, 6 October 2023. In 2001 and 2002 a teacher sent inappropriate texts and emails to two pupils; those to one became sexual and led to a sexual relationship soon after she left school aged 16. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Take historic allegations of messaging with pupils seriously even when the messages no longer exist; the panel relied on the pupils' own accounts. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in Northamptonshire, 27 September 2023. An art teacher on a vulnerable sixth-former's safeguarding team connected with her on Facebook Messenger, exchanged over 2,000 messages, some sexual, and asked her to delete messages; she also contacted a second pupil on Messenger. The panel rejected a hacking claim and imposed a prohibition order with no review period. State plainly that no staff member may contact pupils, including sixth-formers aged 18 or over, through personal social media or messaging. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Wiltshire, 15 September 2023. A PE teacher messaged a pupil daily on Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp and iMessage from 2020 to 2022, including sexual images of himself, did not report the contact, carried on after a letter of expectation and a written warning, and falsely denied it. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Require staff to report pupils' messages on personal accounts to the DSL, and treat repeated concerns about private messaging as a continuing safeguarding risk, not a conduct matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in the West Midlands, 4 September 2023. A maths teacher was convicted of 11 sexual assaults and imprisoned. In deciding the outcome, the panel gave weight to his use of Snapchat to send sexual messages and images to students and to ask them for sexual content. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Make it easy for pupils to report staff contact on apps such as Snapchat, and act at once when they raise it; a signed safeguarding acknowledgement is not enough. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Warwickshire, 29 August 2023. An allegation of overly familiar WhatsApp messages with students was not upheld because the school had not applied its own protocols consistently. Separately, apparently incomplete texts and WhatsApp exchanges with the claimant's union representative, disclosed mid-hearing, undermined her account; most claims failed, with victimisation and whistleblowing upheld only on the tone of two outcomes. Apply staff–student messaging protocols consistently; where they are applied inconsistently, a breach may not support a disciplinary finding. Employment Tribunal judgment 1303731/2021
• A grammar school in the West Midlands, 25 August 2023. On the evening he was told to work from home pending an investigation, a teacher posted a sexual image with an obscene comment to the Microsoft Teams group chat he used with his class. The panel applied the school's social media policy; a prohibition order was made, reviewable after three years. When a teacher is removed from school pending investigation, review their access to pupil-facing chats, and make clear that class chats are never private. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Reading, 28 July 2023. A teacher connected on Facebook with two vulnerable pupils aged 15–16 who had just left Year 11, then moved them to Snapchat, where he sent sexual messages and images and sought images. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Treat leavers under 18 as children: bar staff from social media contact with pupils and recent leavers, and put that advice in writing, as this school had. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Hampshire, 21 July 2023. A head of English gave a current pupil his mobile number and exchanged WhatsApp messages with her over about three weeks, alongside gifts and personal disclosures. The panel found controlling or coercive behaviour in how he communicated with her. Police took no further action, but a prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Staff must never give a pupil a personal number, even on request; refer WhatsApp contact with pupils to the regulator even when police take no further action. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school in south-east London, 10 July 2023. After a pupil got his personal number on a school trip, a teacher sent her over-familiar texts, some late at night and while he was suspended, did not pass her wellbeing disclosures to the safeguarding lead, and corresponded with pupils on Snapchat. A prohibition order was imposed, with review after two years. On trips, make sure every pupil group is with staff holding a school phone, and bar disappearing-message apps for staff–pupil contact because they leave no audit trail. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Worcester, 14 June 2023. Outside work, a teacher exchanged sexual messages on a chat site and WhatsApp with a decoy posing as a 14-year-old girl and invited her to stay at his house. He was convicted of attempted sexual communication with a child and arranging a child sex offence, and prohibited with no review period. Make clear in the staff code and training that staff's online messaging outside work falls within their conduct and fitness to work with children. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Bristol, 2 June 2023. During the summer holiday a teacher added someone offering indecent images of children on Snapchat, received and viewed one, then deleted it and his account, reported nothing and later gave the school inconsistent and dishonest accounts. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Make clear in safeguarding training that the duty to report applies at all times, including holidays and children who are not pupils, whatever app is used. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school in Plymouth, 15 May 2023. Investigating pupils' allegations against a maths teacher, the school assumed Covid bubbles kept pupils apart and never looked at their contact through WhatsApp groups and social media, even after the union representative raised it. The tribunal called this a clear gap; the dismissal was unfair, with agreed compensation of £44,868. When pupils make allegations, ask whether they have discussed them in WhatsApp groups or on social media, and record how the investigation addressed that. Employment Tribunal judgment 1402048/2022
• An academy in Wirral, 3 May 2023. A teacher texted and phoned a pupil's personal mobile, sometimes from a withheld number, signing messages with other names to hide that they came from him. He took her phone in class, deleted his messages and told her to delete them in future, and was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Brief staff and pupils that a teacher taking a pupil's phone, deleting messages or asking for deletion is reportable, and pass boundary history on to later employers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic multi-academy trust in North West England, 21 April 2023. A head teacher questioned a primary teacher about WhatsApp status updates posted on a day off for childcare, having followed HR advice and the staff social media policy without searching further. The tribunal found this was neither a detriment nor less favourable treatment, and all race discrimination and harassment allegations failed. Make sure the social media policy covers messaging-app statuses and absence reporting, and that managers take HR advice rather than searching further. Employment Tribunal judgment 2404841/2022
• An independent school in Cambridge, 28 February 2023. A teacher obtained two pupils' mobile numbers and texted them, the messages becoming flirtatious, and used texts to arrange private meetings, including in his car on the school site after hours. The contact progressed to sexual activity with both. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Challenge repeated one-to-one meetings arranged by text, including in staff cars on site; other pupils had already noticed the pattern here. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in the London Borough of Bexley, 22 February 2023. A maths teacher sent two former pupils, then at other schools, inappropriate personal emails and WhatsApp messages – nearly 400 to one in 22 days, some late at night, on personal topics including medication and drugs. He said it was pastoral concern. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Staff worried about a pupil or former pupil should go through the DSL, never personal WhatsApp or email; the panel noted he never pointed them to proper support. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Surrey; conduct at a holiday activity programme, 10 February 2023. While a lead coach on a holiday activity programme, a teacher obtained a child's Snapchat details and phone number against the programme's guidance and sent her sexual messages, then sexually assaulted her. He admitted the allegations and was prohibited from teaching with no review. A rule against personal phone and social media contact with children protects them only if breaches, such as asking for a child's Snapchat details, are checked for and acted on. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A music service teacher at a secondary academy in West Yorkshire, 27 January 2023. A peripatetic percussion teacher exchanged more than 4,500 WhatsApp messages with a pupil over about eight months, often early or late at night, with nicknames and comments on her looks. The panel found the messaging sexually motivated from a point onward; a prohibition order was made, reviewable after five years. Judge private messaging by its volume, timing and drift, not only overt content, and apply the same messaging rules to peripatetic and music-service staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Agency supply teacher in West Midlands schools, 16 January 2023. A supply teacher sent a vulnerable child inappropriate text messages outside school, including one referring to self-harm, and had also contacted her on Facebook without the knowledge of the adult who raised the concern. The child's school referred it the same day and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. When an adult brings you messages a child has received from someone in a position of trust, refer them the same day, even for agency staff acting outside school. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in London, 7 December 2022. Over a sustained period a teacher sent WhatsApp and Wickr messages from his own phone to an individual he had met through social media, which the panel found showed a sexual interest in children. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. When police or the LADO share information about a staff member's private messaging, act on it under the allegations procedure, even where no pupil or school device is involved. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Kent, 6 December 2022. A teacher gave a pupil who had emailed for help her mobile number, then texted him that she loved him and gave him a lift. She was separately convicted of abuse of a position of trust involving another pupil she had contacted on Snapchat, and was prohibited from teaching with no review. When a pupil asks for help, staff should answer through school channels and never hand over a personal mobile number. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A residential school in Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, 22 November 2022. During the summer holiday a teacher sent a pupil's mother a threatening text about the pupil and sent the head teacher threatening texts. The text to the mother came to light only when his returned school-issued phone was checked after his suspension, and he was prohibited from teaching, with a five-year review. When concerns arise about a staff member, review the messages on any school-issued phone they return; here that review found a threat to a parent. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Church of England primary school near Bath, Somerset, 17 November 2022. As headteacher she sent junior staff text messages that were extremely derogatory about colleagues, including one absent through sickness, as part of a proven pattern of bullying staff. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with a two-year review period. Governors should treat derogatory messages about staff sent by a headteacher to junior colleagues as possible bullying and abuse of position, and investigate them under policy. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A grammar school in Maidstone, Kent, 14 November 2022. A teacher exchanged phone numbers with a pupil and texted to arrange meetings away from school; the contact developed into a sexual relationship over about eight months. The panel found that, though outside school, it still touched on her profession. She was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Treat a teacher and pupil exchanging numbers and texting as a boundary breach to act on at once, even when the contact happens outside school. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in Hertfordshire, 14 November 2022. A teacher texted a colleague asking for help to hide vodka he had left in his classroom, then texted the same colleague again after being suspended and told not to contact staff. He was prohibited from teaching; the decision maker set a five-year review rather than the panel's recommended none. Give suspended staff a written no-contact instruction and ask colleagues to report and keep any contact, as the colleague's screenshots proved the breach here. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Manchester, 11 November 2022. A teacher had a sexual encounter with a vulnerable former pupil he had mentored and, when the school raised a complaint, falsely denied having her number or texting her; a screenshot showed he had been texting her. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application before November 2027. Do not close a concern on a staff member's denial of contact alone; ask specifically about numbers and messages with current and former pupils, and seek the evidence. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A boarding school in East Sussex, 26 October 2022. A head of department texted a boarding pupil informally from 2010 and kept doing so after a meeting and a written instruction. Despite a written undertaking and a final written warning, he gave her his new number at the leavers' ball and began a sexual relationship after she left. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Once a member of staff has been warned about texting a pupil, check that they comply and escalate any breach rather than accepting another promise. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary academy in Kent, 5 October 2022. A primary teacher used personal Facebook messages to pupils' mothers, including to arrange lifts, and sent one mother around 80 messages asking to take her son, a former pupil, out. A parents' WhatsApp group chat was relied on as evidence, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Keep staff contact with parents on school channels, and check directly with parents when a teacher says others have agreed to an outing with a child. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Cambridgeshire, 4 October 2022. After the leavers' prom, a teacher messaged a pupil by WhatsApp and text very frequently for more than a year, including sexual messages, and repeatedly texted a former pupil. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated; a prohibition order was made with no review. Restrict staff access to pupil contact data, and make clear that professional boundaries continue after pupils leave. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A sixth-form college in Leicester, 28 September 2022. A drama teacher and assistant principal obtained a student's number saying it was for homework contact and texted her while she was on roll; after she left, his Facebook messages became sexual and a relationship followed. The panel found serious sexual misconduct and he was prohibited with no review period. Challenge any member of staff collecting students' personal numbers 'for homework': homework contact belongs on school systems, and texting a student on roll breaches boundaries. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary special school in Liverpool, 23 September 2022. A teacher at a special school for children with social, emotional and mental health difficulties texted a pupil from his personal phone, said he missed him, shared details of his illness and urged him to use WhatsApp. He also took him on outings, including one without parental consent, and was prohibited from teaching, with a two-year review. Make professional routes for keeping in touch clear, and treat a staff member using a personal phone or steering a pupil to WhatsApp as a boundary breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Glasgow, 20 September 2022. A lecturer won a constructive unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal used his WhatsApp message to a colleague saying he was looking to 'bow out' to limit future loss to three months. The award, also reduced for not raising a grievance, totalled £22,043. Remember that staff WhatsApp messages are disclosable at tribunal and can affect remedy, though they do not excuse an employer's own conduct. Employment Tribunal judgment 4100143/2021
• A secondary school in Leeds, 17 August 2022. A teacher kept near-daily contact with a vulnerable pupil by text, phone and FaceTime, with 1,764 calls logged in four months, after HR advised her to avoid one-to-one contact and during a school investigation. She deleted the messages before a police interview. She was prohibited from teaching and could apply after two years. When advising staff to keep away from a vulnerable pupil, name personal phones and messaging explicitly and ask directly about device contact rather than relying on the answer. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Aberdeenshire Council, 4 August 2022. Teachers at several Aberdeenshire schools exchanged WhatsApp messages in 2018–19 disparaging pupils with additional support needs; the council used its disciplinary procedure without telling parents. An independent review found the messages unprofessional but no child harmed or at risk, and recommended referring safeguarding concerns to the head of children's services without delay. Treat staff group chats about pupils as professional communications, and send any child-protection concern seen in them to the safeguarding lead at once. The Press and Journal report
• A school trust, 1 August 2022. A premises manager on sick leave was removed from the school's WhatsApp business group; when he asked why, the school wrote that it had decided not to send him school messages while he was absent. The tribunal accepted this was to spare him stress, and his constructive unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. If someone is removed from a work group while absent, give and record the welfare reason; here a stated reason was accepted. Employment Tribunal judgment 2300010/2020
• A school in London, 1 August 2022. A teacher sent a pupil messages of love on Microsoft Teams, including in the holidays, ran a private group chat with pupils and contacted current and former pupils on Instagram. A pupil's disclosure led to a school IT investigation of the Teams messages; the panel found the conduct sexually motivated and made a prohibition order with no review. Review staff–pupil messages on school platforms, including during the holidays, and ban private staff–pupil group chats. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Nottinghamshire, 29 July 2022. A teacher communicated with a pupil by personal mobile, WhatsApp and Instagram, exchanged inappropriate photographs, deleted messages and asked her to delete hers; he was convicted of meeting a girl under 16 following grooming. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. When a pupil reports staff messaging, check the device promptly and refer to the LADO and police, and treat any earlier history of contacting pupils online as a known risk. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Sutton, south London, 22 July 2022. During the 2020 lockdown a drama subject leader exchanged around 2,637 largely personal messages, many late at night, with a pupil on school learning platforms and removed his line manager's access to the Google Classroom. The panel found the messaging sexually motivated and imposed a prohibition order with a four-year review period. Make sure senior staff keep oversight access to every online class, and that private messaging on learning platforms is used only for schoolwork. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An 11–18 secondary college in Birmingham, 19 July 2022. A pupil added a teacher on Snapchat after seeing his account open on his phone; they then messaged, he received explicit images from her, and he engaged in sexual activity with her while she was under 16. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. Staff should keep personal devices and accounts out of pupils' reach, and pupils must know that telling another member of staff about inappropriate messages will be acted on. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Roman Catholic secondary school in England, 11 July 2022. After a pupil left, a teacher resumed contact by work and personal email, then texts, letters and a card, leading to meetings and sexual touching; her father found out when a text meant for the teacher reached him. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated; a prohibition order was made with no review. Bar personal email and phone contact between staff and current or recently left pupils, and refer a parent's report of such contact to the LADO. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in County Durham, 4 July 2022. A cover supervisor sent a girl who had just left after her GCSEs WhatsApp messages saying he loved her and wanted to marry her when she turned 18, alongside inappropriate physical contact. The panel found sexual motivation and imposed a prohibition order with a ten-year review period. Follow up when staff ignore management advice given after pupil concerns, and treat contact with pupils who have just left as a safeguarding matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic primary school and its schools trust, East London, 23 June 2022. A kitchen colleague showed the head teacher private WhatsApp or text messages she had exchanged with a kitchen assistant; the head misread them, judged the assistant dishonest and started a disciplinary investigation into an older allegation. The tribunal found the reading wrong and no other messages produced, but the mistake was not because of race; the claims failed. Read private messages shown by staff carefully and in full before drawing conclusions, and do not rely on messages said to exist unless they are produced. Employment Tribunal judgment 3201786/2020
• A secondary academy in Stoke-on-Trent, 16 June 2022. After a former pupil asked him for a reference, a teacher moved their emails from his work account to a personal one, then suggested Snapchat to avoid being found out and sent sexual messages; a sexual relationship followed. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Treat staff contact with pupils or recent leavers that moves from school email to personal accounts or disappearing-message apps as a warning sign and act on it. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in a multi-academy trust in Buckinghamshire, 24 May 2022. A science teacher exchanged Facebook Messenger messages over several months with a former pupil he had taught two or three years earlier, and they became sexual; screenshots were seen by pupils and parents. He admitted breaching the trust's e-safety policy. The decision maker imposed a prohibition order with a two-year review, departing from the panel's recommendation. Make the staff code of conduct ban personal social media messaging with former pupils as well as current ones; the panel relied on exactly such a clause. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An infant school in east London, 11 May 2022. An agency teaching assistant texted the acting deputy head asking why a white colleague could work from home; the question went unanswered, and her later text quoting the Equality Act was a protected act. Her placement was ended just over an hour later. Race discrimination and victimisation succeeded, with £16,769.61 awarded. Answer a fair question about differing treatment, even by text, and do not take decisions about a worker straight after they raise an equality concern. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200660/2021
• A maintained primary school and its county council, West Midlands, 27 April 2022. A WhatsApp text from the headteacher was the only record of the terms on which a higher-level teaching assistant took on 16.25 extra hours. The tribunal treated it as a separate temporary contract at a lower grade, so the extra hours were left out of her redundancy pay; she recovered a £366.77 shortfall on other grounds. Confirm any change to a staff member's hours or grade in writing through the formal contract process, not only in a WhatsApp message. Employment Tribunal judgment 1304509/2021
• Two secondary academies in Norfolk, 4 March 2022. A teacher sent a pupil a Facebook message at one academy and, at a second, contacted two former pupils under 18 on Instagram and Facebook Messenger, commenting on their appearance. Screenshots showed he started every exchange; he was prohibited with no provision to apply for restoration. Extend the staff code's ban on private social media contact to former pupils still under 18, and share disciplinary history with the next employer. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Derby, 14 February 2022. A teacher gave a vulnerable pupil, described as a young adult, her mobile number for an offsite visit and then messaged him daily by text, WhatsApp and Snapchat. Police counted more than 5,000 messages, excluding disappearing Snapchat ones, within a relationship that included sexual touching; she was prohibited with no review period. On offsite visits, use school-issued phones rather than staff giving pupils personal numbers: here a number exchanged for a trip became the channel for the relationship. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Kent, 4 February 2022. A teacher texted pupils on more than one occasion after the head teacher had warned him not to, and accepted sending the messages. It was one of 17 allegations the panel considered, and the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Put any warning about messaging pupils in writing and check it is followed; the panel weighed this teacher's history of breached warnings and instructions. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in County Durham, 22 December 2021. A teacher used electronic messaging with a friend, sharing video links and pressing the view that violent jihad was right; a court found she sought to radicalise her friend, and cash she held was forfeited as terrorist cash. She was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Remind staff that their private messaging outside school hours can go to their fitness to teach, even where no criminal charge follows. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England, anonymised decision, 3 December 2021. A music teacher texted a pupil he taught while she was on roll, as part of an inappropriate relationship the panel found sexually motivated, which became sexual after she left the school. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Act on any one-to-one texting between a teacher and a pupil, even apparent chitchat; here it began a sexually motivated sequence, and the teacher held other pupils' numbers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Church of England academy with a sixth form in Kent, 27 October 2021. The head of sixth form texted a pupil using a number from school records, then messaged her daily and set up an Instagram account for the two of them. He touched her inappropriately before she left and the relationship became sexual afterwards; he was prohibited with no provision to apply for restoration. Limit and audit staff access to pupils' contact details, and forbid using school records to contact pupils on personal devices. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England (name and area redacted), 22 October 2021. After a pupil emailed him, a member of staff asked for the conversation to move to Snapchat; after the school put safeguarding measures in place he resumed contact and messages of a sexual nature were exchanged. He was convicted of sexual communication with a child and prohibited from teaching with no review period. Treat any request by staff to move a pupil's contact from school systems to a personal app as a reportable concern, and make safeguarding measures cover personal apps. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in New Malden, south-west London, 18 October 2021. A religious education teacher exchanged Instagram direct messages with a pupil late at night about personal matters and colleagues, then tried to block her and deleted the messages when questioned. He also had police cautions for harassing texts to a former pupil, and was prohibited with no review period. Tell staff that deleting messages with a pupil once concerns arise will be treated as an integrity issue, and preserve evidence promptly. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A county council and a maintained primary school, East of England, 11 October 2021. News of the headteacher's arrest, with a press link, was posted on the reception class parents' WhatsApp group; one parent spoke to others before questioning her child, who then made allegations. The tribunal found the children's accounts could have been contaminated and held the dismissal, over allegations of sexual misconduct towards pupils, unfair. When an allegation spreads through a parents' WhatsApp group, consider in the investigation whether children's accounts may have been influenced by adults' discussion. Employment Tribunal judgment 3213291/2020
• A high school in Essex, 5 October 2021. A teacher sent inappropriate Snapchat messages and images of himself to pupils outside school hours; pupils' saved stills supported his admissions. The panel held that contact on social media out of hours still touched on his profession, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Forbid staff from connecting with pupils on Snapchat or similar apps, and remember that pupils' saved stills can be key evidence of disappearing messages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Warrington, 30 September 2021. A PE teacher began Facebook Messenger contact with a pupil about football and schoolwork, then escalated to late-night messages with explicit language and sexual propositions; he also drove pupils alone without permission. He admitted the allegations and was prohibited with no review period. Ban personal messaging with pupils even about apparently harmless topics such as sport, since that is how this boundary breach began. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in Bristol, 26 August 2021. A teacher who met a child, not a pupil, at a gaming convention groomed the child by text and social media and was convicted of meeting a child following grooming and of sexual activity with a child. A prohibition order was made with no review. Make staff conduct and safeguarding training cover private online contact with any child, not only pupils at the school. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic voluntary academy in Lincolnshire, 18 August 2021. A teacher and house leader contacted a 17-year-old former pupil on Snapchat months after she left; within a week the messages became sexual and a relationship followed. He dishonestly denied using Snapchat when the academy questioned him, and was prohibited with no review period. Make the code of conduct cover contact with recent former pupils, especially those who received pastoral support, not only current pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Worcestershire, 7 July 2021. A teacher gave a vulnerable 18-year-old pupil his phone number and exchanged sexually explicit WhatsApp messages, photographs and a video with her during the Covid-19 period. Three pupils who had been shown the messages raised the concern; a prohibition order was made, reviewable after three years. Act quickly on peer reports, and state in the staff code that personal messaging with any pupil, sixth-formers aged 18 included, is a boundary breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in West Yorkshire, 22 June 2021. A higher level teaching assistant gave a vulnerable pupil she supported her personal number, texted him and tried to contact him on Snapchat and Facebook. Text messages referring to past sexual contact were central to the panel's finding of a sexual relationship. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review period. Make clear that all staff, including support staff, must never share personal numbers with pupils, and treat any such exchange as a safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Lincolnshire, 17 June 2021. A teacher exchanged sexual messages with a pupil, including on Snapchat, during a relationship that became sexual, and continued despite written advice not to exchange numbers. He told her to delete messages, deleted Snapchat and falsely denied swapping numbers. The panel found the concealment dishonest; he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. After advising a teacher not to exchange numbers with a pupil, check the advice is followed rather than relying on their account; concealment and deleted messages followed here. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Ofsted, 10 June 2021. Ofsted's national review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges found that images and videos shared between pupils typically went on platforms such as WhatsApp or Snapchat. Some designated safeguarding leads reported children being added to large WhatsApp groups of peers without their permission, where graphic material was shared. Make sure reporting routes and DSL training cover peer-on-peer abuse in pupils' WhatsApp and Snapchat groups, including being added to large groups without consent. Ofsted review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges
• An independent school in Somerset, 19 May 2021. A teacher texted a pupil from his personal mobile, including about private lessons, after the school had advised him in writing about boundaries. He later invited her by text to his flat on the school site, where sexual activity took place. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Follow up written boundary advice, arrange private tuition only through school channels, and treat continued personal texting with a pupil after advice as an immediate safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England (name and area redacted), 18 May 2021. A teacher exchanged romantic text messages with a pupil, including heart emojis, over the same period as home visits and a sexual relationship. It came to light when another pupil disclosed, and the teacher showed the school the messages. She was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Act on a peer's disclosure straight away, and treat affectionate or romantic messages from staff to a pupil, emojis included, as a serious boundary breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in London, 5 May 2021. A teacher gave a pupil his personal number and communicated with her by personal phone and text. Two senior teachers saw a message on his phone left in a classroom; he was suspended and the police informed. He accepted a police caution, and the Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. Train staff that seeing a pupil's message on a colleague's personal phone is a concern to report at once; here such a report led to suspension within one working day. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community junior school in Farnborough, Hampshire, 26 April 2021. A deputy head exchanged late-night messages with a child he did not teach, including questions about the child's sexuality, and took no safeguarding action when the child disclosed contact with an older male. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after three years. Make clear that staff messaging rules cover any child, not only pupils, and that a safeguarding disclosure received by message must go to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A sixth form college in Hampshire, 31 March 2021. A teacher began texting a pupil from his personal phone during the Easter holidays, on the pretext of coursework feedback; the texts became frequent, late at night and sexualised, and led to serious sexual misconduct after she left. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Give staff an approved channel for out-of-term coursework feedback, so lacking school email never becomes a reason to text a pupil's personal phone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school (name and area redacted), 29 March 2021. Around 1999 to 2001 a teacher exchanged personal mobile texts with a pupil aged 14 to 15, in the evenings and during the school day, which led to a meeting in a store cupboard and sexual activity. Heard about 20 years later, the allegations were proven and he was prohibited with no provision to apply for restoration. Require staff to report any pupil who has their personal number or texts them, even when the pupil started the contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, 5 March 2021. A maths teacher kept up sexually motivated contact with a pupil on Twitter and Instagram, messaging many times a day, and met her outside school despite written boundary advice. After leaving the school he continued through Snapchat, Skype calls and social media comments, and was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Give boundary advice in writing and keep it on file, and act on reports of continuing online contact even after the staff member has left. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent Steiner Waldorf school in Gloucestershire, 23 February 2021. A teacher let a Year 13 pupil add him on social media, then corresponded with her by Instagram, Twitter, text and an expiring email set to avoid detection. This boundary breach led to sexual contact on results day. He admitted all allegations and was prohibited with no review period. Require staff to decline or block pupil friend requests and report them, including in a pupil's final term. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An upper school in Bedford, 2 February 2021. A teacher swapped personal mobile numbers with a vulnerable pupil he was tutoring, suggesting texts to save her data, then sent her text messages of a sexual nature, breaching the code of conduct and acceptable use agreement. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application for review before February 2027. State plainly that staff never share personal numbers with pupils, whatever the practical reason, and keep all contact, including tutoring, on school systems. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school with a sixth form in Birmingham, 22 January 2021. A sixth form teacher exchanged mobile numbers with an 18-year-old pupil and contacted her by phone alongside extensive late-night emails to her personal address. The contact led to an undisclosed sexual relationship; failing to disclose the contact was found dishonest. She was prohibited from teaching and could apply after five years. Require staff to disclose any contact with a pupil through personal email or a personal phone; messaging a pupil for a non-educational reason crosses the boundary. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Hounslow, 14 January 2021. A pastoral lead gave a vulnerable 15-year-old her personal number and kept up a WhatsApp correspondence, including late at night and at weekends, without telling the pupil's learning coordinator. The messages became affectionate and arranged for the pupil to meet an unchecked adult. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order, reviewable after three years. Require staff to disclose any contact with a pupil on a personal channel to the safeguarding lead, whatever their seniority, and treat a repeat pattern as a safeguarding risk. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Ofsted and the National Governance Association, 11 September 2020. Research on school governance during the first COVID-19 lockdown noted that governing boards used extra ways to keep in contact, such as WhatsApp groups, and often changed decision-making procedures, commonly delegating more to chairs. Ofsted made no judgement on the use of WhatsApp. Ofsted described governors' WhatsApp groups without endorsing them; nothing in this research supports treating such a group as a place where board decisions are made. Ofsted research report
• A maintained secondary school in east London, 17 March 2020. A PE teacher sent a student mentor a 'banter' WhatsApp football report built on a racial stereotype, then emailed it to about 14 or 15 people involved with the school team. The tribunal found it was race-related harassment, but that complaint was out of time and all the claims failed. Treat 'banter' that relies on a racial stereotype as potential harassment whatever the intent, especially once it is shared beyond a one-to-one WhatsApp chat. Employment Tribunal judgment 3201545/2018
• A school in Worthing, 11 March 2020. A newly qualified maths teacher contacted a pupil through his personal Instagram account, sent her intimate messages and met her to hand over cigarettes, and was summarily dismissed. The panel recommended no prohibition order, but the decision-maker overruled it and imposed a ban with review possible after two years. Keep staff personal social media accounts out of staff–pupil contact entirely; such contact can end in a teaching ban even where a panel sees mitigation. Tes report
• A secondary school in Nottinghamshire, 28 February 2020. A head of music gave a pupil his personal mobile number, suggested she list him under another name, and corresponded with her on personal matters by WhatsApp, email and letters, asking others to get her to reply. The panel found a failure to maintain professional boundaries and he was prohibited, with review after three years. Tell staff never to give pupils personal numbers, and tell pupils and colleagues to report to the DSL any request to save a teacher's number under another name. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school (area not stated in the decision), 14 January 2020. A teacher accepted a Facebook friend request from a vulnerable pupil as she was leaving and exchanged thousands of Messenger messages in a month, some during working hours, including confidential comments about staff and pupils, without passing on the pupil's mental health disclosures. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, reviewable from January 2025. Rule out online friendships and private messaging with pupils and recent leavers, and make clear that a disclosure received in a private message must still be passed on. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Hampshire, 4 October 2019. A teacher sent a female colleague sexual WhatsApp messages, which he admitted and a screenshot confirmed. The panel found them part of his sexual harassment of colleagues, alongside other conduct, and a prohibition order was made with no review. Treat sexualised messages between staff as harassment to investigate formally, and keep screenshots as evidence. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Stoke-on-Trent, 17 September 2019. A teacher sent a pupil personal late-night emails from his school account and was told to stay professional; months later he told her, alone, that he wanted to keep in touch. Her Snapchat messages to another pupil corroborated her account, and a prohibition order was imposed with review after two years. Keep what pupils pass on about a staff member's behaviour, such as peer messages, and keep checking a relationship after advising a teacher to stay professional. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in the north-east of England, 22 August 2019. After socialising with a recent leaver, a teacher contacted her by text and FaceTime and invited her to his house, where they had sex. When the school investigated, he told her to delete their messages and what to say, and later asked her not to tell anyone. The Teaching Regulation Agency made a prohibition order with no review. When a social media post shows a teacher socialising with students, hear from the young person as well as the teacher before settling on management advice. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic boys' secondary school, 18 June 2019. A head of PE obtained pupils' numbers through a WhatsApp group he had created, then messaged two pupils directly without parental consent, including late at night and, separately, with sexually inappropriate questions. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and a prohibition order was imposed with no review period. Decide whether staff may run WhatsApp groups for teams or clubs, and on what terms, because such groups give staff pupils' personal numbers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Hertfordshire, 2 April 2019. A teacher called and texted a pupil on his personal phone as part of a pattern of pursuing an inappropriate relationship, and texted another pupil, who also used Snapchat with him; a parent was told he had asked the boys to delete the messages. A prohibition order was made with no review; sexual motivation was not proved. Treat any personal-phone contact between staff and a pupil as a safeguarding flag, and look for the wider pattern of trips, lifts and gifts. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A junior and senior school in Doncaster, 5 December 2018. A teacher gave a vulnerable pupil his personal mobile number after meeting her on a night out, then texted her day and night, some after midnight, and phoned her once. He said he had a school work phone but used it only in weekday school hours, and he was prohibited from teaching, with a two-year review. A work phone alone was not enough: set out how pupils reach staff out of hours, and forbid giving pupils personal numbers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Derbyshire, 16 November 2018. A music teacher used text messages to arrange for a pupil to come to her home, where sexual misconduct took place, years after a final written warning over similar conduct with an earlier pupil. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Treat private texting between a staff member and a pupil as a safeguarding concern, especially where earlier misconduct with a pupil is on record. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary technology college in Bradford, 6 November 2018. Over three months a teacher contacted a colleague by text, phone, around 90 personal emails and classroom visits, and carried on after she asked him in writing to stop. The panel found persistent unwanted contact; a prohibition order was made, reviewable after two years. Act promptly on a staff member's complaint of persistent unwanted contact from a colleague, whether by text, phone or email. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent faith school in North West London, 3 October 2018. A head teacher's whistleblowing claim relied partly on WhatsApp chats with the principal and a senior leadership group; the tribunal found concerns about break-time supervision were protected disclosures but other messages were not. The claim failed because the disclosures had nothing to do with his dismissal, which was for withholding access to the school's shared drive. Answer and record safeguarding and staffing concerns raised in leadership WhatsApp chats, because they can be protected disclosures. Employment Tribunal judgment 3347553/2016
• A secondary school in Shropshire, 3 October 2018. A teacher obtained a pupil's number from another student and exchanged hundreds of texts with her that became flirtatious and sexual; the text records were the main evidence that the relationship involved sexual activity. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Tell staff they must not obtain pupils' personal numbers, even second-hand from other pupils, and challenge it at once when they do. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Hampshire, 30 August 2018. A teacher sent a pupil from another school a topless photograph and sexual messages on Snapchat and asked him to delete them; they circulated among pupils. Years earlier he had received a final written warning for an explicit text to a colleague about a pupil. A prohibition order was made, reviewable after five years. Refer a staff member's sexualised message about a pupil as a safeguarding concern, even when sent privately to a colleague, rather than treating it as discipline alone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Manchester, 10 August 2018. A teacher became Facebook friends with a 17-year-old pupil he had taught and exchanged sexual messages and images with her. He was cautioned for possessing an indecent image of a child, admitted the allegations and was prohibited from teaching with no review. Staff should not accept pupils as social media friends; here a Facebook connection led directly to private sexual messaging. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent special school in Hampshire, 8 August 2018. A PE instructor sent sexual Snapchat messages to two female colleagues and sent a pupil a Facebook friend request and a sexually motivated message. The panel rejected his claim that his account had been hacked, and the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Record straight away any message a pupil or colleague shows you; the head's account and a colleague's screenshot were relied on after the instructor denied the messages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy with a sixth form in Northamptonshire, 31 July 2018. A teacher exchanged texts with a vulnerable Year 12 pupil, emailed her from a personal account, including a sexualised letter, set up a separate email account for her, referred to an untraceable phone and asked her to delete his messages. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, reviewable after two years. Require staff to disclose any texting with a pupil, and train them to recognise requests to delete messages or use new accounts as signs of concealment. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary academy in Oldham, 13 June 2018. A headteacher used her school-issued iPhone to text a colleague personal information and derogatory comments about staff, and posted inappropriate material on a Facebook page identifying her as headteacher. These were secondary strands: the prohibition order rested mainly on dishonesty over funds, SATs maladministration and safeguarding failures. Make sure acceptable-use and conduct rules on school devices and social media explicitly bind the headteacher; messages on school phones can be examined by the regulator. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, 13 April 2018. A boarding house master connected with a pupil as a Facebook friend and messaged her by text and social media as part of a sexually motivated relationship, and kept contact after a suspension that barred contact with pupils. He was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Back the social media policy with action: check staff–pupil social media connections, act on private messaging, and set clear no-contact terms when suspending a member of staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in the Midlands, 29 March 2018. A class teacher exchanged sexually explicit text messages with an adult partner, some sent during teaching hours in proximity to pupils and some concerning a child who was not a pupil. All allegations were admitted and she was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Restrict staff personal messaging during teaching hours; the panel stressed that explicit messaging in proximity to pupils risked exposing them to harmful material. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy trust running a Birmingham primary school, 23 March 2018. A deputy head teacher was dismissed for gross misconduct over homophobic comments in the 'Park View Brotherhood' WhatsApp group, arguing the messages were private and the trust had no social media policy. The tribunal dismissed his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, finding the group linked to his work and no reasonable expectation that the posts would stay private. Treat staff WhatsApp groups that discuss school matters as linked to work; here having no social media policy did not make the dismissal unfair. Employment Tribunal judgment 1303060/2015
• An independent school in West Sussex, 16 March 2018. Ignoring written instructions against out-of-hours contact, a teacher exchanged text, WhatsApp and Facebook messages with a pupil as part of a sexually motivated relationship, messaged a second pupil about it, told both to delete messages, gave one a phone and had his number saved under a false name. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Follow up a written instruction to stop out-of-hours contact, and treat a pupil with an unexplained second phone or disguised contact as a possible sign of concealed adult contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in West Bromwich, 9 March 2018. A part-time PE teacher exchanged hundreds of flirtatious texts and Snapchat messages, early and late, with a 14-year-old he knew through an outside dance academy, and sent her a bare-chested selfie. The panel found the messages inappropriate but not sexually motivated; he was prohibited, with review after five years. Make the code of conduct cover private messaging with any child staff meet through clubs or activities, and treat a parent's concern about message volume or timing as a referral. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school, 9 February 2018. A teacher gave a 15-year-old pupil his mobile number, exchanged text and WhatsApp messages with her and told her to delete them. The panel treated the WhatsApp messages as social media messaging and found the allegations proved; a prohibition order was imposed with a five-year review period. Name messaging apps such as WhatsApp in the staff code, as panels have classified WhatsApp differently when applying 'social media' wording. National College for Teaching and Leadership decision
• A community secondary school in London, 7 February 2018. A teacher met a 15-year-old girl on a social networking app outside school and sent her sexually suggestive WhatsApp messages, continuing after he learned her age, asking for photographs and offering revision help. The decision maker imposed a prohibition order with no review, rather than the panel's recommended five-year review. Tell staff plainly that private messaging with a child met outside school falls within professional conduct, and route such reports through the allegations process. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Taunton, Somerset, 25 January 2018. A teacher asked a pupil to put her number in his phone at the school prom, then sent her flirtatious texts, sometimes several a day, to build the relationship and arrange meetings. A sexual relationship followed. The panel found the texts sexually motivated, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Brief staff before proms and similar events that swapping numbers or connecting on social media with pupils is prohibited. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in York, 29 December 2017. A teacher accepted a sixth-form pupil's mobile number and exchanged flirtatious and sexual texts with her, texting her where he lived; the contact led to a sexual relationship in 2005. The panel rejected his claim that he lacked training to stop the texts, and he was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Train staff never to accept a pupil's personal number or reply in kind, and to report any contact a pupil starts to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in County Durham, 20 December 2017. A teacher texted a pupil from his personal mobile from October 2016 despite written management warnings, falsely denied the texting to the head teacher, and later stayed overnight with the pupil in a hotel room. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. After a written warning about contact with a pupil, check that private messaging has actually stopped; here texting continued after two warnings and was then denied. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Tyne and Wear, 30 November 2017. After the school prom a teacher sent a 16-year-old pupil a high volume of text and Snapchat messages, videos and indecent images as she left school, and the relationship became sexual. The panel found sexual motivation and imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Record low-level concerns and escalate a pattern: this teacher had been spoken to four times about over-familiarity. Make the staff code cover contact with recent leavers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy trust school in North Yorkshire, 29 November 2017. A PE teacher sent a pupil flirtatious Facebook messages, added her on Snapchat and followed her on Instagram, and kept sending pupils inappropriate emails after the DSL had twice advised him; he also failed to report claimed misuse of his account. A prohibition order was imposed with review after two years. Record advice given to staff about online contact with pupils and follow it up, and require staff to report at once any suspected misuse of their accounts. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Oxfordshire, 31 October 2017. A teacher who had earlier been a teaching assistant at a secondary school messaged a child he knew from that school on Facebook over three days, making sexual comments. He admitted failing to follow his new school's safeguarding policies; a panel found sexual motivation and he was banned indefinitely, with review possible after two years. Tell staff at induction and when leaving that rules on messaging children cover pupils of their previous schools as well as current ones. Tes report
• Schools in East Sussex and Norfolk, 26 September 2017. A music teacher built an inappropriate relationship with a pupil at one school through texts, email and instant messages, some sexual, and at his next school texted another pupil in 2011, despite a written instruction not to contact pupils electronically, and again in 2015 after a formal warning. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. When a member of staff is under a written no-contact instruction, check it is followed and escalate a repeated breach rather than issuing another warning. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in Essex, 9 August 2017. A head of department emailed a sixth-form pupil between personal accounts in increasingly personal terms and, after she left, sent her a Facebook Messenger message professing love. The first investigation looked only at that message and did not search earlier emails. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. When a message to a former pupil is reported, review the whole history of communications, and keep the investigator separate from the hearing. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school, area not given in the decision, 18 July 2017. A teacher gave a pupil her personal mobile number and texted him regularly outside school during a relationship that became sexual. During the school's investigation she told him to delete their text history. She was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Where a staff–pupil relationship is suspected, look early for messaging evidence, including whether the pupil has the staff member's personal number, and treat any request to delete messages as significant. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school (name and area redacted), 14 July 2017. The head of drama and dance contacted a pupil by phone; a friend's accepted evidence was that they used WhatsApp because she believed it untraceable, and she got rid of her phone when the matter came to light. The relationship became sexual and she was prohibited, with a review after five years. Treat a staff member choosing an app they think untraceable to contact a pupil as a grooming warning sign, and make sure colleagues report concerns to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Bolton, Greater Manchester, 4 July 2017. A head of year exchanged texts, WhatsApp and Facebook messages containing inappropriate remarks with a vulnerable pupil in his pastoral care, and resumed Facebook messaging about his feelings for her after she left, while she was under 18. Sexual motivation was not proven; he was prohibited, with a review possible after two years. Require pastoral contact with vulnerable pupils to stay on school systems, and treat a move to personal messaging channels as a safeguarding concern, even when the motive seems supportive. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community secondary school in Brighton, 7 June 2017. A drama teacher sent a male pupil late-night WhatsApp messages of a sexual nature and a sexual photograph, and tried to arrange meetings outside school. The panel took his talk of deleting messages into account and found even four non-sexual night-time texts inappropriate. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Forbid private one-to-one messaging between staff and pupils, and treat late-night or weekend messages from staff as a concern even when the content seems harmless. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Hull, 6 June 2017. A head of maths exchanged several thousand personal and sexually motivated messages by text, social media and FaceTime with a pupil he had taught, beginning shortly after she left, some during lessons. He suggested she save his number under a false name and delete his messages, and was prohibited from teaching, with a three-year review. Tell pupils and parents that staff will never ask them to use a false contact name or delete messages, and treat any such request as an immediate safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Church of England primary school in Lancashire, 25 April 2017. A teacher exchanged overfamiliar texts with the older sister of a Year 6 pupil he taught, including a proposed holiday sleepover and references to the younger pupil, and carried on after their father confronted him. Earlier informal advice had been ignored. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Record informal warnings about overfamiliar contact, including messaging with pupils' siblings or families, and escalate formally if the behaviour is repeated. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in Sussex, 13 April 2017. A self-employed peripatetic teacher exchanged texts and social media messages with a pupil for months, escalating to sexual content; he bought her a phone and, according to a parent, urged a switch to WhatsApp as 'safer'. The relationship became sexual. He was held to the school's policies and prohibited from teaching with no review period. Make no-private-number and no-personal-messaging rules binding on peripatetic and self-employed staff, and treat staff giving pupils phones or moving them to other apps as grooming signs. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, 6 April 2017. A supply teacher took a vulnerable Year 13 pupil's mobile number from the school's management information system and texted her as part of a relationship that became sexual. Years later, in a text exchange the former pupil began, she asked her to delete the messages. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Limit and audit which staff can see pupils' personal contact details in the MIS, and challenge any request to use them for informal contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A small community school with an after-school gym club, 3 April 2017. A PE teacher sent sexual messages and images to two recent leavers who still attended his gym club, by text and Facebook Messenger to one and online to the other, and asked both for intimate images. Sexual contact with one followed. He accepted a police caution. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Make the staff code on messaging cover former pupils who still take part in school clubs and activities, not only pupils on roll. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Bristol, 27 March 2017. A teacher contacted a sixth-form pupil by phone and text, met her alone outside school and had a sexual relationship with her, continuing despite denials at two school meetings and a formal and a final warning. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Do not rely on a denial and a written warning when concerns arise about a teacher's private contact with a pupil; check that the contact has actually stopped. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A prep school in Hertfordshire, 24 March 2017. The head learned from pupils that Year 6 children were being drawn into a WhatsApp group with hundreds of members, reported to carry inappropriate chain messages and a distressing image. She warned Year 6 parents and the heads of other primaries across north London, who forwarded the warning. When a large unmoderated WhatsApp group reaches pupils, alert parents and neighbouring schools quickly and encourage families to set boundaries on their children's use. Jewish Chronicle report
• A secondary school in Surrey, 23 March 2017. At a Year 11 prom at his former school a teacher exchanged Snapchat details with pupils, then sent them inappropriate messages, including sexualised messages to two pupils and invitations to his house. He admitted the allegations, and the panel imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Word the social media policy to bar personal contact with any current pupil of any school, as this school's policy did. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Bedfordshire, 23 March 2017. Over about two years a teacher exchanged inappropriate, sexually motivated texts and WhatsApp messages with a vulnerable pupil under 16 for whom he was key worker, and did not report her messages suggesting she might harm herself. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Make sure pupils know how to report a worry about an adult's messages; here a friend raised the concern, and the pupil's own disclosures never reached the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A performing arts secondary college in Kent, 10 March 2017. Months after a former pupil aged around 18 left, a teacher sent her personal Instagram messages and semi-naked photographs of himself. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated, took account of an earlier warning for messaging a sixth-form pupil, and made a prohibition order with review after three years. Make the staff code cover social media contact with former pupils, not only pupils on roll; the panel noted the school's policies left this unclear. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' school in Ipswich, Suffolk, 28 February 2017. A part-time music teacher exchanged daily Snapchat messages with a Year 12 pupil, which the panel found sexually motivated, and gave her lifts without parental consent. The school's guidelines expressly barred communicating with pupils on Snapchat, and he was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Name specific apps in the staff behaviour policy, as this school's Snapchat ban made the breach clear-cut, and make sure pupils know whom to tell about staff messages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A special school in Essex, 9 February 2017. While suspended and told in writing not to contact staff, parents or pupils, a teacher repeatedly texted, phoned and left voicemails for colleagues and a parent over several months. Screenshots helped prove the breaches; with other findings, she was prohibited from teaching with review after two years. Make suspension letters bar contact by every channel, including personal texts and calls, name the permitted contacts, and ask recipients to keep screenshots and call logs. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent fee-paying college in London, 16 January 2017. The director of drama received a final written warning after flirtatious texts with a pupil, then went on to message other pupils socially on Facebook and by email, with some emails found flirtatious. A prohibition order was made, reviewable after five years. After a warning about messaging one pupil, check actively that private staff–pupil messaging has stopped on every channel, not only the one first reported. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in London, 12 December 2016. A teacher volunteering on a charity-run youth sailing course used the crew list to text and WhatsApp a girl, continuing after she asked him to stop, and sent Facebook friend requests to two other girls. Police issued a harassment warning letter, and he was prohibited from teaching with a two-year review. Share children's contact details from trip, crew or club lists only with those who need them, and remind staff the code of conduct applies when they volunteer. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An infants school governing body in Caerphilly, 5 December 2016. A complainant asked an infants school's governing body for a staff member's text messages. The governing body accepted that school business on staff personal devices is covered by FOI but said the texts were gone after the staff member changed phone; the Commissioner accepted they were not held but was disappointed by the school's records management. Keep school business on school systems: the school accepted texts on a staff member's own phone fall within FOI, but they were lost when the phone was replaced. ICO decision notice FS50608188
• A secondary community college in Devon, 25 November 2016. A teacher who went on to tutor a vulnerable 14-year-old former pupil admitted sending her sexually explicit communications and, once investigated, asked her to delete text messages and invent a cover story. Following his conviction, the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Treat private tutoring of current or former pupils as a safeguarding matter, and refer concerns promptly so message evidence is preserved before it can be deleted. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Hertfordshire, 15 November 2016. A maths teacher exchanged mobile numbers with an upset 18-year-old pupil and texted her, apologising for trying to kiss her and telling her where he lived; she saved his number under a different name. The panel found sexual motivation and a prohibition order was imposed with no review. Apply staff–pupil boundaries to pupils aged 18, and know that a pupil may save a teacher's number under another name to hide private contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A sixth form college in Suffolk, 14 October 2016. A teacher texted a student from his mobile phone and sent flirtatious emails to her personal address, a number late at night or at weekends. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated, though there was no evidence of a physical relationship. He was prohibited from teaching and could apply after two years. Require staff to contact students only through school systems, even when a student writes from a personal account, and treat late-night or weekend messages as a warning sign. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• High Court (Administrative Court), 13 October 2016. A professional conduct panel banned two teachers, relying in part on the mindset shown by their participation in a staff WhatsApp group. The High Court set the prohibition orders aside for a serious procedural irregularity over disclosure, without ruling on the merits or on the panel's use of the WhatsApp material. Expect a professional conduct panel to read staff WhatsApp contributions as evidence of a teacher's attitudes, and set expectations for staff groups accordingly. High Court judgment [2016] EWHC 2507 (Admin)
• A secondary school in South Yorkshire, 6 October 2016. Between 2012 and 2014 a teacher exchanged Snapchat messages with a pupil, replied to pupils on Twitter and sent her emails unrelated to her education, and did not pass on her safeguarding disclosure. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. Ban staff–pupil contact on personal accounts and on disappearing-message apps, which leave no record, and treat a repeat of an earlier boundary concern as a pattern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Dorset, 18 August 2016. A lecturer gave a 17-year-old student his personal email address, exchanged sexualised emails with her, texted and phoned her on his personal mobile and told her to delete their messages. Friends reported it and the college referred it to the LADO; a prohibition order was made, reviewable after two years. Bar staff in post-16 settings from contacting students by personal email or mobile, and treat an instruction to delete messages as a reason to refer. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in London, 27 July 2016. A teacher swapped numbers with a pupil on the pupil's last day and then sent him flirtatious WhatsApp messages of a sexual nature while he was under 18; he also messaged another under-18 former pupil on WhatsApp. The panel found the conduct sexually motivated and he was prohibited with no review period. Make the staff conduct policy forbid personal messaging with recent leavers, especially under-18s, and treat a last-day number swap as a concern to report to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Church of England school in Oxfordshire, 6 July 2016. A teacher was convicted of harassing a pupil he taught after trying to contact her 16 times by text, 10 times by phone and in person over four days, leaving her upset and scared. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application before July 2020. Treat a member of staff holding and using a pupil's personal mobile number as a safeguarding concern in itself, and act on a parent's complaint promptly. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A sixth form college in Hampshire, 9 June 2016. A personal tutor moved email with a student from college accounts to his personal address, followed her on Instagram and Tumblr, commented on her appearance and gave her access to a private account containing nude images; the contact led to sexual activity, found sexually motivated. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Make staff codes cover following, liking and commenting on students' social media, not only direct messages, and treat a move to personal email as an early warning sign. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Essex, 25 May 2016. A phase leader started Instagram conversations with an 11-year-old Year 6 pupil that included innuendo, and messaged former pupils on Instagram and Snapchat, after the head teacher had asked her in November 2014 to stop social media contact with pupils. She was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. When a first concern about messaging pupils arises, get a written undertaking, record it and check that the contact has stopped. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary community college academy in Plymouth, 9 May 2016. Over about eight months a teacher sent a pupil who was still on the college roll, re-sitting in Year 14, text messages with increasing sexual innuendo, some late at night. The panel found the messages sexually motivated and a prohibition order was imposed with review after two years. Tell staff clearly which students remain on roll, including those re-sitting exams, and state in the code of conduct that personal messaging with students is improper. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community secondary school in Hampshire, 21 April 2016. In 2000–2001 a teacher gave a Year 11 pupil his personal mobile number and used text messages to arrange meetings outside school, which led to serious sexual activity. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no review period. Do not let staff give pupils personal mobile numbers, even for stated reasons such as extra tuition; arrange contact through school channels. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A local authority music service in Bolton, 7 April 2016. A deputy head of a music service exchanged sexual text and multimedia messages with a student aged 18 to 19 who still attended its youth orchestras, and during the investigation kept messaging her and encouraged her to delete their messages. A prohibition order was imposed with review after four years. When an investigation starts, tell the staff member in writing not to contact the young person, and treat further messaging or deletion requests as obstruction. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Worcestershire, 22 February 2016. A PE teacher with boarding duties texted a pupil's personal mobile in the evenings, sending strings of messages when she stopped replying, and emailed another pupil in the evenings asking whether she had WhatsApp. Sexual motivation was not proven; he was prohibited, with review after three years. Treat staff texting a pupil's personal phone, or asking to move to WhatsApp, as a boundary breach to report, and follow up safeguarding advice given after earlier concerns. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A music service in Essex, 26 November 2015. Over several months in 2013 a music tutor sent a vulnerable 17-year-old former tutee numerous texts and Facebook messages, some sexually explicit. He pleaded guilty to harassment, the panel found the messaging sexually motivated, and he was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Ban personal messaging between tutors and pupils, make clear the ban continues after tuition ends, and treat continued contact with a former tutee as a safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Purley, south London, 13 November 2015. A religious education teacher exchanged personal numbers with a vulnerable 17-year-old pupil and sent her affectionate texts, alongside physical contact. Another pupil showed the head copies of the texts; he admitted the conduct, accepted a police caution and was prohibited from teaching with no review period. Tell pupils that a teacher texting them privately is something to report, and refuse any staff request to leave misconduct out of an employment reference. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in England, 13 October 2015. A teacher who tutored a sixth-form-age pupil swapped personal mobile numbers and email addresses with her and texted her as a relationship developed that became sexual. The panel cited his use of texts and personal email as showing he knew it was inappropriate; a prohibition order was made with no review. Treat staff swapping personal numbers with a pupil as a boundary breach to act on, particularly where staff give one-to-one tuition. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Lancashire, 25 September 2015. A head of drama given a final written warning over flirtatious Twitter messages to a pupil then exchanged sexual WhatsApp messages with another pupil, which the panel relied on to find a sexual relationship. He was prohibited from teaching with no review. A written warning banning social media contact with pupils did not stop it: follow such warnings up actively and give pupils and parents a clear route to report. National College for Teaching and Leadership decision
• Two secondary schools in Hertfordshire, 25 September 2015. Between 2007 and 2013 a teacher contacted pupils by personal text and Twitter against both schools' policies, including romantic messages to one pupil, and concealed an earlier written warning from a new principal. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after four years. A signed code on personal numbers needs checking and follow-up, and recruiters should confirm disciplinary history with the previous school rather than rely on the applicant's answer. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Ontario and an academy in Luton, 17 September 2015. A teacher exchanged about 35,000 increasingly intimate text messages with a 15-year-old student at a school in Ontario over nine months, continuing through new accounts after promising the parents she would stop. Later, at an academy in Luton, she deliberately failed to disclose the allegations, and she was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Treat a parent's report of excessive contact as a safeguarding referral rather than accepting a teacher's promise to stop, and check overseas history when recruiting. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community college in Cornwall, 9 September 2015. A teacher given a final written warning for texting a pupil kept contacting her by text and through drafts in a shared email account, and the relationship became sexual while she was still a pupil. A prohibition order was made with no review. Treat a teacher privately texting a pupil as a safeguarding concern, not only a disciplinary one, and check that contact stops after any warning. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community secondary school in Gateshead, 10 July 2015. A teacher sent sexually explicit texts and photographs of himself to a 15-year-old girl he knew outside school; the decision does not describe her as a pupil. The panel found the messages sexually motivated and the conduct relevant to his profession. A prohibition order was made with no review period. If you learn that a member of staff has sent sexual messages to any child met outside school, refer it to the LADO and the Teaching Regulation Agency. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community school in Gateshead, 10 July 2015. A teacher exchanged sexually explicit text messages with a 15-year-old girl, who is not described as his pupil, and sent her photographs of himself. The text record showed he knew her age and corroborated an encounter he denied, and he was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. When a concern involves staff and any child, preserve the messages for the police and LADO; the panel relied on the texts over the teacher's account. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school in Acton, west London, 26 June 2015. A teacher had a sexually motivated relationship with an 18-year-old student, carried on partly by text, WhatsApp and personal email. On the day he was suspended he emailed her asking her to give the investigation a false account, and he was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Bar staff from personal phone, WhatsApp or email contact with students, including those aged 18, and put a no-contact instruction in every suspension letter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in Greater Manchester, 19 June 2015. A teacher gave a vulnerable 15-year-old pupil his number and exchanged well over 1,000 texts with her in about two months, many out of school hours, plus Skype calls. After suspension he kept contacting her and urged her to lie and delete the texts. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Act on high-volume or out-of-hours messaging between staff and a pupil without waiting to see the content; the panel found it inappropriate on that alone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent boarding school in Kent, 10 June 2015. A teacher and residential house tutor exchanged frequent, flirtatious texts and WhatsApp messages with a 15-year-old pupil from her personal phone, and the relationship became sexual. Although texting pupils was common practice at the school, the panel found she disregarded its policies; she was prohibited with no review period. Staff, especially residential staff, should contact pupils only through school-controlled channels, and report inappropriate messages from pupils rather than reply to them. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in the South West of England, 1 June 2015. A teacher texted, called and emailed a Year 11 pupil many times from a personal mobile and email account, gave her money and met her outside school; the relationship became sexual shortly after she left. He admitted the facts and was prohibited from teaching with no review. Staff codes should bar contact with pupils from personal phones and email accounts, and any sign of such contact should be reported as a safeguarding concern. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Staffordshire, 8 May 2015. An art teacher exchanged mobile numbers with a 16-year-old pupil in his class and kept in contact by MSN and text outside school, part of an inappropriate relationship that became sexual while she was still a pupil. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Treat a teacher swapping personal numbers or messaging accounts with a pupil as an early warning sign and act before further contact follows. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Secondary schools in Shropshire and Worcestershire, 27 April 2015. A teacher sent a sixth-form pupil flirtatious texts from his own phone, pressed her by text to meet outside school and asked her to give a false account of lessons; Facebook messages proved a sexual relationship with a former pupil at an earlier school. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Where school phones are provided for pupil contact, ban texting pupils from personal phones, even when a pupil texts first, and treat requests to support a staff account as concealment. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A sixth form college in Norfolk, 17 April 2015. A senior tutor gave a vulnerable student his mobile number and exchanged over 150 texts with her, including kisses and pet names, and met her in his car. He admitted the facts, including sexual motivation, and was prohibited from teaching with no review period. When a vulnerable student turns to a tutor by text, refer them to support under safeguarding procedures; staff should never give students a personal mobile number. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in Nottingham, 14 April 2015. A teacher exchanged personal mobile numbers with a 17-year-old sixth-form pupil to arrange dog walks, then texted him throughout a period of meetings outside school; the relationship later became sexual after he had left and turned 18. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with no application before April 2020. Tell staff plainly not to exchange personal numbers with pupils or text them privately, including 17-year-olds, however harmless the reason seems. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy with a sixth form in Lincolnshire, 25 March 2015. A business studies instructor exchanged mobile numbers with a sixth-form student aged 18 or over and messaged her by text, email and social media, including personal and sexual messages, as part of a relationship. The panel found sexual misconduct and abuse of trust, and a prohibition order was made with review after five years. State plainly in the staff code that the ban on personal numbers and private messaging with students covers sixth-formers aged 18 and over who are still on roll. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A primary school in Slough, Berkshire, 23 March 2015. For a Year 6 project a teacher sent parents a letter listing seven staff members' personal mobile numbers, and a relative's, so children could text updates; she was also Facebook friends with current and former pupils. With findings about conduct towards staff, she was prohibited from teaching, with review after two years. Never give out staff personal mobile numbers for pupils to text, even with head teacher approval, and tighten any policy that allows it. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England, 11 March 2015. A teacher gave a pupil his personal mobile number and exchanged texts with her, some late at night, and took no action when she sent romantic messages and a picture of herself partly undressed. Sexual motivation was not proved, but a prohibition order was made with a three-year review period. Train staff to report at once any personal or romantic message or image a pupil sends them; failing to act was itself a proven breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Two schools, names and areas anonymised, 2 March 2015. Soon after becoming assistant head at a new school, a teacher held increasingly intimate Facebook and email conversations, some late in the evening, with a 15-year-old pupil he had taught at his former school, and exchanged personal photos on Snapchat. Sexual motivation was proved; he was prohibited, with a review possible after four years. Professional boundaries continue after a teacher moves school; contact with a child at a former school, even starting with a homework query, should be reported, not continued. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Bromley, south-east London, 2 March 2015. A teacher exchanged personal numbers with a Year 12 student and kept in contact by phone and text for months, including over the summer holidays, despite warnings from the vice principal and her brother; her phone records showed 89 calls and 29 texts in about two months. A prohibition order was imposed with review after five years. After giving safeguarding advice about a teacher's contact with a pupil, check whether private phone and text contact has continued, especially over the holidays. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Rutland, 18 February 2015. A teacher exchanged numbers, texts and calls with a student over the summer he left, and the relationship became sexual; she later sent another pupil a Facebook message encouraging pupils to lie about her buying them alcohol. A prohibition order was imposed, with review after three years. Make the staff code cover private contact with recent leavers on every channel, including texts and calls, and treat staff messaging pupils during an investigation as possible interference. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A high school in Cheshire, 14 January 2015. After moving schools, a teacher set up alias Facebook accounts to contact girls he had taught and sent texts and WhatsApp messages with sexual content to a vulnerable 17-year-old pupil. He was prohibited from teaching with no review; dishonesty was also proven. When one pupil reports contact from a former member of staff or an alias account, ask other pupils he taught whether they have been contacted too. National College for Teaching and Leadership decision
• An academy in west London, 13 January 2015. A teacher sent a colleague a text message implying he had taken a recreational drug, which the panel found inappropriate from a copy of the message; separately, he posted publicly about drug use, which pupils reached through a link he had emailed them. He was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Ask staff to report and keep inappropriate messages from colleagues, and record earlier concerns about social media use, because the decision relied on both. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in North Yorkshire, 19 December 2014. A teacher contacted a boy under 16 he did not know on Facebook, asked for his number and moved to WhatsApp and text, where many messages were sexual, then met him for sexual activity. A parent found the messages. A prohibition order was made with no review. Make the staff code bar private social-media and messaging contact with any child, not only pupils; this teacher argued his position of trust covered only his own pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A high school in Bristol, 12 December 2014. A drama teacher, later an assistant head, contacted several pupils and recent leavers by Facebook, MSN and text, including about 100 texts in one day to one former pupil, with flirtatious and sexual content. He continued despite warnings in 2008, 2009 and 2011. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Treat repeated online contact with pupils after advice as a formal disciplinary matter, and do not let staff collect leavers' personal contact details. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A county council music centre and youth orchestra in England, 1 December 2014. A music tutor sent a young pupil a high volume of daily texts from when she got her first phone, using them to keep track of whom she was with, before sexual relationships with two pupils; after she went to the police he sent her an inappropriate text. He was prohibited with no review period. Apply the same ban on private messaging with pupils to music-service and peripatetic tutors as to classroom staff, and treat frequent daily texting of a child as a warning sign. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A further education college in Buckinghamshire, 28 November 2014. A lecturer sent anonymous, sexually explicit messages and images to a 17-year-old student she taught, then revealed herself and asked him to delete them. After her conviction for an offence involving abuse of a position of trust, the Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Train further education staff that position-of-trust rules cover 16- and 17-year-old students, and act at once on any report of messages, even second-hand. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Lancashire, 28 October 2014. A teacher began a relationship with a vulnerable 15-year-old pupil through Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr and texts that ended in sexual misconduct, and after a management instruction about contacting pupils on Twitter he set up an alias Twitter profile to keep in touch with them. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. After instructing staff not to contact pupils on social media, check it is followed and make clear that any private or alias account used to reach pupils is disciplinary. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A high school in Lancashire, 30 September 2014. Shortly after a 16-year-old pupil she had taught left the school, a teacher added him on Facebook, swapped mobile numbers and kept up personal messages and texts, including an indecent image of herself. She did not report his messages to the school. A prohibition order was made with a five-year review period. Make clear in safeguarding training that boundaries continue after a pupil leaves, and that staff must report messages from pupils or recent leavers. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Stockton-on-Tees, 26 September 2014. After a pupil left for a sixth form college, a teacher sent her frequent, often late-night texts and Facebook messages arranging meetings, including a text of a sexual nature, while she was 16 to 17. The panel rejected his reliance on a lack of school policy. A prohibition order was made, with a five-year review period. State plainly in the staff code that personal numbers and social media contact with pupils are banned, and treat contact with recent leavers under 18 as safeguarding. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' secondary school in west London, 26 September 2014. A deputy head who was also the designated child protection officer sent a sixth-form pupil inappropriate texts and emails, some in school hours, and exchanged images and poetry with her, ending in a police caution for abuse of a position of trust. A prohibition order was imposed, with review after three years. Give staff and pupils a route for raising concerns about the DSL or senior leaders that does not run through that person. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community high school in England, 19 September 2014. A teacher regularly texted a pupil and contacted her on a website as part of an inappropriate sexual relationship while she was under age. The panel rejected his denial that she had his number, which was on a CD case and had been given to some pupils. A prohibition order was made with no review period. Stop staff sharing personal numbers with pupils in any form, including through bands or clubs, and require them to report a pupil's infatuation to senior staff. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• Department for Education – Education Commissioner, 22 July 2014. A government-commissioned inquiry obtained 3,235 postings from a WhatsApp group whose core contributors were mainly teachers in an academy trust. It found the group showed intolerant attitudes going beyond the purpose its administrator claimed, of sharing assembly material. Staff WhatsApp groups can be obtained and relied on by an inquiry, and leaders are judged on what is in them, not on the group's stated purpose. Education Commissioner report HC 576
• A secondary school in Greenwich, south-east London, 11 July 2014. A teacher had an inappropriate relationship with a Year 12 pupil and exchanged text and WhatsApp messages with her that the panel found intimate and sexual, after his suspension letter told him not to contact her. He also failed to report her disclosures. A prohibition order was made with a five-year review period. Put any no-contact instruction to a suspended member of staff in writing; the panel relied on its clear wording to find later messages a breach. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Hampshire, 10 July 2014. A teacher texted a pupil, often late at night, with offensive language, abuse of her mother and criticism of school leaders. The school's child protection officer verified the sender's number and had a checked transcript made, which the panel relied on. A prohibition order was made with no review period. When a pupil shows you messages from staff, verify the sender's number and have an accurate, checked transcript made before anything is deleted. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Kirklees, West Yorkshire, 10 July 2014. A teacher infatuated with one pupil sent a second pupil four long, inappropriate texts within minutes about the first pupil's tweet, and kept photographs of the first pupil from social media on her work laptop. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with review possible after two years. When a pattern of gifts or special attention to one pupil emerges, check whether staff are messaging other pupils about them and report any private staff–pupil messaging. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Hampshire, 10 July 2014. A teacher gave a pupil her personal mobile number and exchanged texts and calls with her, at one stage daily and including sexual content, which continued after senior staff raised concerns and led to a sexual relationship once the school year ended. A prohibition order was imposed with no review. Follow up concerns about staff contact with a pupil in writing and check it stops; report any teacher sharing a personal number with a pupil to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Bury, Greater Manchester, 10 June 2014. A teacher sent more than 2,000 texts to a Year 11 pupil over nine months, some with sexual or personal content. After the head teacher told her not to contact him, she texted him to delete her number and all their messages, including on WhatsApp. A prohibition order was made with a two-year review period. Have staff sign the policy against sharing personal numbers with pupils, and secure message evidence before or as you issue a no-contact instruction. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in north London, 14 March 2014. As part of an inappropriate relationship with a Year 11 pupil, a teacher exchanged MSN and text messages with her and her friend; at the school prom the friend texted him asking him to stop. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order with no right to apply for restoration. Give pupils a clear, safe route to report staff messaging, and act on colleagues' concerns about a member of staff spending excessive unsupervised time with one pupil. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A Catholic secondary school in Birmingham, 27 February 2014. Around a sixth-form leavers' event a teacher sent flirtatious texts to a Year 13 pupil arranging which bar to meet at, against a directive that staff and students should not go on together; the panel also found sexual misconduct with another pupil that night. He was prohibited with no review period. Before leavers' events and trips, issue school mobiles and remind staff not to hold pupils' personal numbers; students who have not finished their exams are still pupils. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school (area not stated), 8 January 2014. A teacher contacted a pupil persistently by phone, text and Skype as part of an inappropriate relationship that included overnight stays and gifts, and kept texting him after the adult caring for him that day told her to stop. She was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Treat a teacher's private texting or video calls with a pupil as a formal safeguarding matter; informal advice did not stop this conduct. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary academy in Ilford, east London, 22 October 2013. A teacher gave a pupil his personal mobile number and sent her texts and voicemails as he pursued a relationship with her, and was convicted of sexual offences in abuse of a position of trust. The panel said the messages showed he drove the relationship; he was prohibited with no review period. Train staff that giving a pupil a personal mobile number is itself a boundary breach to report, so concerns reach the DSL before a parent discovers them. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Derbyshire, 27 September 2013. A teacher exchanged texts and emails with a sixth-form student over about 16 months, mostly, he said, about lifts and babysitting for his family, alongside lending her his school laptop and arranging a private meeting in his car. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, with review possible after five years. Treat a pupil babysitting or running errands for a member of staff as a boundary concern, because it invites private messaging that staff training already discourages. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Buckinghamshire, 29 August 2013. A PE teacher exchanged personal mobile numbers with a 14-year-old pupil and sent him more than ten texts during holidays and weekends, part of a months-long pattern of inappropriate conduct that included gifts and meetings alone. The decision maker imposed a prohibition order and removed the panel's recommended five-year review. Treat a member of staff holding a pupil's personal mobile number as a concern to raise at once, not something termly training alone will prevent. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form on the Isle of Wight, 5 August 2013. The head of sixth form gave a sixth-form pupil his personal mobile number and exchanged intimate texts with her as part of a sexually motivated course of conduct that ended in a sexual relationship. A prohibition order was made with no review. Require staff to report a pupil's personal approach straight away and never to give a pupil a personal phone number. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Swindon, 20 May 2013. On the pupil's account, which the panel found credible and email evidence supported, a teacher kept up increasingly flirtatious email and MSN contact with her from age 14 and gave her his number to text him. The panel found an inappropriate relationship while she was 14 to 16; he was prohibited with no review period. Treat private online contact between a member of staff and a pupil as a safeguarding concern, and make sure a parent's allegation reaches senior leaders and the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Essex, 17 May 2013. Over several years a teacher exchanged inappropriate texts and emails with three vulnerable female students, including sexual comments and offers of cigarettes and alcohol, and asked one to save his number under a different name, despite a 2006 written warning and a 2011 instruction to use only school email. He was prohibited with no review period. Keep records of earlier warnings about personal messaging, check whether the behaviour returns, and treat a request to hide a staff number in a pupil's phone as an immediate referral. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An independent school in East Sussex, 8 May 2013. A teacher messaged a pupil, 15 at the start, by text and Facebook, gave him gifts and wrote inviting a romantic relationship. Despite an informal and then a formal warning to use only school email, she sent a further Facebook message after resigning, and was prohibited, with review after five years. When a teacher is told to contact pupils only through school email, check that this happens and escalate promptly if personal messaging continues. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary community college in Rutland, 19 March 2013. A teacher's texts with a 15-year-old Year 11 pupil became flirtatious and then sexual and continued after an informal warning in February 2008, and he falsely told senior leaders he had not been in contact. He was prohibited from teaching, with a review possible after two years. When concerns arise about a teacher singling out a pupil, check for private messaging rather than accept a denial, and confirm that a warning has ended the contact. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school with secondary-age pupils in Yorkshire, 7 March 2013. A senior pastoral leader had an inappropriate relationship with a pupil through email, MSN and music websites, did not pass on that pupil's disclosure of sexualised texts from a parent, and emailed and texted pupils while suspended. With a sexually motivated relationship with another pupil, she was prohibited with no review period. Make sure staff pass any pupil disclosure of sexualised messages from an adult to the DSL, even if asked to keep it quiet, and bar all contact during suspension. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• An academy in Luton, 15 February 2013. A teacher sent text messages to a 14-year-old child with a view to visiting her to engage in sexual activity; the panel found sexual misconduct. It held the messages inappropriate although not explicitly sexual. The child appears to have known him through her family. He was prohibited from teaching with no right to apply for restoration. Do not wait for sexual content before acting: late-night texts from an adult to a child can be inappropriate even when not explicit. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Halifax, West Yorkshire, 13 February 2013. A newly qualified teacher kept a SIM used on a school trip and exchanged texts and calls with seven students on it, also called one from his personal phone, gave students money and gifts, and at first hid the extent of contact. He was prohibited with no review period. Collect trip phones and SIMs as soon as a trip ends and do not let staff use their own SIMs, so no direct line to students remains. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A girls' grammar school in Warwickshire, 11 February 2013. A teacher exchanged intimate and sexualised texts with a 17-year-old student, met her outside school and had her stay overnight at his house. Police recovered the texts from both phones, and the panel found a sexually motivated relationship; he was prohibited with no review period. Act at once when a student reports concern about a teacher's contact with a peer, and preserve the message evidence for the police and the panel. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A community college in Cornwall, 12 December 2012. A teacher sent a pupil's mother an inappropriate text of a sexual nature about a school matter, and the pupil saw it. Together with other proven conduct not involving messaging, this led to a prohibition order with no review. Set clear expectations for how staff message parents about school business and which channels they use; a personal text to a parent can reach the pupil. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school with a sixth form in North Yorkshire, 10 December 2012. A teacher gave an 18-year-old sixth-form student his private email and mobile number, added her on Facebook and Twitter and texted her regularly, despite repeated school warnings to staff about social media. The sexual activity allegation was not proven; he was prohibited with a review after five years. Make clear in the staff code that the ban on private social media and text contact covers sixth-formers aged 18 and over. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A school in England, type and area anonymised, 4 December 2012. A teacher took deliberate steps to contact a vulnerable student under 16, sending highly personal texts, emails and Skype messages and meeting alone, and did not bring the communications to the school's attention. He admitted the allegation and was prohibited from teaching with no review. Staff must never open private channels with a pupil, and must report any personal contact, and any sign of a pupil's vulnerability, to the DSL. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A residential special school in Cheshire, 26 September 2012. As deputy head and key care worker for a vulnerable 16-year-old, a teacher called or texted him 644 times over seven to eight months and wrote to him in over-affectionate terms. No sexual relationship was alleged; she was prohibited from teaching, with review after two years. Give key workers for vulnerable pupils written rules on out-of-hours contact, regular supervision and a duty to report boundary incidents, rather than leaving one senior member of staff alone. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A grammar school in Kent, 10 September 2012. A teacher exchanged social texts and emails with a 17-year-old Year 13 pupil and was given a written warning after being seen kissing her; two years later he texted and emailed a Year 12 pupil, leading to inappropriate physical contact on school premises. The Teaching Regulation Agency imposed a prohibition order, reviewable after three years. Where a teacher has been warned over private messaging with a pupil, check compliance actively rather than treating the warning as the end of the matter. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Oxford, 24 August 2012. After written guidance not to contact students out of school, a teacher kept emailing a student from a personal account; after suspension he got her mobile number from another student, texted her and tried to call. He was prohibited, with review after three years; sexual motivation was not alleged. Follow written no-contact guidance with checks and a clear route for the student and parents to report further contact, by email, text or calls. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary arts college in North Lincolnshire, 31 July 2012. A teacher contacted a 16-year-old pupil still on roll through Facebook and text messages, and the communications became sexual, including an indecent image he sent. He accepted a police caution for abuse of a position of trust and was prohibited from teaching with no provision to apply for it to be set aside. Treat any private social media or personal-number contact between staff and a pupil on roll, including a 16-year-old, as a child protection concern to report at once. Teaching Regulation Agency decision
• A secondary school in Essex, 27 July 2012. An early-career teacher exchanged a large volume of personal texts with a 15-year-old pupil he knew through church, as part of an inappropriate relationship, and later sent a text apologising for inappropriate texts. A prohibition order was made, reviewable after two years. Act on pupils' concerns about the volume of texts between a teacher and a classmate, and apply the same boundaries to contact through church or community roles. Teaching Regulation Agency decision

Nurseries, pre-schools and childminders (15)

Inspection findings, tribunal judgments, regulator decisions and reported incidents in early years settings where staff phones, photos or messaging featured. Settings are described by type and area.

• A nursery company with three settings, 4 August 2026. The tribunal confirmed Ofsted's cancellation of the company's registration, finding that prepared safeguarding answers sent to the staff WhatsApp group the day before Ofsted's staff interviews were coaching aimed at misleading the regulator. It also found that the main DSL, contactable only by WhatsApp or email while abroad for a lengthy period, had made arrangements that were not secure. Never send staff prepared answers before inspection interviews, and check your DSL cover would satisfy a regulator: here WhatsApp-or-email-only contact from abroad was found not secure. First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards) decision [2026] UKFTT 1115 (HESC)
• Department for Education, 13 July 2026. The Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework for group and school-based providers, issued on 13 July 2026 and in force from 1 September 2026, requires safeguarding policies to cover how mobile phones, cameras and other electronic devices with imaging and sharing capabilities are used in the setting. Check your safeguarding policy says how phones and other imaging and sharing devices are used in the setting; the framework names no app, so messaging apps are for your policy. Department for Education statutory framework (group and school-based providers)
• A pre-school run as a community interest company, 14 May 2026. After a pre-school manager reported concerns to Ofsted, including staff WhatsApp messages about inspectors' movements during an inspection, a director set up a new staff WhatsApp group that left her out. The employer did not respond or attend, so the findings were unchallenged; the tribunal upheld her whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair constructive dismissal claims. Never leave someone out of staff messaging groups after they raise concerns: the tribunal found excluding the manager from workplace communications was a whistleblowing detriment. Employment Tribunal judgment 6012669/2025
• A charity-run pre-school in north-west London, 16 April 2025. A mocking message posted in the senior staff's WhatsApp group, then deleted after the claimant screenshotted it, was found to be aimed at her, partly because of the deletion. The tribunal criticised the group for blurring work and personal boundaries, but all claims failed, the detriment claim because the sender did not then know of her protected disclosure. Set conduct rules for senior staff WhatsApp groups and keep setting business apart from personal chat; a deleted message can survive as a screenshot that a tribunal reads. Employment Tribunal judgment 2200448/2024
• A day nursery in Golborne, Greater Manchester, 28 November 2024. A practitioner's late-night post on the staff WhatsApp group led to a heated exchange; the manager asked for it to stop, the owner intervened and two colleagues were later spoken to about their language. Reading the exchange in its full context, the tribunal dismissed her race discrimination, harassment and dismissal claims. A tribunal will read a staff-group row in its full context, so record any requests to stop and any follow-up with staff about their language. Employment Tribunal judgment 2405868/2023
• A registered childminder in England, 23 October 2024. Ofsted suspended a childminder's registration after a parent reported minded children were present during a prolonged eviction from her home, and the tribunal confirmed a further six-week suspension. She said she messaged the parents' WhatsApp group to collect their children; the tribunal treated whether this reached all parents as in issue, noting no clear evidence of phone calls. In an emergency, do not rely on one group message: the tribunal treated whether a WhatsApp group message had reached every parent as an open question. First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards) decision [2024] UKFTT 899 (HESC)
• A day nursery that closed suddenly, claim heard at Birmingham, 2 August 2024. The nursery told staff by WhatsApp group message one evening that it was closing, then used WhatsApp about claiming unpaid wages and liquidation. Relying on messages the claimant read out, the tribunal found it closed without paying her and upheld her claim for 54 unpaid hours, with a 10% ACAS uplift; the employer did not take part. Keep your own retained record of what you tell staff by WhatsApp about closures and pay; otherwise a tribunal may read it only from the employee's phone. Employment Tribunal judgment 1300258/2024
• An out-of-school care service in Glasgow, 18 June 2024. A childcare practitioner filmed an upset child hiding in a toilet cubicle and posted the video on Snapchat. The Scottish Social Services Council removed her from its register, finding she showed no insight and did not apologise. Forbid staff from filming children on personal phones or sharing images on personal apps; here the regulator treated a single post as grounds for removal from the register. STV News report
• A day nursery and out-of-school club in the north of England, 9 May 2023. The employment dispute ran on text and WhatsApp, and the tribunal used the message trail to find the employee was still working, from home by agreement, and had been promised her wages. The owner's late, undated and unordered WhatsApp messages were excluded. Her unauthorised deductions claim succeeded, for about £3,791 net plus £6.45. Keep work messages on a channel that gives a dated, ordered record you can produce on time; here late, unordered WhatsApp evidence was refused. Employment Tribunal judgment 1800020/2023
• A private day nursery business with two nurseries in Derbyshire, 7 December 2022. Answering an employee's grievance, the owner accused her of harassing the acting manager by chasing it outside hours, including on Facebook Messenger, which staff routinely used, including for rotas. The tribunal found no message amounted to bullying and the accusation retaliatory and malicious, and upheld constructive unfair dismissal; the disability harassment claim over Facebook posts failed. If staff routinely use Messenger or WhatsApp for work, do not treat an employee using it to chase a grievance as harassment; have someone without a conflict handle grievances. Employment Tribunal judgment 2600346/2021
• A childminding service in Dundee, 23 May 2022. At an unannounced inspection, the Care Inspectorate recorded that photographs of minded children were sent to parents through WhatsApp to keep them involved, and discussed gathering families' views by WhatsApp or email. It raised no concern about either. This inspection did not examine consent or how images were held, so if you send photos to parents by WhatsApp, have parental consent and a policy on personal devices. Care Inspectorate inspection report, May 2022
• Ofsted, 28 October 2021. Ofsted's research into how nursery groups work noted that some support their nursery managers through informal WhatsApp groups, buddy systems and partner nurseries, alongside formal meetings. It drew no conclusion about whether that is appropriate. If your managers support each other in an informal WhatsApp group, treat it as part of how the organisation runs and agree what belongs there. Ofsted research report
• A further education college group's on-site nursery, East of England, 30 September 2021. During disciplinary proceedings, the claimant's husband sent a WhatsApp message to two nursery staff witnesses; the college then texted the parents that their child must leave at once. The tribunal criticised giving that decision by text without a chance to respond, though the nursery place was outside the employment relationship, and upheld constructive unfair dismissal for lack of welfare contact. Do not give significant decisions by text alone without a chance to respond, and act on the central employee's welfare as promptly as on witnesses'. Employment Tribunal judgment 3334706/2018
• A childminder in Medway, 12 March 2020. Ofsted found a childminder shared photographs and information with parents through messaging services without enough thought for protecting sensitive information, and had not secured information on devices such as mobile phones in line with GDPR. She was judged inadequate in every area, mainly on safety, hygiene and education. If you send parents photos and updates by messaging app, decide what is too sensitive to send and secure the phones that hold it. Ofsted inspection report
• A village-hall pre-school near Maidstone, Kent, 6 February 2016. Ofsted rated the pre-school, previously outstanding, inadequate after finding the owner texted photos of children from one mobile phone to parents' personal phones, with consent, and had not identified phone use as a safeguarding issue. The owner stopped sending photos and appealed. Parental consent is not enough on its own: treat sending photos of children by phone as a safeguarding matter, with a written policy and regular checks. KentOnline report

Care homes, home care and supported living (117)

CQC and devolved inspection findings, fitness-to-practise decisions, safeguarding adults reviews, tribunal judgments and reported incidents in which residents’ or service users’ information, photos or care arrangements went through messaging apps. Providers and workers are described by type, never named.

• A care home operator, claim heard in Bristol, 25 September 2026. Informal WhatsApp messages between a deputy manager and her registered manager showed support over time off and GP visits, so the tribunal rejected her account of bullying. One disability harassment and discrimination allegation succeeded, with £6,000 for injury to feelings; her other claims failed. Keep work messaging on a channel the organisation retains and can produce; contemporaneous manager–staff messages can outweigh later witness accounts. Employment Tribunal judgment 1401120/2025
• A domiciliary care provider in Northern Ireland, 25 August 2026. A domiciliary care worker missed an elderly man's teatime call; he was later found on his bedroom floor. She falsely told the Trust's safeguarding team and her employer she had attended. A WhatsApp message she sent a colleague two days later confirmed she had not. The Committee found dishonesty and made a six-month conditions of practice order. Staff WhatsApp messages can be produced in a disciplinary or regulatory investigation; check visit accounts against all available evidence when a missed call is suspected. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A live-in home care provider in Lancashire, 12 August 2026. An older man receiving live-in care expressed suicidal intent. His care worker did not escalate it and sent his daughter dismissive text messages that misstated the risk. The ombudsman found fault, including in the messages' tone, and the provider agreed to train staff on professional communication with families. Treat care workers' texts to families as professional communications: set standards for tone and accuracy, and an escalation route for any message about risk. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 25-015-202
• A dementia care home provider, case heard in Bury St Edmunds, 23 July 2026. One conduct allegation against a care worker was that she messaged a resident's next of kin from her personal phone without management approval; she said she had permission. The tribunal found the allegations warranted investigation, so her constructive dismissal claim failed; a holiday pay claim succeeded. Set out who may message residents' families and on which channel, so permission questions can be answered from a record. Employment Tribunal judgment 3305371/2024
• Social Work England, 21 July 2026. After an agency placement ended, a social worker used WhatsApp on her personal phone to ask a former colleague for confidential information about a child. The panel found a breach of professional boundaries and possible data protection concerns; with other proved allegations, including dishonesty, it found her fitness to practise impaired and suspended her for 12 months. Make clear that confidential information about a child must never be requested or passed on by WhatsApp on personal phones; use the organisation's secure channels. Social Work England fitness to practise decision SW76728
• A home care provider in East London, 21 July 2026. After the registered manager disclosed her pregnancy, the owner sent her a WhatsApp message saying he felt manipulated and would have changed or not signed her contract had he known. The tribunal treated it as the first reason for finding childbirth was the real reason for dismissal, and awarded £14,930.17. Pregnancy and maternity must play no part in decisions about a role; an informal message to staff can be the evidence of an employer's real reason. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200517/2024
• A home care provider in Aberdeen, 21 July 2026. The employer ran its disciplinary process largely by WhatsApp, including a meeting invitation with limited detail and no mention of the right to be accompanied, which the tribunal listed among its reasons for finding the dismissal unfair. Unfair dismissal succeeded, with £3,165.94 awarded after an 80% reduction for contributory conduct. Send disciplinary invitations as proper letters setting out the allegations, evidence and right to be accompanied, and document the reason for removing anyone from a work group. Employment Tribunal judgment 8002788/2025
• A domiciliary care provider in Portsmouth, 9 July 2026. A sponsored care worker's unanswered texts asking for his full contracted hours led the tribunal to reject the employer's claim that he had asked to cut them. Timesheets sent by WhatsApp evidenced his hours. Unlawful deductions, holiday pay and wrongful dismissal claims succeeded, with £28,123 awarded. Answer workers' messages about their hours in writing and keep rota and timesheet records, especially for sponsored workers. Employment Tribunal judgment 6005049/2025
• London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 6 July 2026. A stage three complaints panel upheld a complaint that care home staff only texted a looked-after child with a history of going missing, when a phone call might have alerted them the child was on a train. A second adjudicating officer changed this to partially upheld without giving reasons, which the ombudsman found was fault. For a child at risk of going missing, consider whether a text is enough to check on them; the review panel said a call might have alerted staff. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 25-012-071
• A home care provider in Scotland, 12 June 2026. An employee said a whistleblowing disclosure was followed up on WhatsApp, but the message referred to bullying, not the concern alleged, so the tribunal found it was never made. Her removal from the work WhatsApp group during sick leave came at her own request, so it was not a detriment. All complaints failed. When a worker off sick asks not to be contacted, record the request and the action taken, such as removal from a work group. Employment Tribunal judgment 4105167/2024
• A private children's home in Birmingham, 3 June 2026. Inspectors found staff shared confidential information about children in group chat messages on their personal mobile phones. The newly registered home was judged good overall, with leadership requiring improvement, and Ofsted set requirements on children's privacy and on protecting confidential information in line with GDPR. Even a home judged good drew formal requirements when staff shared children's confidential information in personal group chats; check which channels staff actually use. Ofsted inspection report
• A home care provider in London, 28 May 2026. A reablement carer got no answer at the door of a woman recovering from a stroke, sent her a text message and left; she had fallen. The ombudsman found the provider had not followed its no-reply policy and said a text alone was not enough. Make clear in no-reply procedures that a text is not a welfare check: staff must establish contact and tell the office before leaving. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 25-003-062
• Ealing, Hounslow and Southwark councils, 27 May 2026. Social workers used an encrypted messaging app with prospective adopters during a proposed adoptive placement. Hounslow and Ealing deleted the messages from the app and did not put them on their files, which the ombudsman found was fault. The councils accepted recommendations, including that the regional adoption agencies get adopters' written consent to such apps. Before staff message families on an app, get written consent, say messages will go on file, and copy them to the case record before deleting anything. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 24-015-544
• A supported accommodation provider in Nottinghamshire, 20 May 2026. At an Ofsted monitoring visit, inspectors found sensitive information about 16- and 17-year-olds shared on a messaging platform on staff's personal phones, with key-work sessions photographed and uploaded there rather than recorded in official systems. Managers knew and had not acted; the report set requirements, some subject to a compliance notice. Keep key-work records in the official system, not as photos posted to a messaging group, and expect managers who know of such a workaround to stop it. Ofsted monitoring visit report
• A home care provider covering West Sussex and Surrey, 14 May 2026. An age harassment claim rested partly on team WhatsApp messages, including a mistaken 50th birthday greeting and calling a care worker 'boss'. The tribunal found the exchanges respectful and drew no inference of discrimination; the absence of messages showing he had reported abuse counted against him. All claims failed. Keep work group chats professional, and record safeguarding reports in a system that can be produced later rather than scattered across messages. Employment Tribunal judgment 6007982/2024
• Social Work England, 6 May 2026. The regulator's guidance for decision makers on social workers communicating online asks whether content was shared among colleagues in a closed group space, and separately whether a social worker shared a service user's confidential details. Brief staff that the regulator considers whether comments stayed within a closed group of colleagues, and separately assesses any sharing of a service user's confidential details. Social Work England decision-making guidance
• A care home in Northern Ireland, 22 April 2026. A care assistant photographed a resident with dementia without consent, added an offensive caption and sent it to a third party on Snapchat; the recipient emailed the home. The Committee found all three particulars proved and made a removal order. Have a written mobile phone policy for care floors, keep it on the agenda in training and team meetings, and act at once when residents' images leave the building. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A care provider holding a sponsor licence in the West Midlands, 27 March 2026. An overseas care worker was recruited over WhatsApp. No conditions appeared in the WhatsApp or email record, so the tribunal found the offer was not subject to the conditions later relied on; it also found a withdrawal letter had been created for the defence. It awarded over £22,000 for unpaid wages and holiday pay, uplifted 20%. If offers are made by message, put any conditions in that same channel; a document that does not match the message record will be doubted. Employment Tribunal judgment 1308762/2023
• A Hertfordshire County Council children's home, 16 March 2026. An incident record noted a parent's text message saying a child had made an allegation about staff. The staff member did not recognise its relevance or tell a manager, managers missed it on review, and it was never explored. Ofsted set a requirement that staff identify safeguarding matters and take appropriate action. Treat an allegation that reaches staff by text like any other: report it to a manager, explore it, and check incident records for missed concerns. Ofsted assurance inspection report
• A domiciliary care provider in Middlesbrough, 11 March 2026. The registered manager messaged drop-in care workers on WhatsApp not to organise anything on their booked days. The tribunal held a worker reasonably read this as requiring standby, so unpaid gaps between visits counted as hours worked for minimum wage purposes, and awarded £284.85. Her unfair dismissal claim failed. Word availability instructions to staff carefully: a message telling workers to keep booked days free can turn unpaid gaps into paid standby time. Employment Tribunal judgment 2500119/2025
• A homecare provider in South East England, 26 February 2026. Background to an interim relief decision, not findings of fact: a manager posted a new client's HIV status in a work WhatsApp group, and a care worker who raised infection-control concerns, partly by WhatsApp, was removed from the group, suspended and dismissed. Relief was refused despite a pretty good chance of protected disclosures; the full claim was then undecided. Keep clients' health details out of staff group chats, and treat concerns raised by message as possible protected disclosures before acting against the person who raised them. Employment Tribunal judgment 6047937/2025
• Northumberland County Council, 19 February 2026. In a parent's statutory children's complaint about a parenting assessment and care proceedings, one of three points upheld or partly upheld concerned a weekend WhatsApp exchange between the parents and the social worker about a password, resolved the following week. The ombudsman did not investigate. Expect social workers' WhatsApp exchanges with parents to be examined by an independent investigator in a statutory complaint, and make sure they can be produced. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 25 013 687
• A domiciliary care franchisee in north-east Scotland, 17 February 2026. A care worker claimed pay for time spent on the staff WhatsApp group. The claim failed because joining was entirely voluntary and every management communication was also available through the care app, phone or email. The religion discrimination and other deductions claims also failed. Keep any staff messaging group optional and make sure nothing reaches staff only through it, or time spent on it may be argued to be working time. Employment Tribunal judgment 8001796/2025
• A care provider employing sponsored care workers, case heard in Birmingham, 13 February 2026. A worker was removed from the staff WhatsApp group and his shifts were cancelled by text; the tribunal found this was a dismissal, later rescinded, and counted the removal among facts supporting his race discrimination claim. Race discrimination, unpaid wages and breach of contract claims succeeded, with £18,271 awarded. Treat removing someone from a staff group chat or cancelling shifts by message as a management decision, with a recorded reason applied consistently. Employment Tribunal judgment 6019282/2024
• A residential children's home operator, claim heard in East London, 23 January 2026. The case was largely reconstructed from texts and WhatsApp. The tribunal put a rota misunderstanding down to separate message conversations with two managers, and weighed a staff group chat about an emergency safeguarding briefing. Sexual orientation discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims were all dismissed. Arrange shifts in one shared, retained thread that includes the line manager, rather than split one-to-one chats that invite misunderstandings. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200014/2024
• Haringey Council and a leaving-care support provider in London, 22 January 2026. A care leaver's mother texted his key worker at a council-commissioned support provider at about 9pm asking when he was last seen; the provider says the worker did not see it until 11.30pm. He was later found dead. The ombudsman found the council and provider at fault, including the provider's lack of a procedure to escalate safety concerns. Do not let urgent safety concerns depend on a text reaching one worker's phone; write a procedure for escalating them to managers and the commissioning council. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 24-008-108
• A home care provider, 6 January 2026. A pregnant home care worker, pinched and hit by a client and advised to go to hospital, was reprimanded by WhatsApp for unreliability and absences since her pregnancy, and resigned the same day. The tribunal upheld pregnancy discrimination and automatically unfair constructive dismissal, awarding £22,832.07 including interest. Managers' WhatsApp messages are evidence: train them that a reprimand sent by message can itself amount to unlawful discrimination. Employment Tribunal judgment 6010127/2024
• A learning disability and mental health care home in Wrexham county, 19 December 2025. Care Inspectorate Wales recorded that the home runs a WhatsApp group for families and posts photographs of residents taking part in activities. The inspectors presented this as positive family communication and made no requirement about it. A family WhatsApp group can be seen as good communication; the report did not consider consent, so record each resident's consent before their photographs are shared. Care Inspectorate Wales inspection report
• A supported accommodation provider for young people in care, East of England, 15 December 2025. At a preliminary hearing on employment status, a director's WhatsApp messages counted against the case that a worker was self-employed: one showed he regarded himself as her employer, and another let her carry on working after she was told she was fired. She was held to be an employee, so her claims proceed. Directors' informal messages can be weighed in deciding employment status, whatever contractor or franchise structure the business says it uses. Employment Tribunal judgment 3306538/2024
• A small supported living care provider for young adults, 5 December 2025. A support worker reported by WhatsApp that a service user had been locked in his home; her senior replied with a thumbs-up emoji and did not act. The tribunal held it a qualifying disclosure; whistleblowing detriment and indirect race discrimination succeeded, with about £14,174 awarded later. Treat safeguarding concerns raised by message as formal reports: log, escalate and act on them, because an emoji is not a response. Employment Tribunal judgment 6009247/2024
• A domiciliary care provider in Northern Ireland, 21 November 2025. A domiciliary care worker was an active member, from July 2022 to August 2023, of a staff WhatsApp group in which she and others posted derogatory, degrading and threatening comments about service users and office staff, and never raised concerns with her employer. The Committee found misconduct and removed her from the Register. Make clear in policy and induction that staff group chats must not demean clients and that members must report concerning content to a named manager. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A domiciliary care provider in Northern Ireland, 21 November 2025. A second domiciliary care worker at the same provider was an active member of the staff WhatsApp group that posted derogatory comments about service users and office staff, and did not report its content. The Committee found her fitness to practise impaired and made a removal order. Treat a staff chat about clients as a safeguarding and confidentiality matter: participation together with a failure to raise concerns led to removal from the Register. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A domiciliary care provider in Northern Ireland, 21 November 2025. A third domiciliary care worker in the same staff WhatsApp group was found to have been an active participant who failed to raise concerns with her co-ordinator or managers. The Committee removed her from the Register. Give staff a clear route for reporting colleagues' messages, naming the co-ordinators and managers they can tell, and remind them of it regularly. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A domiciliary care provider in Northern Ireland, 21 November 2025. A fourth domiciliary care worker in the same staff WhatsApp group, who also held a quality monitoring role, was found to have taken part and failed to raise concerns. The Committee, mindful of her additional role, removed her from the Register. Remind staff with quality or supervisory roles that they are expected to report inappropriate staff messaging, as the Committee took this role into account. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A domiciliary care provider in the East of England, 18 November 2025. No minutes were kept of a key sickness-absence meeting, so WhatsApp messages between a care worker and the office, with some follow-up emails, were the only objective evidence of what was said. The tribunal used them to test the HR adviser's account and found the employer lacked knowledge of his disability; his claims failed. Record sickness and health conversations in a kept, attributable form; if WhatsApp is the only record, the tribunal will test managers' evidence against it. Employment Tribunal judgment 3303481/2024
• A private children's home in Kent, 6 November 2025. Ofsted found a staff group chat app had been set up on staff's personal devices, on which children's lived experiences had been shared. The home fell from good to inadequate on all three judgements, and a children's privacy requirement was among requirements subject to a compliance notice. Make clear that children are not discussed in group chats on personal phones, and give staff an approved channel the organisation controls. Ofsted inspection report
• A single-child children's home in Derbyshire, 21 October 2025. At an Ofsted monitoring visit, inspectors found leaders and managers had shared sensitive information about the child with staff by text message on mobile phones, relying on informal communication. Inspectors said this gave no assurance that the child's information was managed safely or that care was consistent; requirements were restated. Brief staff about a child through the secure care record, not by text, so information is protected and everyone on shift works from the same version. Ofsted monitoring visit report
• A national care home operator, at a home in South East England, 25 September 2025. Abroad for family burials, a care worker told the care manager his revised return date by WhatsApp. The date was passed on, yet the disciplinary hearing was held the day before he returned. Unfair and wrongful dismissal succeeded, with compensation halved because he could have messaged his line manager through the WhatsApp groups. Absence rules should say whether message apps are accepted for reporting and to whom, and information sent to any manager must reach the decision-maker. Employment Tribunal judgment 3303649/2024
• A domiciliary care franchisee in the Bristol and Bath area, 19 September 2025. A care worker on notice resigned with immediate effect after a manager removed him from the staff WhatsApp group over a sarcastic post about pay. The tribunal found removal was capable of breaching trust, but there was reasonable cause because the group had rules and staff had been reminded of them; all claims failed. Give staff group chats written rules and dated reminders, so that removing someone can be justified; removal from a group open to others can otherwise breach trust. Employment Tribunal judgment 6002265/2023
• A care home in Gloucestershire, 12 August 2025. A resident assessed as at severe choking risk was taken off a soft-food diet without reassessment, and the change was announced to all staff by WhatsApp message. The coroner's concerns were the lack of a documented rationale or speech and language therapy reassessment, and that food brought in was not checked. Make sure any change to a resident's care plan, such as a modified diet, is assessed and its rationale documented, not simply announced in a staff message. Coroner's prevention of future deaths report 2025-0420
• An extra care housing provider in North Tyneside, 4 August 2025. At a council-commissioned extra care scheme, a care worker used a resident's own mobile phone to tell her son she had died. The council and provider accepted fault, including in that contact; the provider said a manager would normally contact family and the worker should have used a work mobile, and it apologised and paid him. Agree who tells families of a death, normally a manager, and make sure staff contacting families use a work phone rather than a resident's own phone. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 24-016-436
• A nursing home in Northern Ireland, 30 July 2025. A care assistant photographed an elderly resident in the bathroom, partly undressed, and sent the image to another person. The image reached a colleague, who reported it under the whistleblowing policy. He was convicted of ill-treating a patient, barred by the DBS and removed from the Register. Make sure staff know that receiving an image of a resident is reportable under whistleblowing and safeguarding procedures; here a recipient's report started the case. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A Health and Social Care Trust children's home in Northern Ireland, 17 July 2025. A youth practitioner sent sexual messages on Snapchat to a girl in care at the home, who showed them to the home's Assistant Social Work Manager. He was convicted of sexual offences against a child while in a position of trust, and the Committee made a removal order. Consider forbidding private social media or messaging contact between staff and looked-after children, and make sure young people know they can show a manager such messages. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A residential care provider in north London, 8 July 2025. A registered manager's alleged whistleblowing disclosures were WhatsApp messages to a director; the tribunal analysed each and found none protected. The same chats showed the director's claim to have felt bullied was deliberately false. Race and sex discrimination succeeded in part, with remedy totalling £6,002.66. Expect management WhatsApp chats to be disclosed in full and read line by line; raise and keep staffing and whistleblowing concerns through a channel the organisation controls. Employment Tribunal judgment 3314749/2022
• A supported housing provider in Luton, 20 June 2025. A woman with mental health needs in supported housing took her own life the day after telling police she wanted to end it. A message she had sent a support worker was passed to night staff over WhatsApp and at handover, without telling them of her threats; the review found poor handovers and gaps in communication between agencies. Make every handover, by chat message or in person, state the current risk, including any threat to end a life, not just the message received. Luton Safeguarding Adult Board safeguarding adults review
• A registered care provider, 15 May 2025. A deputy manager was dismissed two days after reporting a senior colleague's sexually inappropriate conduct. The employer cited complaints about her use of the managers' WhatsApp group but did not disclose the chat, producing only a one-page extract on the second day of the hearing. Her whistleblowing and victimisation claims succeeded. If you rely on someone's conduct in a WhatsApp group, keep and disclose the whole chat; unsupported claims about it will not stand. Employment Tribunal judgment 3309346/2023
• Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, 2 May 2025. A senior practitioner social worker exchanged explicit text messages with a mother who was his service user and sent her explicit images and videos. He was suspended in 2023; at the May 2025 review he showed insufficient insight or remediation and had been barred by the DBS, and the Committee made a removal order. Keep contact between social workers and service users on channels the organisation manages, and act promptly on any report of sexualised messaging with a service user. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise review decision
• A care service in Fortrose, Highland, 1 May 2025. A carer photographed herself beside a vulnerable service user in a private moment, without consent, and shared it on Snapchat with mocking captions; a third person later posted it on a public Facebook page. She also failed to disclose her dismissal when applying for another care post, and the SSSC removed her from the register. Ban photographing service users on personal phones in your mobile phone policy; an image sent on a disappearing-message app can still be saved and posted publicly. STV News report
• Liverpool City Council, 16 April 2025. A care leaver alleged misconduct by a staff member at her semi-independent placement, saying she had call logs and text messages from him. The ombudsman found the council failed to consider the allegation properly and should have notified the LADO; the referral came almost two years later. The council agreed to pay £1,000 for this fault. When a young person reports calls or messages from a staff member, refer to the LADO without delay; a two-year delay here likely reduced the reliability of the evidence. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 24 005 716
• A supported-living provider for adults with learning disabilities, London, 1 April 2025. A support worker relied on a WhatsApp rota conversation with his manager as a refusal to work excessive hours. Reading the whole thread with timestamps, the tribunal found the manager was trying to limit his hours and stop seven-day runs. His working time and automatic unfair dismissal claims failed. Keep rota conversations complete and retained, and have managers state limits on excessive shifts plainly in writing. Employment Tribunal judgment 2303339/2024
• A single-child children's home in Leicestershire, 30 January 2025. Staff used their personal mobile phones to play online games and chat with the child in an open in-game messenger, including in the child's bedroom. Inspectors said this exposed the child to potential harm; the home was judged inadequate on all three judgements, with an online safety requirement under a compliance notice. Do not let staff chat with children on personal phones or through open in-game messengers; risk-assess online contact with children like any other contact. Ofsted inspection report
• Disclosure and Barring Service, 25 November 2024. A care home team leader was barred from both lists on grounds including a video call to a teenage girl made while feeding a resident at work, and harassment of two teenage girls through social media and texts. The Upper Tribunal found no material error and upheld the barring. Cover staff use of personal messaging and video apps both during residents' care and outside work in your code of conduct; misuse can lead to barring. Upper Tribunal judgment [2024] UKUT 377 (AAC)
• A private children's home in Lancashire, 13 November 2024. The manager and staff shared information as a group through an instant messaging app on their personal phones, and staff breached the provider's policy against photographing children on personal phones. The home fell from good to inadequate on all three judgements, with a requirement that confidential information shared on mobile phones follows the provider's policy. Check what staff actually use on their personal phones and set rules for staff messaging about children, not only for taking photographs. Ofsted inspection report
• A care home in Fife, 14 October 2024. A care assistant photographed part of the body of a resident receiving end-of-life care and sent the image to a member of the public, breaching her employer's mobile phones at work policy. The SSSC, noting the resident seemed not to have come to real harm, placed a 24-month warning on her registration. Keep a written mobile phone policy that bans photographing residents; here the regulator measured the worker's conduct against the employer's own policy. The Courier report
• A care home group in the Bristol area, 23 September 2024. A clinically vulnerable care worker relied partly on text exchanges with managers, including a text of hers left unanswered. The staff WhatsApp group showed the first COVID case was news to staff, not hidden, and her own texts showed she had chosen to stay at home. Her discrimination and constructive dismissal claims failed. Answer messages from absent or vulnerable staff and keep group threads; an unanswered text can be alleged as unfavourable treatment, and the threads can show openness. Employment Tribunal judgment 1404212/2021
• A residential care home provider in North West England, 29 August 2024. A manager and senior carer ran their working relationship over WhatsApp. The messages disproved the employer's claimed probation reviews, showed a change of tone after she disclosed her pregnancy, and recorded an effective dismissal by a message cancelling her shift. Pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal succeeded. Record probation reviews and decisions properly and never end employment by casual message; a tribunal will prefer what the chat shows over later paperwork. Employment Tribunal judgment 2409868/2022
• London Borough of Islington, 26 August 2024. A prospective family carer complained that the council's text messages and letter while she was travelling were too frequent and inappropriate. The ombudsmen read copies, found them direct but not inappropriate or discourteous, and did not investigate, suggesting the Information Commissioner for her information-handling concerns. Keep copies of the texts your staff send families and keep the wording courteous; here the copies let the ombudsmen see the messages were direct but not inappropriate. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 24 004 353
• Disclosure and Barring Service, 17 August 2024. A residential support worker at a children's home was barred after exchanging phone calls and WhatsApp messages with a boy she supported, including after he left the home, without reporting the contact to her employer. The Upper Tribunal dismissed her appeal and confirmed the barring. Require staff to report any personal messaging contact with a young person in your care, including after they leave; unreported contact can lead to barring. Upper Tribunal judgment [2024] UKUT 249 (AAC)
• A small residential care home in Torquay, Devon, 10 July 2024. The home sent urgent Covid outbreak messages through an all-staff WhatsApp group. A worker denied being a member and the manager could not say for certain she had added her; the tribunal relied on the owner's evidence, the manager's practice of adding new starters and staff meetings to find she was. Her race discrimination and holiday pay claims were dismissed. If a group chat carries urgent safety information, keep a reliable record of who is a member and when they were added. Employment Tribunal judgment 1403123/2022
• A care home in Fife, 26 June 2024. A senior care assistant sent Snapchat videos mocking an elderly resident who lacked capacity while she was undressed, and filmed another resident he had assaulted. He was convicted of three offences, including assault, and the SSSC removed him from the register. Make clear to staff that filming residents for messaging apps can be a criminal matter as well as misconduct, and a gross breach of residents' privacy. STV News report
• A residential care home provider for young people, case heard in East London, 25 June 2024. A colleague sent an employee late-night messages with remarks about her appearance. Because they had swapped numbers for work and she was on shift, the tribunal held the messages were in the course of employment and the employer was liable for sex and race harassment, awarding £3,500 plus interest. Make clear that the conduct policy covers messages between staff on personal phones, and keep evidence of the preventative steps taken. Employment Tribunal judgment 3220651/2020
• A council-arranged supported living placement on the Isle of Wight, 15 May 2024. A mother complained about support for her adult daughter in supported living. The council's investigation said the resident preferred contact by text message, could text staff when she wanted support, and received daily welfare messages. The ombudsman did not investigate. Where a person chooses text messaging as their contact method, record that choice and the welfare messages sent; the council relied on those records to show support was offered. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 23 020 560
• A supported living provider, 9 May 2024. A team leader complained that his manager had used a racist term about Black staff; the provider said it was used in a WhatsApp group chat, but its grievance investigation never obtained the messages and they were not kept. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal and sent the complaint back for a fresh decision. When a complaint concerns staff group messages, obtain and keep them: here neither the grievance investigation nor the tribunal ever saw them. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment [2024] EAT 89
• A domiciliary care agency in Northern Ireland, 8 May 2024. In 2017 a domiciliary outreach worker forwarded a video clip with indecent content by WhatsApp to a colleague, who reported it to the police; it was also reported to management. He accepted a caution in 2021, was barred by the DBS and was removed from the Register in 2024. Remind staff that content shared between colleagues' phones is a reportable conduct matter, and support staff who report it, as the colleague here did. Northern Ireland Social Care Council Fitness to Practise decision
• A care home in the west of Scotland, 26 April 2024. A care assistant sent a friend videos and messages showing a resident receiving end-of-life care in an undignified state, and posted photos taken in another resident's bathroom to social media. The SSSC found she had abused the trust placed in her and removed her from the register. State in your policy that sending a resident's image to anyone outside the service, friends included, breaches their dignity and privacy. STV News report
• A large care provider for older people, at one of its homes, 28 March 2024. During a Covid outbreak, a manager messaged an administrator on WhatsApp in the evenings to arrange rota cover. The tribunal found she had implicitly authorised the out-of-hours work, as she never told him to stop, and awarded £1,974 of £3,775.50 claimed, including £621 for rota work proved by the messages and his evidence. Out-of-hours requests by message can amount to authorising paid work; set a clear out-of-hours policy and keep the threads that show what was asked. Employment Tribunal judgment 2207855/2022
• A charitable hospice in London, 20 March 2024. A director's WhatsApp message to a clinical manager off sick with Covid, asking when she would return, was itself a discrimination allegation; only one of several texts was in evidence. The tribunal read its wording as applying to all managers, and all her claims were dismissed. Take care with messages to staff who are off sick, and keep them, because the exact wording may become the allegation. Employment Tribunal judgment 3310126/2021
• A council-commissioned home care agency in Stockport, 15 March 2024. After an incident, a home care agency sent the council a relative's WhatsApp messages asking staff to be firm in getting a man up. The ombudsman could not say the care worker was at fault, but found fault in the agency's untrue account to a safeguarding meeting and unclear complaint response; the council agreed to apologise and pay £150. Make sure the account given to a safeguarding meeting matches the messages actually exchanged with families, because those messages will be produced as evidence. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 23 008 242
• A nursing home in North Berwick, East Lothian, 24 January 2024. A care assistant filmed a vulnerable resident and posted videos on social media, one on Snapchat, and was sacked; she later lied on applications to other care employers about her dismissals. The SSSC removed her from the register, finding a warning would not protect service users or the public. Check references directly with previous care employers, because a worker dismissed from a care post may not disclose it on an application. STV News report
• A domiciliary care agency (claim heard at London South), 15 January 2024. Almost all dealings between a care worker and the director over terms, expenses and pay happened on WhatsApp. From those messages the tribunal found no written particulars were given at the start, the contract was signed and backdated later, and travel costs were agreed orally. Wage deduction and breach of contract claims succeeded. Put terms of employment in writing at the start, and handle care staff's pay and expense queries through a recorded channel rather than informal WhatsApp exchanges. Employment Tribunal judgment 2301362/2023
• A domiciliary care agency in Co. Armagh, 9 January 2024. RQIA found staff used an on-call WhatsApp group to record matters that were not on the care-planning system and were not reported to the commissioning trust. The inspection led to enforcement action, and RQIA required any messaging service to be secure, carry no identifiable service-user information and be audited. If staff use a WhatsApp group for on-call messages, put anything about a person's care in the care record, report it, and secure and audit the group. RQIA inspection report
• A supported living and domiciliary care provider, claim heard in Croydon, 31 December 2023. Rotas posted to the employer's staff WhatsApp group helped defeat a support worker's claim that he was shut out of the full rota, and his evidence about a group exchange, which left out his own reply, damaged his credibility. Direct race discrimination failed; unfair dismissal succeeded, with compensation later limited. Keep the history of work groups used for rotas; messages posted to a whole group show who could see what and test later accounts. Employment Tribunal judgment 2302337/2021
• A domiciliary care provider in Southampton, 12 December 2023. Several race-related allegations centred on work WhatsApp groups. The tribunal found the posts about a service user's language respectful, that the worker had repeatedly switched on disappearing messages, deleting work messages for everyone, and that she had removed herself from the groups. All claims were dismissed. Set rules for work group chats on retention, membership and purpose, since any member may switch on disappearing messages and remove the record for everyone. Employment Tribunal judgment 6000679/2023
• A small family-run home care provider in Hampshire, 1 December 2023. A registered manager's abusive text and WhatsApp messages to the director, including threats to report to the regulator unless she got her way, were the main evidence of her conduct. The tribunal found a threat to disclose is not protected and her whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim failed. Keep work messages between managers professional and preserved, because a tribunal will read the whole thread from both sides. Employment Tribunal judgment 1403710/2022
• A domiciliary care agency in Witney, Oxfordshire, 17 October 2023. Staff told CQC inspectors that updates on people, incident reports and complaints about staff were shared through WhatsApp, identifying people by name and postcode. The agency was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures, with the confidentiality failure recorded as a good governance breach. Keep incidents, complaints and updates about people in the provider's own recording system, not a staff WhatsApp group where names and postcodes identify them. CQC inspection report
• A care recruitment and training agency in Croydon, 17 October 2023. The director deleted a staff member's WhatsApp messages from his phone around the time he dismissed her, after harassment complaints; the tribunal found his reason implausible. Her surviving screenshots showed no warnings had been given. Sexual harassment claims succeeded, the dismissal was found to be harassment and victimisation, and about £31,000 was awarded. Keep work messaging on a channel the organisation retains, so both sides' messages survive; a warning the contemporaneous chat never mentions is unlikely to be believed. Employment Tribunal judgment 3312293/2022
• A domiciliary home care provider in Essex, 4 August 2023. A care assistant working her notice messaged her manager on WhatsApp, during a dispute about forced check-ins on the care app, that she no longer worked for them from that day. The tribunal held the message a clear immediate resignation, so no further notice pay was due; a wages claim succeeded in part. Keep the whole WhatsApp conversation, not an excerpt, and confirm in writing promptly how you are treating a message that appears to be a resignation. Employment Tribunal judgment 3205112/2022
• A home care nursing agency in north London, 27 June 2023. A carer dismissed over unauthorised people carrying out her care duties won unfair dismissal, but compensation was heavily reduced partly because she had deleted messages with key witnesses once litigation was likely. Her WhatsApp message to the director was also relied on to defeat her pay claims. Keep work messaging on a retained channel the organisation controls, so the record survives an individual deleting their copy, and disclose managers' own texts. Employment Tribunal judgment 3306684/2021
• Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, June 2023. During Covid, the placing council's reviews of a non-verbal woman with dementia in a west London nursing home were held by phone or WhatsApp. The safeguarding adults review noted this left the council completely reliant on the home and family to identify concerns. Where placement reviews move to phone or WhatsApp, plan how concerns will be identified for residents who cannot speak for themselves, rather than relying on the home and family. Ealing Safeguarding Adult Board safeguarding adults review
• A home care provider, 30 May 2023. A family member set up a WhatsApp group with home carers. The ombudsman found injustice from missed, late and shortened visits and the provider agreed to pay £100, but found the personal care appropriate: the care records and WhatsApp messages showed carers had reported concerns to the family. Expect WhatsApp messages between carers and families to be read alongside care records in a complaint; here both showed carers had reported concerns. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 22 014 032
• A care home operator in the East of England, 6 April 2023. Three nurses relied on WhatsApp or text screenshots relaying a manager's alleged disparaging remark; the tribunal found the relayed account unreliable hearsay and that the remark was not made. A partial screenshot of a forwarded email meant something different once the full chain was read. Their race discrimination and harassment claims failed. Keep complete, original work communications so that a relayed remark or partial screenshot can be checked against the full exchange. Employment Tribunal judgment 3303718/2020
• A residential and dementia care home operator in Yorkshire, 3 April 2023. Staff communicated through WhatsApp groups. The tribunal tested a senior carer's account against her messages, found she had never raised the disadvantage of working short there despite being frank with colleagues, and held the employer lacked the knowledge needed for a reasonable adjustments duty. Her disability discrimination claims failed. Keep staff group chats retrievable: a tribunal will read them to decide what managers knew, and when a concern was or was not raised. Employment Tribunal judgment 1801651/2022
• A family-run operator of two care homes, claim heard in Birmingham, 30 March 2023. A registered manager said she raised a pressure mattress problem in the home's WhatsApp group used for director authorisations. The director said there was no group, and the respondents did not disclose the messages, so the tribunal accepted her account. Unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and disability-related discrimination succeeded; £100,840.34 was later awarded. If operational authorisations go through a message group, make sure the organisation can produce the messages; without them, a tribunal may accept the employee's account. Employment Tribunal judgment 1305965/2018
• A care home in Shropshire, 27 February 2023. After a resident was given drinks that were too hot, the care home reminded staff by WhatsApp message some time later. Shropshire Council told the ombudsman this was not a suitable or adequate way to communicate with staff; the ombudsman upheld the complaint on several care failings. Do not rely on an informal WhatsApp message to pass a safety instruction to care staff after an incident; the commissioning council judged it unsuitable. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 22-009-142
• A national care provider, case heard in East London, 1 February 2023. After dismissing an HR adviser during probation, the decision-maker forwarded her WhatsApp messages and photos to the appeal officer. The tribunal saw this as a scramble for after-the-event evidence showing the stated reason was a pretext. Automatic unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims succeeded. Base dismissal decisions on evidence gathered beforehand; staff messages collected afterwards to support a decision are likely to be read as pretext. Employment Tribunal judgment 3201871/2021
• A care service in Lanark, 26 January 2023. A care assistant gave a service user her payment details and phone number and regularly messaged her on WhatsApp asking for transfers, taking £825 over four months in 2021. The SSSC found her fitness to practise impaired and placed a 24-month warning on her registration. Forbid staff from giving service users personal numbers or messaging them on personal apps, and route contact through channels the provider manages. STV News report
• A domiciliary care agency in Haywards Heath, West Sussex, 13 December 2022. The manager created a staff WhatsApp group without considering people's personal information: there were no safeguards to stop staff seeing data about people they did not support, and it was not password protected. CQC rated Well-led Inadequate and the service Requires Improvement, with a good governance breach for missing auditing and record systems. Before staff use any group chat, assess the data protection risk and limit each worker to information about the people they support. CQC inspection report
• A care and support provider in Edinburgh, 26 November 2022. A support worker shouted at an autistic service user, filmed it and shared the video in a chat with a colleague, and sent derogatory comments about service users in a WhatsApp group with two colleagues. The SSSC called the group messages a serious abuse of trust and placed a 12-month warning on her registration. State in your code of conduct that comments about the people you support in any staff chat are covered, and that videos of them must never be shared. STV News report
• A national social care charity, case heard in Scotland, 18 October 2022. The charity said an appeal had been held but had no paperwork; the employee's unanswered texts asking for news of her appeal led the tribunal to find none took place. The dismissal was unfair on procedure, with a basic award of £9,459.12; disability claims failed. Reply to and log staff messages about an appeal, and keep a written record of every appeal step. Employment Tribunal judgment 4113831/2021
• London Borough of Sutton, 13 October 2022. A complainant said a council officer asked her inappropriate questions, gave her his personal phone number, asked her out and looked at her personal messages and photographs on a messaging app. The council upheld her complaint in full and recommended formal management action, an apology and £200; the ombudsman did not investigate as that remedy was suitable. Treat an officer giving a service user a personal number or looking at her private messages as misconduct, as this council did when it upheld the complaint. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 22-008-391
• Torbay Council, 11 September 2022. In a child protection case, the council accepted a social worker had failed for four months to communicate with a father through an agreed method accessible to him; he said she kept sending texts he could not access. The ombudsman found fault; the council apologised and reminded staff of the importance of accessible communication. Record each parent's agreed, accessible communication method and check staff use it, rather than defaulting to text messages. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 21-017-478
• A private children's home in Birmingham for 11 to 17-year-olds, 10 August 2022. The registered manager and staff used a mobile messaging service to share information about the children, and inspectors said it was not clear how it had been assessed as appropriate or suitable. Leadership and management was judged inadequate, and the home overall requires improvement to be good. Before staff use any messaging tool for information about children, record an assessment of whether it is suitable and secure. Ofsted inspection report
• A home care agency, 11 July 2022. A family and a home care agency communicated through a WhatsApp group, and the agency said complaints about individual workers should not be raised there. The ombudsman found fault in medication recording, communication with the family and one visit; the agency agreed to apologise and pay £100. Make clear to families which record is the official one; here the family relied on WhatsApp and handwritten notes while the agency relied on its electronic records. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 21 006 689
• A domiciliary care provider, case heard in Leeds, 10 March 2022. A carer said colleagues excluded her from their WhatsApp group because of her disclosures. The exclusion was not disputed, but there was no evidence of how many were in the group or why she was excluded, so the complaint failed; her own texts also undermined another alleged disclosure. Her other claims failed or were withdrawn. Know which messaging groups carry rota and handover information, and keep a record of who belongs to them. Employment Tribunal judgment 1802056/2021
• A council-commissioned care home in Kent, 7 March 2022. During COVID-19 restrictions a care home set up a private messaging system for families and told them how to register; this family did not register. Some staff let the family video call their father on personal phones as a goodwill gesture. The ombudsman found no fault. When you set up a family messaging system, tell every family how to register; the ombudsman accepted this as appropriate effort to keep a resident in touch. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 21 004 314
• A small family-run domiciliary care provider near Bristol, 21 December 2021. The owner told a care assistant by WhatsApp to hand in her notice and, when she refused, that she would get no work; the tribunal found this was a dismissal and awarded notice and holiday pay. Her whistleblowing claims failed, and her own texts defeated the payslip claim. Do not decide employment matters in a heated message; a WhatsApp telling someone to resign and withdrawing work can amount to dismissal. Employment Tribunal judgment 1403741/2020
• A home care provider in the East of England, 21 October 2021. A holiday pay claim rested on one March 2020 WhatsApp message to all staff asking those with leave booked in future months to consider making themselves available. The tribunal read its wording closely, found it neither cancelled nor prevented leave, and dismissed the claim. Word all-staff broadcasts about leave, hours or duties as carefully as a letter and keep a copy; a tribunal will construe their exact words. Employment Tribunal judgment 3307863/2020
• A domiciliary care agency in the Peterborough area, 19 August 2021. A care manager was dismissed in a short WhatsApp call; minutes later the owner messaged senior staff that she no longer worked there. The timestamps disproved the owner's account, and the tribunal found unfair dismissal, awarding £14,856 with the maximum 25% ACAS uplift, plus £923.06 holiday pay. Never dismiss anyone by call or message without a fair procedure; message timestamps can disprove a manager's later account of what happened. Employment Tribunal judgment 3303785/2020
• A specialist learning disability care provider in the East Midlands, 23 June 2021. A deputy manager's WhatsApp messages with a team leader mocked a new operations manager, urged working to rule and passed on internal emails. The tribunal found they showed active undermining, and her failure to produce other messages after replacing her phone hurt her credibility. Her whistleblowing dismissal claim and those of two colleagues failed. Set expectations that work conversations between managers and staff happen where the organisation can keep and produce them. Employment Tribunal judgment 2600557/2019
• A domiciliary community care provider in South West England, 16 June 2021. A care worker said he was removed from work group chats after raising concerns about travelling while overtired. Refusing interim relief, the judge said the employer's WhatsApp messages did not appear to support his account; no findings of fact were made, and a default judgment on liability later followed. Keep work messages retrievable, as they can weigh heavily in early disputes, but a good record helps only if the organisation responds to the claim. Employment Tribunal judgment 1400290/2021
• A family-owned care home operator in the South East, 18 November 2020. The employer sent a suspension letter by WhatsApp to a profoundly deaf maintenance worker who could not read it, and nobody went through it with him. The tribunal held this was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment; his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims also succeeded. Deliver formal letters such as suspensions in a way that meets the employee's known communication needs, not only as a message to their phone. Employment Tribunal judgment 2302883/2019
• A children's home in Essex, 1 October 2020. During a Covid-era assurance visit, Ofsted found staff had let a young person use the home's mobile phone unsupervised, giving access to text messages between staff, the young person's parent and their social worker. Inspectors recorded some resulting tension with the family and found staff not fully aware of wider safeguarding issues. Treat a shared work phone holding professional messages as a confidential record: lock it and keep it out of children's hands. Ofsted assurance visit report
• A supported accommodation provider in Oldham, August 2020. A support worker filmed a young woman with a severe learning disability in distress at night on a personal mobile phone and shared the video with practitioners. The review found no mental capacity assessment, best-interests decision or consideration of less intrusive alternatives, and recommended assurance that a policy on video recording of service users is in place. Before staff film a resident to share with clinicians, require a capacity assessment, a best-interests decision, a check for less intrusive options and a written policy. Oldham Safeguarding Adults Board safeguarding adults review
• A care service in Auchterarder, Perth and Kinross, 23 March 2020. A social care officer sent multiple derogatory WhatsApp messages about service users and their families to a group over 12 days in 2018. The SSSC found her fitness to practise impaired and placed an 18-month warning on her registration. Train staff that what they write about service users in private messaging groups can reach the regulator and lead to a sanction on their registration. The Courier report
• A children's home in Staffordshire, 5 March 2020. At its first inspection, Ofsted found staff knew a child at risk of sexual exploitation used Snapchat to contact people known to use illegal substances, but took little action. The home was judged inadequate on all three judgements. When staff know a child is using a messaging app to contact risky adults, they must act to reduce the risk; knowing is not enough. Ofsted inspection report
• A domiciliary care agency in Horsham, West Sussex, 26 February 2020. Managers and staff shared people's full names, medicines, diagnoses and treatment through an unprotected messaging app on personal phones and through personal email; the registered manager stopped its use for people's information during the inspection. CQC kept the service at Requires Improvement, citing the provider's failure to spot the practice in a continued good governance breach. Do not send people's names, medicines or diagnoses through an unprotected chat app or personal email, and audit so you find it before an inspector does. CQC inspection report
• A franchised care provider, case heard in East London, 23 December 2019. A compliance officer made redundant won unfair dismissal. The employer said she would have been dismissed anyway over a right-to-work fine, but had no investigation or contemporaneous records, and WhatsApp messages between her and the care worker involved supported her account that a colleague made the error. Investigate and document compliance failures such as right-to-work checks at the time, before attributing blame to anyone. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200567/2018
• A children's residential home in Caerphilly county borough, 10 October 2019. Staff in a WhatsApp group set up by the manager made derogatory comments about two young residents and their families; a resident found the messages on a staff phone and both girls ran away. A Social Care Wales panel removed the manager and three workers from the register for at least five years. Tell staff in writing that joining a chat that demeans residents, without challenging or reporting it, is itself misconduct, and keep staff phones away from residents. Caerphilly Observer report
• A domiciliary care agency in Rochdale, 23 May 2019. The agency arranged visits and tasks with people, families and staff through WhatsApp groups, with consent, but did not carry that content into care files, which were out of date. CQC rated it Requires Improvement and found a good governance breach; the director agreed to transfer WhatsApp records to care plans and introduce audits. If care is arranged in a messaging group, make sure what is agreed there reaches the care record, and audit that it does. CQC inspection report
• A care home operator, 2 January 2019. A senior carer filmed a distressed resident with dementia and sent the video by WhatsApp to a care assistant, who raised it about six weeks later and was dismissed by the home's new operator. The tribunal held the dismissal fair: the employer believed she had witnessed the incident and should have reported it at once. Tell staff that a video of a resident being mistreated must be reported immediately; here a weeks-long delay was fair grounds for dismissal. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200266/2018
• A care home in Leicestershire, 26 November 2018. A director used WhatsApp to threaten a pregnant worker with disciplinary action and dismissal over a Facebook post, and answered her discrimination concern with laughing emojis. The tribunal held the messages breached trust and confidence; constructive and pregnancy-related unfair dismissal succeeded, and the emojis raised the injury to feelings award. Handle disciplinary matters through a formal process, not a chat thread; threats before any investigation or mocking replies can on their own breach trust and confidence. Employment Tribunal judgment 2600178/2018
• A care home in Whitehaven, West Cumbria, 27 December 2017. A care worker filmed a distressed elderly resident and shared the recording with colleagues through a WhatsApp group; another carer reported it. Five staff were dismissed and referred to the DBS, the matter went to adult safeguarding and the police, and the home ran refresher training and reminded staff that phones cannot be used at work. Make sure your disciplinary policy covers forwarding or keeping footage of residents, not just filming it; here everyone who passed it on was dismissed. Whitehaven News report
• A domiciliary care agency in East Sussex, 23 November 2016. The agency sent information to care workers' personal phones, some of which could include people's personal details, with no policy on password protection or deleting it once no longer needed. CQC found confidentiality was not always ensured and rated the service Inadequate overall; the provider later said it had introduced a policy. If personal information goes to staff's personal phones, have a written policy on protecting it and deleting it when it is no longer needed. CQC inspection report
• A specialist dementia nursing home in Cumbria, 31 March 2016. Three care workers at a specialist dementia nursing home were convicted of ill-treatment and neglect after thousands of degrading texts, photographs and videos of residents were found on their phones, despite a ban on staff phones. The serious case review found other staff must have noticed, and a colleague's attempt to stop it was not followed up. Supervise a no-phones rule actively and follow up when staff raise concerns; a written policy and training alone did not stop staff misusing personal phones. Cumbria Safeguarding Adults Board serious case review
• A nursing home in Middleton, Greater Manchester, 25 January 2016. Video and photographs appeared to show staff taunting residents with dementia by mistreating their comfort dolls, and were believed to have been shared between some staff over WhatsApp. Two staff were suspended pending an investigation and the incident was reported to the police. Make clear that recording residents on staff phones, or forwarding such recordings, is a disciplinary and safeguarding matter. BuzzFeed News report
• A private children's home in Bedford, 8 July 2014. Staff had no work phone able to text young people, so used their own phones to keep in touch, including when young people went missing. Ofsted recommended giving staff the resources they need; the home was judged inadequate overall, mainly because safeguarding allegations were not referred to the local authority designated officer. Give staff a work phone for contacting children, especially when a child is missing, so they never fall back on their own number. Ofsted inspection report
• A private children's home in Lewisham, 25 July 2012. Individual staff sometimes texted information to parents from their personal mobile phones, and the texts were not logged in the home's records. Inspectors said this left children's personal information insecure and blurred professional boundaries; overall effectiveness and safeguarding were judged inadequate. Route contact with families through work channels and log it; texts from personal phones leave no record and blur professional boundaries. Ofsted inspection report

Charities, churches, youth and sports groups (23)

Tribunal judgments, regulator guidance and reported incidents in charities and volunteer-run groups, from trustee decisions on WhatsApp to safeguarding in volunteer groups. Charities are described by type unless a regulator’s published action names them.

• A registered charity in England and Wales, 1 October 2026. The founder trustee appealed a five-year disqualification order. The tribunal found serious mismanagement, no reliable minutes of meetings or decisions, and trustees' discussions mostly held by email or WhatsApp, and said all trustees are responsible for minuting. It quashed the order, finding a co-trustee concealed the worst failings, and did not find the founder trustee unfit. Make sure trustee meetings and decisions are minuted as the governing document requires, even when discussion happens by email or WhatsApp; every trustee shares that responsibility. First-tier Tribunal (Charity) decision [2026] UKFTT 1365 (GRC)
• A religious charity in England, 30 September 2026. The court declared the charity's 2021 constitution not validly adopted because misrepresentations in the notice of a short-notice meeting meant consent to short notice was never validly obtained. It also found that a WhatsApp message later sent to one faction's trustees listed reasons for the change, some untrue, so a common story would be told. Give accurate reasons in meeting notices and in any messages explaining a decision afterwards; trustees' WhatsApp messages can be read in court. High Court judgment [2026] EWHC 2455 (Ch)
• A large housing association in England, 11 June 2026. A manager's account posted a screenshot of two direct reports' Teams chat and offensive links into a three-person, work-branded WhatsApp group, then deleted them, leading to disciplinary action. The tribunal found she sent them, held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the group, and dismissed all her claims. Make sure the conduct and social media policy covers messaging apps; a work-branded staff group used for work is not private. Employment Tribunal judgment 2603272/2023
• A neurological support charity in Liverpool, 26 May 2026. At the start of the hearing, the claimant produced private WhatsApp messages between a charity witness and a former employee to attack credibility. The tribunal admitted them but treated them with caution as a selective, unverifiable extract written more than two years after the events. One reasonable adjustments complaint succeeded; the rest failed. Keep complete records made at the time of decisions and statements; a selective extract of messages produced later carries little weight against corroborated evidence. Employment Tribunal judgment 2400508/2024
• A UK charity, 20 May 2026. An employee reported an untaxed charity vehicle to his manager by WhatsApp, conceded to be a protected disclosure, then accidentally sent the manager an insulting message meant for someone else and was dismissed. At an interim hearing the judge refused interim relief; the claim awaits a final hearing. Remind staff to check the recipient before sending any message, and handle a concern raised and a misconduct issue as separate, documented matters. Employment Tribunal interim relief judgment 6011072/2026
• A humanitarian charity in south London, 19 March 2026. An employee claimed her removal from a team WhatsApp group was victimisation. The tribunal accepted the manager's reason: the group was used to report lateness or absence from the office, and she and a colleague were removed because both would keep working from home. That claim failed; constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. Remove staff from work groups only for a clear operational reason, applied consistently, and be able to show what the group is used for. Employment Tribunal judgment 2307058/2023
• A homelessness charity in Northern Ireland, 9 March 2026. A keyworker sent indecent messages to a vulnerable woman he supported, first from his work mobile and then from his personal mobile. He was convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council's Fitness to Practise Committee made a removal order. Know which phones staff use to contact the people they support, and make clear that moving that contact onto a personal phone is not permitted. Northern Ireland Social Care Council removal order
• A church charity, 29 October 2025. After a person asked a church charity to stop contacting them, it phoned about Gift Aid and sent a text inviting them back. The Fundraising Regulator found code breaches: only an unwritten complaints policy, and the person's number still held in Gift Aid records despite assurances their details would be deleted. When someone asks you to stop contacting them, remove their phone number from every record that does not need it, including donation records. Fundraising Regulator decision
• A charity in Scotland, 2 September 2025. After a manager's email complaint, a worker raised the matter in the charity's WhatsApp group of more than 250 service users. She was removed from the group and dismissed, one stated reason being breach of confidentiality. The tribunal dismissed all her claims without ruling that the post was a breach. A WhatsApp group that includes service users is an external audience; tell staff plainly what must not be shared there rather than assuming they know. Employment Tribunal judgment 8000247/2025
• A mosque run by a charitable company in Northampton, 11 August 2025. An imam was dismissed largely for WhatsApp messages criticising his employer, one sent to a broadcast list of 100–150 mosque attendees. The tribunal found dismissal for the messages within the band of reasonable responses, but upheld unfair dismissal on procedure because he was not interviewed or given a full appeal, with a 100% Polkey reduction. Messages staff send to community lists about the organisation can justify dismissal, but still interview the employee and offer a complete right of appeal. Employment Tribunal judgment 3320829/2021
• A scouting unit in Perth, 14 May 2025. A volunteer leader was convicted at Perth Sheriff Court of sending sexual communications to four teenage boys, at least three contacted over Snapchat. He received a community sentence and sex offender registration, and the national scouting charity confirmed he would never be allowed back. Forbid private one-to-one messaging between adult volunteers and young people, and use only group channels that a second adult and the organisation can see. The Courier news report
• A small children's charity in west London, 28 March 2025. A childcare assistant posted an expletive in reply to a message on the staff social WhatsApp group, then did not respond to the chief executive's repeated requests to discuss it. With the working relationship already deteriorating, the tribunal held her dismissal fair, noting she would not have been dismissed had she shown contrition. Deal with an offensive post in a staff group through a documented process that gives the employee a real chance to discuss it and put things right. Employment Tribunal judgment 2204474/2022
• An international development campaigning charity in London, 30 July 2024. WhatsApp messages between a finance manager and her line manager were the main documentary record. The tribunal used them to find regular out-of-hours contact and a working relationship that stayed good until she left. Her constructive dismissal and race claims failed, and whistleblowing detriment was out of time. Keep work messaging between managers and staff on a system the organisation keeps and can produce, because it becomes the evidence in any later claim. Employment Tribunal judgment 2301821/2021
• Charity Commission, 19 July 2024. The Charity Commission's guidance on charity meetings (CC48), last updated 19 July 2024, tells trustees to check whether their governing document allows charity business to be carried out by telephone, email or messaging apps. Where the governing document or the law requires a meeting for a decision, trustees must follow the governing document's rules on meetings. Before trustees decide anything over a messaging app, check that the governing document allows it and that the decision does not require a meeting. Charity Commission guidance CC48
• A UK international cultural relations charity, overseas office, 5 July 2024. The organisation's most senior employee in a North African country harassed a younger colleague, largely by WhatsApp, moving to Teams chat when she blocked him. The tribunal upheld sexual harassment and constructive unfair dismissal, and found the grievance panel's romantic description of his messages was itself harassment related to sex. When investigating harassment by message, describe the messages for what they are, never in romantic terms, and act promptly on admissions they contain. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200569/2022
• An international relief charity in Greater Manchester, 16 February 2024. After a whistleblowing disclosure, an employee was removed from the office staff WhatsApp group 18 minutes after an office closure email, and later from two more. The tribunal found the removals were detriments because of the disclosure, and upheld automatic unfair dismissal. Later requiring senior authorisation for work group chats was held sensible. Treat staff WhatsApp groups as workplace channels: never remove someone from one after they raise a concern, and require senior authorisation for work group chats. Employment Tribunal judgment 2400039/2021
• A mosque trust in South Yorkshire, 6 February 2024. While an imam was on holiday, a fellow imam without authority sent him a WhatsApp message removing his duties and offering a madrasah role at £10 an hour or resignation. The chair did not withdraw it. The tribunal found it a fundamental breach and upheld automatically unfair constructive dismissal for whistleblowing. Decide who may communicate changes to someone's role or pay, never by informal message from a peer, and promptly withdraw any unauthorised message. Employment Tribunal judgment 1801273/2023
• A charitable incorporated organisation, 10 November 2023. A general manager's WhatsApp to the chair about health and safety risks was found to be a protected disclosure. The tribunal also found the board's WhatsApp group was used for decisions about his employment and messages had been deleted. The detriment claim was out of time; notice pay (wrongful dismissal) succeeded. Treat a concern raised to a chair by WhatsApp as a possible protected disclosure, and do not take employment decisions in a board WhatsApp group or delete its messages. Employment Tribunal judgment 1303335/2022
• A volunteer lifeboat station in Angus, 10 September 2023. A former volunteer operations manager said a screenshot from the crew's private WhatsApp group was shown to him at the meeting where he was stood down, and that his subject access request received a heavily redacted reply. The charity said the reply met data protection rules and declined to discuss the personnel matter. Decide which channel is official for volunteers, and how material from unofficial group chats will be handled in disciplinary processes and subject access requests. The Courier news report
• A religious charity running a temple in London, 2 August 2022. The charity argued a priest had resigned by a WhatsApp message saying he had left for India. The tribunal read the message as asking to return to work, so not an unequivocal resignation, and found he was dismissed. His wages and notice pay claims succeeded, with a 25% ACAS uplift. Do not treat a WhatsApp message as a resignation unless its words are clear and unequivocal; check with the employee before acting on it. Employment Tribunal judgment 3202407/2020
• An international cultural relations charity, 22 December 2021. An investigation into alleged sexual harassment at a private party never asked about or obtained the texts and WhatsApp messages the complainant sent that night, some later deleted. The tribunal held this among the serious flaws that made the senior manager's dismissal unfair, and later ordered re-engagement. In a misconduct investigation, ask early whether anyone messaged about the incident at the time, and secure those messages before they are deleted. Employment Tribunal judgment 2203365/2019
• A national scouting charity, 25 July 2021. A survivor of sexual abuse by a junior leader obtained, through a subject access request, private messages a scout leader had sent former scouts warning them not to provide information and describing her in victim-blaming terms. The charity then agreed to an independent external inquiry and suspended that leader. Tell volunteers not to discuss a live allegation or contact witnesses through private messages; such messages can be disclosed through a subject access request. The Guardian news report (via Yahoo News UK)
• A mosque and Islamic centre in Fife, 21 January 2021. The committee chair passed CCTV footage of the imam to a member of a ladies' group, who posted it in the group chat to discredit him. The tribunal found this unwanted conduct, but not related to race or religion. Messages from community members and a parent were not the employer's liability. Keep CCTV and disciplinary material about staff out of community group chats; officers who share it will have that conduct examined by a tribunal. Employment Tribunal judgment 4121879/2018

Other employers: the leading tribunal cases (32)

Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal judgments against other private employers that set out how tribunals treat staff WhatsApp groups. Employers are described by type.

• A private medical transport provider on a Leicester hospital contract, 3 July 2026. A paramedic posted more than twenty threatening and abusive messages in a work WhatsApp group of colleagues intended for professional communication, and later assaulted a colleague, leading to a conviction. The panel found he had abused his professional position by misusing the group, found misconduct and impairment, and on all the particulars struck him off. Treat a staff WhatsApp group set up for work as a professional forum, and make clear that misconduct posted in it is professional misconduct. HCPTS fitness to practise decision PA12300
• A postal and parcels company, 29 June 2026. A delivery driver was dismissed for gross misconduct over two posts in a union members' WhatsApp group during an industrial dispute, one of which a trainee manager took as a threat. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the finding that the posts were not protected union activity; the employer's conduct and social media policies applied. Explain to staff that conduct and social media policies can reach what they post in unofficial groups, whatever the group's label or purpose. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment [2026] EAT 93
• A builders' merchant in a High Court covenant claim, 17 June 2026. A builders' merchant sought to restrain a departing area sales manager, including an order to delete LinkedIn contacts under a social media clause. The court dismissed the confidential-information claim and observed that the clause did not reach contact details in WhatsApp messages on his personal phone, as WhatsApp is a messaging platform. A contract clause written for social media and networking accounts may not cover WhatsApp, so name messaging apps explicitly where you mean to cover them. High Court judgment [2026] EWHC 1309 (Comm)
• KRA Consultancy Ltd, 20 May 2026. The Information Commissioner fined KRA Consultancy Ltd £300,000 for over 5.5 million unsolicited marketing texts about debt solutions aimed at financially vulnerable people. Evidence included over 27,000 messages in a WhatsApp group whose members included its employees, found on a phone seized under a search warrant. Treat a staff WhatsApp group as a business record: a regulator can seize a phone and use the group's messages as evidence of what the organisation did. ICO monetary penalty notice
• A federation of GP practices in Greater Manchester, 18 March 2026. After an employee's religious posts on a Teams channel, managers emailed the team asking that social chat move to the team WhatsApp group, a step she had agreed to. Her complaint about a colleague's costume posts there failed, as they were for the whole group. The email was unwanted conduct related to nationality but, given its benign purpose, not harassment. Set expectations for posts in team social groups, deal with complaints about them, and word conduct reminders generally rather than singling out the person who raised the concern. Employment Tribunal judgment 2401953/2024
• University of Central Lancashire, 12 January 2026. A request sought the Vice-Chancellor's communications about another university on any platform, including messaging. The Upper Tribunal upheld a finding that information on the university's systems from his board role at an outside body was held solely on that body's behalf, calling the distinction a fine one. Treat work messages on any platform as within reach of information requests; information passed to colleagues or used by the organisation can become held by it. Upper Tribunal decision [2026] UKUT 16 (AAC)
• A children's swim school in south-west England, 12 January 2026. The employer dismissed an employee for misconduct, including alleged poaching of customers, relying on a screenshot of a customer's WhatsApp message that actually said she had not tried to poach. The tribunal held the belief was not based on reasonable grounds, found the dismissal unfair and made no reduction for contributory fault. Read message evidence for what it actually says before relying on it in a disciplinary hearing. Employment Tribunal judgment 6002442/2024
• A contract cleaning services company in London, 8 December 2025. WhatsApp and text messages between an employee and his line manager were the main contemporaneous record of what the manager knew about his mental health. The tribunal relied on them to limit the employer's knowledge, defeating some disability claims, though his ordinary unfair dismissal and some victimisation and reasonable adjustments complaints succeeded. Keep messages between managers and staff about health, because they may be the only contemporaneous record of what the organisation knew about a disability and when. Employment Tribunal judgment 3202544/2021
• An employer of salespeople in a High Court covenant claim, 4 November 2025. An employer that issued no phones to its salespeople, who used personal WhatsApp with customers, sued a departing salesperson over restrictive covenants and confidential information. The claim failed on the evidence and the covenant was unenforceable; he had not unreasonably delayed returning the chats and had not known the company required them. If staff use personal WhatsApp for work, have a written leaver process for returning or deleting those chats, or you may be unable to show anything was wrongly kept. High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 2873 (KB)
• A Church of England diocese in the Midlands, 3 November 2025. An assistant curate kept contacting a former fellow student by email, Facebook and WhatsApp despite a college communication ban and warnings. Her complaint led to a safeguarding core group and a deferral of his priesting; the tribunal found this conduct, not his disclosures, was the reason, so his whistleblowing claims failed and his discrimination claims were out of time. Keep the messages a complainant hands over alongside a dated record of every warning or contact boundary given, so safeguarding decisions can be shown to rest on the conduct. Employment Tribunal judgment 2409635/2022
• A garden centre business in Essex, 15 September 2025. Instructions to a disabled employee were to be given by WhatsApp or text where practicable as an adjustment, and her manager was told to screenshot her WhatsApp refusals of tasks for her HR file. A WhatsApp exchange between the manager and the HR director was used to find a disputed comment had been made. All her claims failed. Remember that managers' messages with HR about an employee are disclosable and can decide disputed facts, so write them expecting a tribunal to read them. Employment Tribunal judgment 3200819/2023
• A payments company, 7 July 2025. A colleague posted, without explanation, a beer advert showing a 'pure' utopia of white blond people to a small work WhatsApp group that included a Black British employee. The tribunal rejected his harassment claim; the Employment Appeal Tribunal held the finding of no connection with race perverse and sent the question of effect back. Tell staff that posts in work groups are judged on whether they relate to a protected characteristic and how they are received, not only on the sender's intention. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment [2025] EAT 95
• A national newspaper publisher in a High Court claim, 5 February 2025. A claimant sought to strike out a newspaper publisher's defence because journalists had deleted Signal group threads and used disappearing messages during an investigation. The court refused: the deletions came before proceedings and over a year before the letter before claim, broke no rule or duty, and did not prevent a fair trial. Once a claim or complaint is reasonably contemplated, issue a written instruction to preserve messages, including in messaging apps, because deletion after that point is treated differently. High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 222 (KB)
• A private student accommodation building in London, 20 January 2025. A staff member who found a student unresponsive was told by the operator's control centre to call an ambulance, but instead texted their general manager asking for a colleague; an ambulance was called about an hour later. The coroner raised concern about the delays and staff training, while noting he had very likely died hours before. When someone may be in danger, staff should call the emergency services at once; a message to a manager must never delay that call. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2025-0045
• A small private jewellery training academy in London, 23 October 2024. An employee sent a stream of unwanted WhatsApp messages and texts to a colleague with cancer pressing alternative treatments, some after a management instruction to stop and one during suspension despite a no-contact instruction. Alongside other misconduct found, including bullying a second colleague, the tribunal held the investigation reasonable and the dismissal fair; her claims failed or were withdrawn. Give clear instructions to stop unwanted contact and keep the message trail, because persistent messages to a vulnerable colleague can be gross misconduct even when well meant. Employment Tribunal judgment 2204786/2023 and others
• RAC, 9 October 2024. Two former RAC call-centre employees copied and sold over 29,500 lines of personal data about people involved in road traffic accidents; a phone search showed the data was shared in a WhatsApp chat. RAC's security software flagged the copying and RAC reported it to the ICO. Both received suspended prison sentences after pleading guilty. Control access to personal data, report suspected misuse to the ICO promptly, and tell staff that unauthorised sharing, including by WhatsApp, can be prosecuted. ICO news release
• An independent hospital intensive care unit in London, 26 June 2024. In an independent hospital's intensive care unit, a patient's deterioration was escalated to the on-call consultant by text over two and a half hours after his observations changed. The coroner was concerned there seemed no clear escalation protocol and that a text was unlikely to be the most effective route for urgent concerns. Any delays were not causative of the death. Set a clear escalation protocol so urgent concerns about a deteriorating person go by a direct, acknowledged route such as a call, not a text message. Prevention of future deaths report 2024-0342
• A private immigration detention escort contractor, 12 April 2024. Two escort officers were dismissed after messages in two WhatsApp groups that included colleagues – a union-established group and a fantasy football group – were reported in a national newspaper. The tribunal held that sending from a private device was irrelevant; one dismissal was fair, the other unfair because the employer conflated his comments with others' and with press framing. Make clear that conduct policies apply to groups that include colleagues, whoever's phone is used, and judge each person only on their own messages. Employment Tribunal judgment 2302214/2022 and 2302471/2022
• Three money-remittance firms – FCA Competition Act decision, 30 November 2023. The FCA found that three money-remittance firms broke competition law by coordinating exchange rates and fees for consumers in Glasgow sending money to Pakistan in 2017, through a trade association whose WhatsApp group circulated an exchange rate. One firm facilitated rather than competed. They were fined over £150,000 in total. A WhatsApp group shared with other organisations can become a channel for unlawful coordination, so be careful what staff discuss in groups beyond your own. FCA case study on a Competition Act 1998 decision
• A holiday resort operator, 8 November 2023. In March 2020 the employer set up a WhatsApp group for a home-working team, then removed an employee from it without explanation after she asked about pay; she later resigned. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the finding of a breach of trust and confidence and sent the question of affirmation back. Do not remove someone from a work group without telling them the real reason, especially after they have raised a concern. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment [2023] EAT 137
• A life-science and medical education and communications company, 28 June 2023. A bonus claim turned on a WhatsApp exchange in which the managing director replied 'Amazing! Of Course! Will do!' to an employee's request for a bonus advance. The tribunal held this was a clear agreement to pay £25,000, so non-payment was a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction from wages. Treat pay and bonus replies on messaging apps as binding promises: keep them on record and confirm or withdraw any offer formally in writing. Employment Tribunal judgment 2300305/2021
• An amateur football club in a Surrey Sunday league, 17 February 2023. After a Sunday league match, a player sent a friend at the opposing club a WhatsApp message using a racially derogatory term about one of its players; it was screenshotted and reported to the county FA. Charges were found proven and he received a three-match suspension, a £30 fine and an education course; expected privacy counted only as mitigation. Tell players and volunteers that discriminatory remarks in private WhatsApp messages can be screenshotted, passed on and sanctioned in the same way as remarks made in person. Surrey FA Disciplinary Commission written reasons
• An estate agency in East London, 16 January 2023. A director claimed an employee off sick had ignored numerous texts, emails and calls, but the employer produced none when ordered to. The tribunal inferred none were sent, treated this as manufacturing a case and imposed a 50% financial penalty alongside the unfair dismissal award. It also criticised a senior colleague posting explicit images to the office WhatsApp group. Only say an absent employee ignored your messages if you can produce them, and act promptly when inappropriate images are posted to an office group. Employment Tribunal judgment 3203211/2021
• BBC, 15 December 2022. Answering an information request about an appointment, the BBC searched senior staff's work email but not personal accounts, pointing to a policy banning personal email for BBC work. Late new searches of its own mailboxes found six potentially responsive documents, and the Tribunal allowed that part of the appeal without deciding whether personal accounts needed searching. Keep a written rule against using personal accounts for work, and check that searches of your own systems are complete before answering an information request. First-tier Tribunal decision [2022] UKFTT 480 (GRC)
• An international travel and tourism membership body, 9 December 2022. An employee warned the chief executive by WhatsApp that messaging junior staff that way risked resignations, legal challenge and reputational damage. A subject access request for the chief executive's WhatsApp messages, held on her personal phone, was first refused. The whistleblowing claims failed; senior staff's informal WhatsApp exchanges showed the disclosures played no part in how the requests were handled. Assume leaders' WhatsApp messages about staff, even on personal phones, may be sought in a subject access request and read by a tribunal. Employment Tribunal judgment 2300606/2020
• A private university college with four campuses in England, 22 November 2022. The employer criticised a lecturer for not reporting lateness correctly, but he had reported it on the course WhatsApp chat, where the course leader had said lateness should be recorded. The tribunal found no substantial failure to report, though all his claims, including automatically unfair dismissal and race discrimination, were dismissed. Decide which channel is official for reporting absence and lateness and say so in writing, because a manager's message in a team chat can set the working practice. Employment Tribunal judgment 3313225/2020
• An animal sanctuary in Bedfordshire, 18 August 2021. WhatsApp exchanges between an employee and a director showed the employer knew of and arranged a task in which he was injured. The tribunal used them to reject the employer's account, found the dismissal email's claim that no staff knew untrue, and noted unwarranted scepticism about his injuries. His unfair and wrongful dismissal claims succeeded. Make sure written reasons for dismissal match the message trail, and keep managers' messages about sickness and sick pay professional, because they are disclosable. Employment Tribunal judgment 3303003/2020
• A Montessori teacher-training and accreditation organisation, 17 August 2021. An internal WhatsApp exchange between managers the day before a consultation meeting showed that deleting an employee's role was already a firm proposal and furlough had been ruled out. The tribunal relied on it to find consultation could only concern alternative work, but held the redundancy dismissal fair. Assume managers' WhatsApp discussions about redundancies or other HR decisions are disclosable and may show how firm a proposal was before consultation began. Employment Tribunal judgment 1403084/2020
• Mobile network operators in a Court of Appeal disclosure dispute, 2 February 2021. In a competition claim, the Court of Appeal upheld an order that mobile network operators ask senior current and former staff to let IT consultants search their personal phones and emails for work messages. It was common ground between the parties that such work messages were within the companies' control. Work messages staff send on personal phones can still count as the organisation's documents in litigation, so it may have to ask staff and former staff to produce them. Court of Appeal judgment [2021] EWCA Civ 116
• A small private security training provider in London, 12 November 2020. The working relationship was run largely by WhatsApp and text: a leave request was refused by text and the employee was dismissed by text. Her own WhatsApp message on the day of dismissal helped the tribunal find any report to HMRC came after termination, so the whistleblowing claims failed; one race-related harassment complaint succeeded. Never dismiss by text without a process, give staff written terms, and word leave refusals carefully, because such messages will be read word for word at a tribunal. Employment Tribunal judgment 3335165/2018
• A community interest company running paintball venues, 11 February 2019. A young administrator raised health and safety concerns about long, uninsured drives in an old car, first in WhatsApp messages to her manager and then by email, and was dismissed soon after. The tribunal held WhatsApp was a reasonable means, as it was habitually used between them, and her automatically unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Treat concerns staff raise by WhatsApp as properly raised, especially where messaging is how they normally contact their manager, and act on them. Employment Tribunal judgment 3304335/2018
• A catering contractor, 23 May 2014. A union representative was dismissed partly for a WhatsApp message to about 20 co-workers supporting a colleague in a dispute with a supervisor. In an interim relief appeal only, the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal, holding that the way union activities are carried out is generally not relevant to whether they are union activities. Take advice before disciplining a union representative over a group message, because the message may be protected union activity. Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment UKEAT/0139/14

Councils, the NHS, police and government (233)

ICO reprimands, freedom of information decisions, ombudsman findings, coroners’ reports, parliamentary answers and the authorities’ own published FOI replies about WhatsApp. Public bodies are named, because the decisions are published in their name.

• Ministry of Justice, 19 October 2026. During a Lords committee debate on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, peers raised erased and disappearing WhatsApp messages. In reply, the minister said officials who deliberately destroy information before an inquiry or inquest must be held to account, pointing to the Bill's proposed duties and to existing law such as perverting the course of justice. Tell staff that deliberately deleting messages to frustrate an investigation can already be a crime, and that a Bill before Parliament would add duties for public officials. Hansard, House of Lords committee debate
• Ministry of Justice, 12 October 2026. Debating the Public Office (Accountability) Bill in the Lords, the minister said the proposed duty to give an inquiry information likely to be relevant, if requested, applies whatever the format or channel, so may include digital messages. He said failing to disclose them could, in appropriate circumstances where the offence's other elements are met, fall under the Bill's misconduct offence. Keep messages of substance where they can be found and produced, because the inquiry disclosure duty in the Bill before Parliament may reach digital messages. Hansard, House of Lords debate
• Social Work England – social worker at the London Borough of Barnet, 5 October 2026. A social worker posted a message in his team's work WhatsApp group which, read with a call to his manager minutes later, the panel found offensive, discriminatory and racist towards Muslims. Together with other serious misconduct, including criminal convictions, this led to a finding of impairment and a removal order. Make clear to staff that messages in a work WhatsApp group are judged as professional conduct, whether or not the group has a written policy. Social Work England decision SW29221
• Scottish Ambulance Service paramedic – HCPC tribunal, 29 September 2026. A paramedic became Facebook friends with, and sent Facebook Messenger messages to, a 14 or 15-year-old in local authority foster care whom he had attended at work. The panel found he breached professional boundaries and imposed a six-month suspension order, with an interim order covering the appeal period. Staff should never contact a child or vulnerable person they meet through work on personal social media or messaging accounts; welfare concerns go through safeguarding channels. HCPTS fitness to practise decision PA055198
• Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 15 September 2026. The Thirlwall Inquiry recorded that doctors and nurses used their own phones and WhatsApp groups for work messaging, and that parents were shocked their children had been discussed with no thought for privacy. The chair declined to recommend removing phones, but warned that forwarding messages from a closed group means control of the information is lost. Where staff discuss children or residents on their own phones, set rules for group chats; the chair warned that forwarded messages leave the group's control. Thirlwall Inquiry report, Volume II
• Cabinet Office, 28 August 2026. A request asked for the Cabinet Office's policy on WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and disappearing messages on government devices. The Information Commissioner found it breached FOI time limits by not issuing a proper notice within 20 working days and by taking too long over the public interest test; he did not assess the substance. Treat a request about your messaging-app policy as an ordinary FOI request, with the usual deadlines and refusal-notice rules. ICO decision notice IC-542328-S7X0
• Metropolitan Police Service, 31 July 2026. A suspect challenged the Met's 2023 guidance, which sets WhatsApp disappearing messages to 90 days on force-issued devices and bans personal devices for police business. The High Court dismissed the claim because the guidance requires investigation and evidential material to be exported to the force's own systems before deletion. If staff use WhatsApp with disappearing messages, the policy must say what has to be saved to the organisation's own system before the timer deletes it, and staff must do it. High Court judgment [2026] EWHC 1986 (Admin)
• A hospital dementia ward in Co Armagh, 27 July 2026. A healthcare assistant on a specialist hospital dementia ward took degrading photos and videos of four patients and sent them to co-workers on Snapchat; co-workers reported her and police were told. She pleaded guilty to seven counts of ill-treatment and received probation and community service, in what police called Northern Ireland's first case of its kind. Tell staff to report straight away any degrading images of the people you care for that are sent to them; here colleagues' reports led to a prosecution. The Irish News report
• Essex County Council, 20 July 2026. A request about a change to the Essex Highways pothole-reporting page asked for correspondence including WhatsApp or text messages. After the council's server and mailbox searches, the Tribunal was satisfied no further information was held and dismissed the appeal, noting that information a councillor holds as an elected member is not held by the council. Work out which roles' messages belong to your organisation and search those; a request naming WhatsApp still turns on where the information is actually held. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2026] UKFTT 1051 (GRC)
• Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Information Commissioner, 7 July 2026. The Scottish Ministers appealed only the part of Decision 065/2025 ordering disclosure of legally privileged material; the decision also required further searches, including of WhatsApp on personal and official devices. In July 2026 the Court of Session reduced it only on privilege, sending that question back to the Commissioner. The search requirement was not challenged. When an FOI request covers business discussed on WhatsApp, expect to search personal as well as official devices; the Scottish search requirement was not challenged on appeal. Court of Session judgment [2026] CSIH 36
• University Hospitals Sussex and Royal Surrey NHS trusts, 7 July 2026. Clinicians at two NHS trusts caring for an intensive care patient communicated about her care by text, email and telephone. The coroner was concerned that these modes were prone to miscommunication when multiple teams were involved, while finding the confused communication was not a causative feature in this case. Where several teams share responsibility for one person, agree a single recorded channel for decisions about their care, rather than a mix of texts, emails and calls. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2026-0338
• Cabinet Office, 2 July 2026. The government appointed an independent reviewer of non-corporate communication channels in government. The review will define them, cover disappearing messages and security risks, and make record-keeping recommendations; it is due to report in early 2027. Decide your position on disappearing messages in work chats; the government's independent review has been asked specifically to cover them. Written ministerial statement HCWS176
• Midlothian Council, 30 June 2026. Answering a request about employment practices, the council repeatedly said information was 'not held centrally'. The Scottish Information Commissioner reminded it that a request covers information held anywhere, including business information on staff-owned phones and in messaging apps such as WhatsApp, and required fresh searches with records kept of them. Treat business messages on staff's own phones, including WhatsApp, as held by your organisation for FOI, and keep records of the searches you make. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 174/2026
• Cambridgeshire Constabulary, 26 June 2026. WhatsApp messages from 2020 on a sergeant's phone showed him encouraging colleagues to bully a detained 17-year-old, and the investigation widened to his team's group chat. He was convicted of misconduct in public office, 13 officers faced proceedings, and the IOPC found a failure to report or challenge. He had disparaged the officer who reported him in the group. A senior member of staff can set the tone of a team group chat; back the person who reports what happens in it. IOPC news release
• Cabinet Office, 17 June 2026. Asked how many WhatsApp messages from the minister's official phone had been backed up each month, the Cabinet Office gave no number. It said record-keeping is each public servant's responsibility, that backup arrangements vary by department, and that a forthcoming independent review would examine this. Decide who is responsible for moving business messages from phones onto organisational systems, and how this is checked. Written parliamentary answer
• Department of Education (Northern Ireland), 16 June 2026. Asked whether senior officials' work phones have WhatsApp with disappearing messages enabled, the Department said this is not held: senior staff may download WhatsApp on work phones for personal use and it does not control settings. It quoted policies saying official information must not be held on WhatsApp and must be transferred to Content Manager if it is. If staff may install WhatsApp on work phones, set a clear rule on disappearing messages and on moving any work content into your records system. Department of Education (Northern Ireland) FOI response DE/2026-055
• Paramedic referred by North West Ambulance Service, 12 June 2026. A paramedic photographed a deceased patient at a call-out, shared the images with colleagues by WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, and asked a colleague to take the blame. The panel found misconduct including dishonesty, found impairment on public-interest grounds only after accepting his remediation, and imposed a three-year caution order. Forbid staff from photographing the people in their care on personal devices or sharing such images in messaging apps, even privately with colleagues. HCPTS fitness to practise decision PA46015
• Cabinet Office, 1 June 2026. Reporting to the Commons on a Humble Address, the minister said searches had been requested of ministers', advisers' and officials' email, WhatsApp and other messaging on work and personal devices. He said some messages may not have been backed up because devices were changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, his own included. Capture messages of substance into your records before staff change phones or turn on disappearing messages, or they may not be backed up when you need them. Hansard ministerial statement, House of Commons
• Nursing and Midwifery Council – nurse at Charing Cross Hospital, 27 May 2026. A nurse looked up a patient's phone number in her clinical record without clinical reason and texted her from his personal mobile after she left hospital. The panel found breaches of confidentiality and boundaries, found impairment on public-interest grounds only and imposed a two-year caution order; sexual motivation was not proved. Make clear that contact details in records are for work purposes only and must never be used to contact service users from personal phones. NMC fitness to practise decision
• The Executive Office (Northern Ireland), 20 May 2026. Asked for messages from the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service's phone, the Executive Office confirmed it held WhatsApp messages with Permanent Secretaries but withheld them. The Information Commissioner assessed them under the same tests as emails and upheld the exemptions in sections 35(1)(a) and 40(2). Treat staff WhatsApp messages about work as information you hold: find and assess them for an FOI request exactly as you would emails. ICO decision notice IC-399775-P0T1
• A unitary borough council in Berkshire, 20 May 2026. A manager removed an employee on sick leave from a Covid daily check-in WhatsApp group. The tribunal found this was standard unwritten practice, he had said he did not mind and the manager did not know of his grievance, so it was not victimisation. All claims failed. Set a written rule for work group membership, for example during sick leave, apply it consistently and tell the person why. Employment Tribunal judgment 3300944/2021
• Cabinet Office, 19 May 2026. Answering an urgent question in the Commons, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he shared the Intelligence and Security Committee's concerns about extensive use of non-corporate communication channels and about information shared at too low a security classification. He said a review of their use would start shortly. Keep sensitive material off messaging apps and on systems with the right level of security. Hansard answer to an urgent question, House of Commons
• Department for Education, 22 April 2026. Asked whether its ministers and special advisers use WhatsApp disappearing messages on government devices, the Department for Education said ministers and officials must follow the Cabinet Office guidance on non-corporate communication channels. It gave no direct yes or no. Write down your own rule on disappearing messages, so that a direct question about their use can be answered directly. Written parliamentary answer
• Ministry of Justice, 9 March 2026. Asked about disappearing messages, the Ministry of Justice quoted its Information Management Policy, which states that non-corporate channels such as WhatsApp must not be used unless absolutely necessary. It pointed staff to the Cabinet Office guidance and its record-keeping paragraphs 19 to 24. Make WhatsApp a last resort in your records policy and point staff to specific record-keeping rules for anything they do send on it. Written parliamentary answer
• Cabinet Office, 3 March 2026. Asked in the Lords whether the review of the guidance on non-corporate communication channels, due by 31 December 2025, had been completed, the government did not say it had. It said it planned to examine whether the codes and guidance remain effective; no completed review or revision has been published. Put a review date on your messaging policy and keep to it; the government's own review date passed without a published revision. Written parliamentary answer HL14499
• Gwent Police, 2 March 2026. Derogatory messages from an officers' WhatsApp group, sent between 2015 and 2019, were found on the phone of a former officer who had died, and the investigation widened to 11 serving and former officers. Two former officers would have been dismissed and were barred, three serving officers had misconduct proven, and four who had left faced no further action. Messages in a staff group chat can surface years later from one member's phone, and conduct proceedings can follow, though leaving ended them for some here. IOPC news release
• Cabinet Office, 2 March 2026. Asked whether ministers and special advisers use WhatsApp disappearing messages on government devices, the Cabinet Office said they must follow the guidance on non-corporate communication channels, and quoted the guidance's paragraph 24 on disappearing messages. Disappearing messages can limit the build-up of data, but capture anything significant into your records before it disappears. Written parliamentary answer
• Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, 25 February 2026. Two of eleven requests asked for WhatsApp, Teams or other digital messages between councillors, officers or external parties. The council refused all eleven as vexatious; the Information Commissioner found it had wrongly relied on section 14(1) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and ordered it to reconsider within 30 calendar days. Expect requests to name WhatsApp and Teams messages alongside email, and do not refuse a batch as vexatious without a properly evidenced case. ICO decision notice IC-388660-W3F4
• Cabinet Office, 24 February 2026. Asked whether No 10 special advisers have auto-delete turned on, the Cabinet Office said corporate communication channels have auto-delete enabled, and that any government business needing to be recorded must be copied onto official systems. If your messaging tool auto-deletes, you need a routine for copying business messages into official records before they go. Written parliamentary answer
• A metropolitan borough council in Merseyside, 11 February 2026. A team leader's MS Teams chat messages disparaging colleagues and a senior manager were relied on for constructive dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant had joined in willingly and the messages had stopped long before she resigned, so they did not breach trust and confidence. All claims failed, and a reconsideration based on later WhatsApp messages was refused. Set and enforce conduct standards for workplace chat, including one-to-one chats; a tribunal reads the whole exchange, including the complainant's own messages. Employment Tribunal judgment 2409664/2023
• Cabinet Office, 9 February 2026. In a Commons statement on standards in public life, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said the rules on non-corporate communication channels were unclear and that sensitive information could easily be forwarded through unofficial channels. He said the government recognised calls for a strategic review of these channels, their legal framework and the guidance. Write down which channels staff may use for which kinds of work, because the government has said its own rules lacked that clarity. Hansard ministerial statement, House of Commons
• Department for Business and Trade, 13 January 2026. A requester asked for WhatsApp messages between officials that an earlier disclosure showed existed; DBT said they were not held because they were set to disappear after seven days. The ICO accepted they were no longer held but found DBT breached its duty to advise and assist by not mentioning a related note it held. If you allow disappearing messages, capture anything significant into your own records before it deletes; once gone, it cannot be provided in answer to an FOI request. ICO decision notice IC-391157-K4L0
• Thorpe St Andrew Town Council, 12 January 2026. After the request, a then councillor emailed the council WhatsApp and text screenshots for a subject access request; the council had been advised personal-email data was not its responsibility. The Commissioner said connection to the council, not source, decides whether information is held, found the searches for councillors' meeting notes inadequate and ordered new searches. Information about your business can be held for FOI even when it arrived from a personal email address, so include such material in your searches. ICO decision notice IC-380409-B4P2
• Scottish Government, 23 December 2025. Asked about the COVID-era policy said to permit deleting WhatsApp messages, the Scottish Government released that policy, said it held no recorded details of the deletions, and confirmed that mobile messaging apps, including WhatsApp, are no longer permitted for everyday government work. If a messaging app has to be used because corporate systems are down, capture and keep the messages with date, time and method. Scottish Government FOI response 202500495382
• A unitary city council in Buckinghamshire (children's social care), 19 December 2025. An independent child protection chair used her personal phone and WhatsApp to contact both parents in a case involving a non-molestation order, and was found to have passed on a letter containing names and addresses. The tribunal held her dismissal for gross misconduct, including breach of IT policy, well within the range of reasonable responses. State in the IT policy that personal messaging apps must not be used with service users, and check personal numbers do not appear in email signatures. Employment Tribunal judgment 6016850/2024
• Derbyshire NHS trusts and NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB, 9 December 2025. A new mother sent her health visitor a detailed text about her anxieties over her baby's development, but the record of it was placed in the baby's electronic record rather than hers. The coroner was concerned about information sharing between and within services, the lack of a single patient record and relevant notes kept only in the baby's record. When a parent messages staff about their own wellbeing, record it on that parent's file and share it with the services that need to know. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2025-0615
• A housing association landlord, 2 December 2025. In a damp and mould repair case, the Ombudsman found record keeping failings and insufficient communication, while noting the landlord had kept the resident informed by WhatsApp messages. It recommended a review of the landlord's knowledge and information management against the Ombudsman's spotlight report. Updating someone by WhatsApp was credited here, but repair records still had to show what work was done, when and why. Housing Ombudsman determination 202410084
• British Transport Police, 18 November 2025. An IOPC investigation into a WhatsApp group of six officers in 2023 found offensive and discriminatory messages, a failure to challenge or report them, and discussion of sensitive operational matters against force policy. Two officers were dismissed, two who had left would have been, one received a final written warning and one had no case to answer. If your policy forbids running work business in unofficial group chats, enforce it and treat discussing sensitive work matters there as a breach. IOPC news release
• Healthcare Improvement Scotland, 11 November 2025. Asked whether WhatsApp groups had been searched, the body said Microsoft Teams was its only approved messaging tool, it had no bring-your-own-device policy and only authorised apps could be installed; it had also searched mailboxes, Teams and staff devices. The Scottish Information Commissioner accepted the information was not held, but found it failed to advise and assist. Be ready to tell a regulator which messaging tools are approved, whether staff use their own devices, and exactly what you searched. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 275/2025
• Peterborough City Council, 16 October 2025. The council's Chief Finance Officer posted holiday photographs of a carnival performer to the Corporate Leadership Team's WhatsApp group, in which the claimant was the only Black member. The tribunal upheld a claim of harassment related to race, while accepting there was no intention to offend. Remind senior leaders that casual posts in a leadership WhatsApp group can amount to harassment even when meant light-heartedly. Employment Tribunal judgment 3308103/2023
• A housing association landlord, 11 October 2025. A landlord announced a new parking scheme to a block only through a residents' WhatsApp group, which the complainant was not in, so she heard of it from a neighbour five days before it started. The Ombudsman found service failure in the communication, ordered compensation and noted the landlord should record and use contact preferences. Never use a WhatsApp group as the only route for formal notices; people outside the group will not receive them. Housing Ombudsman determination 202327698
• A local authority in committal proceedings heard in Leeds, 2 October 2025. In committal proceedings against a parent who posted details of Family Court proceedings online in breach of an order, the court directed service by email and WhatsApp. The WhatsApp messages went 1 hour 9 minutes late, but the judge, checking copies, found no prejudice because the email was sent in time; a suspended four-month sentence followed. If a court directs service by WhatsApp, meet its time limit and keep copies showing when the messages were sent; here an in-time email avoided prejudice. High Court (Family Division) committal judgment
• City of Edinburgh Council, 26 September 2025. The applicant complained no WhatsApp or telephone messages had been found. The council said its policies forbid WhatsApp for work but it still asked staff to search their phones, alongside keyword searches of corporate systems. The Scottish Information Commissioner was satisfied with the searches, though he found breaches on other points. Even where WhatsApp is banned for work, ask staff to search their phones as well as corporate systems, and keep evidence of those searches. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 230/2025
• A housing association landlord, 19 September 2025. A resident said his housing officer had told him to record noise using WhatsApp; the landlord later steered him to its noise app without explaining why and did not respond to his point about the officer's advice. The Ombudsman found maladministration in the handling of his noise reports. Give staff consistent instructions on which channel people should use to send evidence, and explain any change to the person affected. Housing Ombudsman determination 202405381
• Flintshire County Council children's services, 11 September 2025. Care Inspectorate Wales's improvement check of the council's children's services in July 2025 cited, as positive person-centred practice, a case where contact with a family was kept up through a mobile messenger app, supporting assurances about a child's safety. CIW made no requirement about it. Messenger contact with families can count as good practice, but check that children's voices and lived experiences are captured consistently in records, which CIW found uneven. Care Inspectorate Wales improvement check findings letter
• A housing association landlord, 10 September 2025. In a case about leaks and a neighbour's antisocial behaviour, the resident supplied emails and WhatsApp messages, some of which the landlord had failed to provide. The Ombudsman found maladministration, said this indicated poor record keeping, and ordered training for staff handling antisocial behaviour on keeping detailed records of all actions and contacts. Keep detailed records of every contact with the people you serve, WhatsApp messages included, so you can produce them when a complaint is escalated. Housing Ombudsman determination 202334037
• A unitary city council on the south coast (children's services), 8 September 2025. A line manager kept in touch with an employee during sickness absence and a phased return mostly by WhatsApp. The tribunal relied on those messages, with the emails, to find that support had been put in place, and the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. Keep managers' WhatsApp contact during absence professional and consistent with formal letters, because it may become the main evidence of the support given. Employment Tribunal judgment 1401293/2023
• Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, 3 September 2025. Seeking an emergency placement, the council's placements team texted all its in-house foster carers, including one already ruled out as an unsuitable match, who offered a placement without being told the child's full risks. The coroner's concerns were the shortage of placements, inadequate documentation and communication of risk, and the lack of risk assessment. When a request for help on a safeguarding matter goes to a wide group, check each response against recorded suitability decisions and share the full risks before accepting. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2025-0447
• NHS England, 15 August 2025. In an appeal about a request for three senior staff's correspondence mentioning four named gender and LGBT organisations, further searches during the appeal produced material that included WhatsApp messages. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, upholding section 36 and directing that section 40 redactions about one individual be lifted within 35 days, apart from a small personal reference. Work WhatsApp messages can fall within a request for staff correspondence, so include messaging apps in your first search rather than finding them later on appeal. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2025] UKFTT 1002 (GRC)
• Financial Conduct Authority, 7 August 2025. The FCA reviewed 11 wholesale banks on messages sent outside their permitted channels. Eight disclosed 178 breaches of their own internal policies in 12 months, 41% involving director grade or above, and most gave client-facing staff corporate devices, although FCA rules do not require this. Where work messages must be kept, provide approved channels and consider organisation-owned devices, which most banks in the FCA review issued, though its rules do not require them. FCA multi-firm review
• A city council in north-east Scotland, 30 July 2025. During a disciplinary investigation, the council opened a second one into an allegation that an employee had shared confidential information about the process in a colleagues' WhatsApp group. The tribunal found a clear case to answer and rejected the victimisation claim; all claims failed. Make clear that confidentiality instructions in disciplinary and grievance processes cover messaging apps, and investigate any breach under the normal procedure. Employment Tribunal judgment 8001208/2024 and 8001768/2024
• A housing association landlord, 29 July 2025. A resident was told to send photos of mould by WhatsApp; the landlord acknowledged them, later said it had not received them, and did not act on them. The Ombudsman found maladministration, ordered compensation and recommended a review of how the landlord receives and acts on information residents send by WhatsApp. If you invite reports by WhatsApp, have a written procedure that logs and acts on every message received. Housing Ombudsman determination 202441394
• Cabinet Office, 14 July 2025. In a practice recommendation, the ICO found the Cabinet Office took unreasonably long over the public interest test, extending it six times over five months, on requests including WhatsApp messages provided to the Covid-19 Inquiry and guidance on Royal Matters. It accepted those requests reasonably needed some consultation. Handle FOI requests for WhatsApp messages like any other, normally finishing any public interest extension within 20 extra working days and explaining longer delays. ICO practice recommendation FPR0987692
• Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 July 2025. The NMC's social media guidance, last updated on 2 July 2025, says it covers WhatsApp among other platforms. It lists posting pictures of patients and people receiving care without their consent as conduct that could put a nurse's registration at risk. Make sure staff rules on photographs of people in your care cover WhatsApp and other messaging apps, as the NMC's guidance does. NMC social media guidance
• Perth and Kinross Council, 27 June 2025. Answering a request about removing a director's post, the council cited its policy approving only Microsoft Teams, though three senior officers had searched mailboxes, Teams and WhatsApp. The Scottish Information Commissioner found it had missed three emails and not shown it held nothing else, and required further searches, including of personal devices and other messaging apps. Do not rely on an approved-app policy to end an FOI search: if staff could use personal devices or other apps for work, search those too. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 165/2025
• Scottish Ministers, 12 June 2025. A request sought notes by the independent adviser who investigated the then First Minister under the Ministerial Code. The Government said it held no notes or WhatsApp messages from him; a later request turned up WhatsApp messages with his secretariat, and the Scottish Information Commissioner said that submission will be considered in his ongoing intervention. Check thoroughly before telling a regulator no WhatsApp messages exist, because messages that surface later will bring your earlier answer back under review. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 144/2025
• Mentmore Parish Council, 21 May 2025. The Commissioner upheld the parish council's refusal of a request as vexatious. Separately, noting it had used different email addresses, he reminded it of the records management code and drew its attention to his 'Behind the screens' report on private email and messaging, saying its private-email findings are relevant for all public authorities. Review private email use against the ICO's 'Behind the screens' report; the ICO says its private-email findings are relevant to all public authorities, parish councils included. ICO decision notice IC-346124-J2J8
• London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Tower Hamlets Homes), 14 May 2025. Mediation arranged between a leaseholder and a neighbour, run by a third-party mediator, proposed a WhatsApp group for direct reports, although the leaseholder had said she felt harassed by the neighbour. The Ombudsman said this was not appropriate, criticised the landlord's response once she raised it, and found maladministration in its antisocial behaviour handling overall. Never place a person who reports harassment in a WhatsApp group with the person they complain about, and review any mediation outcome that proposes it. Housing Ombudsman determination 202323207
• Potto Parish Council, 13 May 2025. The council said a letter to residents 'may have gone to individual Councillors personal emails but we cannot confirm this', and the First-tier Tribunal accepted it was not held. The Upper Tribunal found an error of law, noting among other things that there was no evidence of the searches made, and sent the appeal back to a new panel. Back a 'not held' answer with a record of the searches made: an unconfirmed 'may have gone to' members' personal email left a gap the Upper Tribunal looked behind. Upper Tribunal decision UA-2024-001502-GIA
• Cabinet Office, 9 May 2025. A request sought job titles of Downing Street staff fined for lockdown breaches, on the basis that penalty notices may have reached government email addresses. Reciting the test of a sufficient connection between information and the authority, the Tribunal found the searches adequate, was not persuaded information in scope was held, and allowed the Cabinet Office's appeal. Private messages on a work account are not automatically your organisation's information; the test is their connection to your business, and labelling them private is not enough. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2025] UKFTT 509 (GRC)
• Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, 7 May 2025. A requester sought documents on how the council decided to fund two youth buses from Covid Outbreak Management Fund money, alleging discussions were kept off the record. The Tribunal found the searches sufficient and no further information held, dismissed the appeal, and said whether information should have been recorded was outside its jurisdiction. The tribunal looks only at whether information is held, not whether it should have been recorded, so record how decisions are reached at the time they are made. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2025] UKFTT 488 (GRC)
• South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, 10 April 2025. A community mental health team encouraged contact by text and email, but while the care co-ordinator was on leave and then off sick, messages from the family and supported housing went unanswered, with no redirection or out-of-office reply. The coroner, addressing the trust under a slightly different name, found important information was not being received. If families or partners are invited to message a named member of staff, set up redirection and regular checking of those messages whenever that person is absent. Prevention of future deaths report 2025-0184
• Cabinet Office, 7 April 2025. A requester sought WhatsApp, Signal and other messages between two No 10 special advisers. The Cabinet Office searched only its own systems with narrow terms and did not contact the former advisers. The First-tier Tribunal ordered it to ask them whether they had kept relevant information, particularly WhatsApp messages, and to rerun its searches with wider keywords. When an FOI request may reach work messages on staff or leavers' own phones, ask them to search and produce what they hold, as well as checking your systems. First-tier Tribunal decision [2025] UKFTT 391 (GRC)
• Wigan Integrated Care Board and a GP practice, 4 April 2025. A parent called a GP practice's call centre about a child's suspected reaction to antibiotics. A pharmacist not competent to handle the enquiry sent a message back saying so, but not on the medical records system where an auditable trail would exist; the coroner raised this, though the jury found the missed opportunity to review the antibiotics was not causative. Make sure messages about a person's care are made in, or copied into, the official record, so there is an auditable trail. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2025-0171
• Scottish Ministers, 19 March 2025. A request sought WhatsApp and text messages on government business from Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers in 2021. The Government first said it held none, then accepted its search instructions should have told Ministers to check personal phones, re-ran searches and found messages. The Commissioner found a breach and ordered disclosure of information wrongly withheld. Tell everyone asked to search to check personal phones as well as work devices, and keep a written record of the searches they carry out. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 066/2025
• Scottish Ministers, 18 March 2025. A requester sought communications, including WhatsApp messages, about a court appeal. The Commissioner ordered fresh WhatsApp searches of the specified individuals' personal and official phones and related cloud accounts; the Scottish Ministers successfully appealed the decision on legal privilege, but their appeal did not challenge the search order. If you are subject to FOI, expect that a regulator may order searches of staff members' personal phones and linked cloud accounts where work was discussed on WhatsApp. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 065/2025
• Local Government Association, 14 March 2025. A requester sought records, including WhatsApp messages, about two senior appointments at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The LGA searched Outlook, Mimecast, WhatsApp and Teams, and WhatsApp messages were among the material held and partly disclosed. The Tribunal dismissed the 'not held' challenge but ordered further disclosure, with mobile numbers and private email addresses withheld as personal data. When a request names WhatsApp, include it in the search and record that you did; messages found there are disclosable on the same terms as email. First-tier Tribunal decision [2025] UKFTT 326 (GRC)
• Cambridgeshire Constabulary, 3 March 2025. An officer used contact details obtained for a policing purpose to send texts and WhatsApp messages from his personal phone to an 18-year-old who was in a vulnerable position when he met her through his duties. He pleaded guilty to an offence under section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018, was fined £957 and was later dismissed. Contact details collected for work must not be used for personal messages from a staff member's own phone; here it led to a Data Protection Act conviction. IOPC news release
• A town council in Wiltshire (amenities and parks team), 3 March 2025. A senior manager's private WhatsApp messages to a colleague about a team member were disclosed, and the tribunal found they showed contempt and a thoroughly toxic atmosphere. The harassment claim failed only because she had not seen them until after her dismissal. Assume managers' private chats about staff can be disclosed and quoted in a public judgment, and set conduct standards that cover messaging about colleagues. Employment Tribunal judgment 6001201/2023
• A housing association in Scotland, 11 February 2025. An applicant believed the association held more information about complaints concerning a property. It said all contact, including phone and text, should be logged in its customer system, and that phone and SMS messages themselves are not kept. The Scottish Information Commissioner found the searches robust and no further information held. Log what matters from phone calls and text messages into the case record, because the messages themselves may not be kept or searchable later. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 032/2025
• A unitary council in Kent (legal services), 4 February 2025. The tribunal tested an employee's disability claim against her WhatsApp exchanges with her line manager, which mentioned migraines only twice and showed her working while signed off. A text promising a year's extension was found conditional on passing a professional module. All claims failed. Treat manager–employee chats about sickness and contract terms as evidence, and record the conditions of any promise made by text in a retained channel. Employment Tribunal judgment 2302171/2020
• Dorset Police, 17 January 2025. A Dorset Police team's WhatsApp group shared thousands of messages in 2020 and 2021, some racist, misogynistic or otherwise offensive, including an inappropriate photograph taken at a member of the public's home. Four officers had gross misconduct proven; two received final written warnings for misconduct, including a sergeant who sent no offensive messages but failed to challenge or report them. Make clear that a manager who reads unacceptable messages in a team group chat and does nothing can be disciplined for failing to challenge or report them. IOPC news release
• Information Commissioner's Office, 2 January 2025. Marking 20 years of the Freedom of Information Act, the ICO recalled its July 2022 call for a government review of private correspondence channels such as WhatsApp, welcomed the updated Ministerial Code on corporate channels, and said it continues to consider whether more is needed as complaints arrive. If your organisation is subject to freedom of information law, make sure work information held in WhatsApp can be found and retrieved when a request arrives. ICO blog post
• West Yorkshire Police, 20 December 2024. After officers raised concerns, the IOPC reviewed over 3,000 messages in a Pudsey team's WhatsApp group, including racist and sexualised content and an image from a death scene. Eight officers had gross misconduct proven. Officers said WhatsApp was against force policy but encouraged by some sergeants because force-issued devices made quick sharing difficult. A WhatsApp ban means little if managers encourage it because official tools are slow: provide a sanctioned quick channel and act on colleagues' concerns. IOPC news release
• Scottish Government, 17 December 2024. A non-statutory independent review, commissioned in January 2024 after criticism of governments' use of messaging apps and of the Scottish Government's handling of Covid Inquiry requests for informal messages, made 20 recommendations. One was a new policy so that all government communication is conducted in a managed environment. Keep work messaging inside a channel the organisation manages and can retain, and set out in your business continuity plan when other apps may be used. Scottish Government independent review
• A London borough council, 17 December 2024. An operative requested annual leave by text from his work phone to a supervisor, who did not log it, and the council deducted pay for unauthorised leave. The tribunal relied on the text, held the failure was management's, and the unlawful deductions claim succeeded. If supervisors accept leave requests by text in practice, log what they are told or enforce a written procedure, rather than deducting pay afterwards. Employment Tribunal judgment 3309399/2023
• Wanborough Parish Council, 13 December 2024. A requester asked for messages from a parish council WhatsApp group, and the council said they did not relate to council business. The ICO decided the messages were held by the council for FOI purposes and required a fresh response. If members of a public authority, such as councillors or governors of a maintained school or academy, discuss its business on WhatsApp, treat those messages as held for FOI. ICO decision notice IC-320634-J5F9
• A statutory body overseeing health and social care regulators, 6 December 2024. Unchallenged evidence that minority ethnic staff had set up a WhatsApp group to support each other because they felt undervalued was one of three factors that shifted the burden of proof in a race claim. The employer then explained its promotion decision, and the race discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal claims failed. Treat staff forming an informal support group because they feel undervalued as a signal about culture, and keep a clear written record of selection decisions. Employment Tribunal judgment 2216395/2023
• An inner London borough council, 4 December 2024. The tribunal relied on friendly WhatsApp exchanges between a corporate fraud investigator and her line manager to find a relaxed relationship, and on her messages with her mother to find she had unfairly blamed the council for her illness. Her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims all failed. Treat informal manager–staff WhatsApp chat as disclosable; it can decide how a tribunal reads the working relationship. Employment Tribunal judgment 2214614/2023
• Scottish Information Commissioner, December 2024. In a December 2024 statement responding to the independent review of the Scottish Government's use of mobile messaging apps, published on 17 December 2024, the Commissioner welcomed the review but warned that removing WhatsApp from official devices, as the Government planned from spring 2025, could not be enforced on personal devices. Removing WhatsApp from work phones does not take business messages on personal phones out of freedom of information law, so plan how those records will be found. Scottish Information Commissioner statement
• Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, 25 November 2024. A parent complained about SEND school transport and communication. In its own complaint response the council said transport messages would come from a council-issued mobile and that staff had been reminded not to use personal mobiles with parents; the Ombudsman found fault in communication and accepted the apology and new procedure. Give staff who contact parents a work phone and tell them not to use their own. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 23 012 842
• Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, 11 November 2024. While employed by the health board, a mental health nurse sent two voice messages containing profanity to a work WhatsApp group. An NMC panel found this was misconduct, particularly serious because the group was created for professional communication, and made a striking-off order on all the proved charges together, which included other safeguarding and record-keeping failures. Tell staff that a work WhatsApp group is a professional channel: the regulator judged conduct in it by professional standards. NMC fitness to practise decision
• Aberdeen City Council, 31 October 2024. A request asked for correspondence including messages on services such as WhatsApp. The withheld material referred to a WhatsApp chat and other items the council's searches had not identified, and the Scottish Information Commissioner found the council had not shown it held no further information, breaching FOISA and the EIRs. If your own records refer to a WhatsApp chat, make sure your FOI searches account for it. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 245/2024
• UK Research and Innovation, 25 October 2024. A request for what UKRI produced in response to a Secretary of State's open letter expressly covered WhatsApp messages. UKRI said the information held included emails, texts and WhatsApp messages, and withheld it; the Commissioner upheld sections 36, 42 and 40(2) and found breaches of sections 10(1) and 17(3). When a request names WhatsApp, messages in scope are assessed under the same exemptions as email, so search for and consider them alongside other records. ICO decision notice IC-295274-L9C8
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary, 23 October 2024. Investigators reviewed more than 1,400 messages in a WhatsApp group of Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers from 2020 to 2021, many sent on duty, with more than 100 referring to protected characteristics. Six former officers were found to have committed gross misconduct and would have been dismissed. The group came to light during an unrelated investigation. Give staff a trusted route to report what they see in colleagues' group chats, and show them that reports are supported and acted on. IOPC news release
• Scottish Government, 13 September 2024. On internal review of a request for a former Cabinet Secretary for Finance's COVID-period WhatsApp messages, the Scottish Government upheld the complaint that it had not responded in time and released the messages with redactions under several exemptions. Requests for WhatsApp messages carry the same deadlines as any other request, so know in advance how you would retrieve them. Scottish Government FOI internal review 202400426539
• Scottish Ministers, 6 September 2024. A request concerned a February 2020 meeting about mortuary capacity. The investigating officer asked the Government to search WhatsApp, texts and other messaging tools; the team involved confirmed it had not used WhatsApp for the work, a records search for 'WhatsApp' found nothing relevant, and the Scottish Information Commissioner accepted the information was not held. Be ready to explain to a regulator who searched WhatsApp and texts, where they looked and which search terms they used. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 196/2024
• Police Scotland, 3 September 2024. Asked about WhatsApp guidance, force phones with WhatsApp and 2024 data breaches from messaging apps, Police Scotland said it has a no-use policy for WhatsApp, does not permit WhatsApp or other messaging platforms on police devices, and had no relevant breaches reported. Put in writing which messaging tools are allowed on work devices; a large public body has banned WhatsApp on its own devices outright. FOI response 24-1902, Police Scotland
• A housing association landlord, 30 August 2024. A resident's damp and mould reports were handled partly through WhatsApp chats with the landlord, and its repair logs often did not match what the chats showed. The Ombudsman found maladministration, called the landlord's recordkeeping poor, and recommended a review of its repair and complaint record keeping. Make sure commitments made in WhatsApp chats are reflected in your formal logs, or the two will contradict each other when a complaint is examined. Housing Ombudsman determination 202327821
• Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, 27 August 2024. A request sought 2015 communications about a ferry contract, including on WhatsApp and similar apps. The authority said no such apps were used in 2015 and it could not search former employees' personal devices. The Scottish Information Commissioner accepted the information was not held, having been destroyed under retention rules, but said this was not good practice. Capture business messages into your records while staff are still with you, and take care before destroying records likely to matter to the public later. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 175/2024
• Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, 8 August 2024. An urgent spinal referral between hospitals went through the Patient Pass referral platform, which notifies the receiving registrar by text but sends the referrer no alert when a reply is posted. The coroner was concerned the two teams understood the platform differently, while finding the transfer without spinal precautions did not significantly contribute to the death. If urgent requests go through a messaging or referral platform, make sure every user knows how replies are signalled and who must check for them. Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report 2024-0437
• Cabinet Office, 31 July 2024. Asked whether the Prime Minister would use WhatsApp for government business, the Cabinet Office said ministers and officials are permitted to use non-corporate channels such as WhatsApp, and that all use should follow the guidance on those channels. Central government permits WhatsApp subject to rules, so decide and write down what your own rules for its use are. Written parliamentary answer
• Solicitors Regulation Authority, 30 July 2024. The SRA's review of asylum legal services found widespread WhatsApp use with clients, sometimes on fee earners' personal phones, while most firms lacked a clear written policy on it. It said this poses data protection risks and potential exploitation of vulnerable clients, and advised a clear policy, including when chats are saved to client files. Adopt a written WhatsApp policy covering personal phones, what may be discussed, how chats are kept confidential and when they are saved to the case file. SRA thematic review
• Metropolitan Police Service, 29 July 2024. A journalist asked how many officers were disciplined or dismissed for conduct on WhatsApp or other social media in 2018–21, with copies of the messages and posts. The force disclosed numbers, descriptions and redacted copies during the case; the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, upheld the remaining redactions and required no further steps. Messages kept in a misconduct file are your records and can be requested; expect to disclose them with personal data redacted, and allow time to extract them case by case. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2024] UKFTT 698 (GRC)
• Metropolitan Police Service, 26 July 2024. Two serving officers in a seven-member WhatsApp group exchanged grossly offensive messages, including racist and misogynistic content, found when another member's phone was examined after his arrest. The Divisional Court upheld their convictions under the Communications Act 2003, holding that consensual messages in a closed group could still be grossly offensive. Tell staff that a closed group chat does not make messages private in law: the court upheld criminal convictions for messages the other members found amusing. High Court judgment [2024] EWHC 1908 (Admin)
• A county borough council in north Wales (leaving care service), 8 July 2024. A social worker relied on her removal from the team WhatsApp group during long-term sick leave and a manager's message signed with a kiss. The tribunal found the removal was routine housekeeping applied to all long-term absentees, with readmission on return, and the kiss the team's usual sign-off; the claim failed. Decide how absent staff are removed from and readded to work groups, apply it to everyone and record what was done. Employment Tribunal judgment 1602811/2023
• Department of Health and Social Care, 5 July 2024. A requester sought WhatsApp messages on government business between the then Health Secretary and a non-executive director, which DHSC said it did not hold because they had not been transferred to its official record. The First-tier Tribunal held that was irrelevant to whether others held them on DHSC's behalf, and substituted a notice that DHSC holds the information. Work messages on a personal phone can be information your organisation holds under FOI, whether or not anyone has copied them into your records. First-tier Tribunal decision [2024] UKFTT 581 (GRC)
• A metropolitan city council in the West Midlands, 27 June 2024. WhatsApp messages between a line manager and the claimant, sent on her personal phone, were admitted over her GDPR objection. Their friendly tone contradicted her account that he avoided her. Ordinary unfair dismissal and four whistleblowing detriments succeeded. Raise performance or conduct concerns through formal, recorded channels; managers' WhatsApp messages on personal phones are disclosable and can undermine their later account. Employment Tribunal judgment 1301370/2022 and 1305058/2023
• Attorney General's Office, 6 June 2024. A requester asked how often the then Attorney General had forwarded her ministerial emails to private accounts. The Tribunal found the AGO had given no cogent evidence that the cost limit applied, listing unanswered questions such as whether IT or the former Attorney General had been asked, and ordered a fresh response without relying on sections 12 or 14. Before refusing a request as too costly, record how you would search, including asking IT and the account holder: a tribunal rejected an estimate with no evidence of those steps. First-tier Tribunal decision [2024] UKFTT 474 (GRC)
• Chapel-en-le-Frith Parish Council, 24 May 2024. A requester sought emails between three parish councillors and the complainants in noise-nuisance proceedings against the council. The council sent each councillor the request, an explanation of scope and the section 77 warning; the Tribunal accepted their confirmations without the council reading their private email, and found nothing in scope was held. When an FOI request may reach members' personal email, send each the request, its scope and the section 77 warning, and ask what they hold for the authority. First-tier Tribunal decision [2024] UKFTT 421 (GRC)
• A metropolitan district council in West Yorkshire, 7 May 2024. An employee gave a whistleblowing investigator copies of colleagues' WhatsApp messages and call recordings. Unsure whether they were shared with consent, he took HR advice, did not read them and asked how they were obtained; the tribunal found his data protection concern genuine, and all claims failed. When staff submit colleagues' private messages as evidence, an investigator may ask in writing how and with whose consent they were obtained before reading them. Employment Tribunal judgment 1803585/2022 and 1804901/2023
• Scottish Ministers, 6 May 2024. A request sought all correspondence sent to and by the First Minister on one day. The Government searched only emails and wrongly relied on the cost limit; the Scottish Information Commissioner said he would have expected WhatsApp and SMS messages to be searched, and all platforms, including personal accounts and devices, at review. Answer a request for 'all communications' by searching messaging apps and texts as well as email. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 080/2024
• Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 2 May 2024. Reviewing the Lobbying Act 2014, the committee found that departmental transparency releases leave out lobbying contact made through WhatsApp and similar channels. It recommended disclosing such exchanges like other contact and, if no trusted transparency regime can be found, blocking these channels on official devices. Treat work messages on staff phones as material an inquiry can call for, and know where they are held. PACAC report HC 203
• Cabinet Office, 24 April 2024. A request sought WhatsApp messages exchanged in 2020 between the then Prime Minister and another individual about that individual's consideration for a peerage. The Cabinet Office said it held none; the Commissioner found a breach because it had not searched its own records or asked the former Prime Minister, and required specified searches. For a request about WhatsApp messages, search your own records and ask the people who sent them; answering 'not held' without asking fails the duty. ICO decision notice IC-266748-K8S7
• A housing association landlord, 22 April 2024. During Covid restrictions, a landlord carried out a mutual exchange pre-tenancy inspection by WhatsApp video call, leaving the form unsigned. The Ombudsman accepted the reason for a remote inspection but found the superficial virtual viewing could not identify repairs; with safety certificates not provided, this was maladministration, and £200 was ordered. A remote video inspection may be justified, but it does not discharge a duty to inspect properly; plan an in-person follow-up check. Housing Ombudsman determination 202101398
• Scottish Ministers, 27 March 2024. A requester asked for ministers' WhatsApp and text messages on government business from two months of 2021, and the Scottish Ministers said none were held. They withdrew that position during the investigation and disclosed information; the Commissioner found a breach of FOISA, criticised searches that 'invited a negative response' and referred the handling for further intervention. Do not answer 'not held' to a request for WhatsApp or text messages until the people who sent them have searched their devices, including personal phones. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 045/2024
• Cabinet Office, 26 March 2024. A request sought correspondence between a minister and a peer sent from their private email accounts, and the Cabinet Office said it was not held. The Commissioner found a breach because it had not asked the minister whether he held the information, and ordered it to ask and respond. When official business may sit in someone's private email or messaging account, ask that person; do not answer from your own systems alone. ICO decision notice IC-185860-W1D3
• Royal Borough of Greenwich, 25 March 2024. Requests asked the council to search a councillor's personal phone and named officers' personal email accounts and phones, saying council business was done on them. The Tribunal upheld the refusal as vexatious, on burden, lack of serious purpose and likely harassment, and made no finding on whether personal-device material was held. Expect requests to name the personal phones of staff and members; whether one is refused as vexatious turns on its burden and context, not on the devices named. First-tier Tribunal judgment [2024] UKFTT 256 (GRC)
• Office for National Statistics, 22 March 2024. Answering FOI-2024-1868, ONS quoted the UK Statistics Authority records policy: nothing may be shared via WhatsApp, private email, SMS, Webex or Zoom without Cyber Security Team permission, and records created there must be transferred to corporate systems. WhatsApp content caught by a request would be considered case by case. Tell staff that any work message sent or received on WhatsApp must be copied into your official record system. Office for National Statistics FOI response FOI-2024-1868
• Welsh Government, 21 March 2024. Asked for officials' and ministers' messaging-app messages about maternity services at Swansea Bay University Health Board since March 2022, the Welsh Government released redacted screenshots of WhatsApp messages, said it holds no information on deleted messages, and confirmed Teams instant messages were in scope. Assume work chats on staff phones, including Teams messages, can be disclosed on request, and write them accordingly. Welsh Government FOI response ATISN 20276
• Scottish Government, 15 March 2024. Requests for ministers' WhatsApp and text messages on government business were first answered 'not held'. After an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the Scottish Government issued a new decision and released messages with exemptions, saying Covid inquiry evidence gathering had identified messages thought out of scope and let ministers access deleted messages held by others. A message deleted from one phone may survive on others in the group, so never treat deleting it as removing it from the record. Scottish Government FOI response 202100255908
• Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, 14 March 2024. Asked about a DPIA covering staff use of WhatsApp or other third-party apps for patient care, the trust said personal phones and third-party smartphone apps are not permitted for patient care, and staff use trust-issued encrypted phones under its policies. It did not answer the DPIA question. Write any ban on personal phones and third-party apps for care work into named policies, so staff and enquirers can be pointed to it. Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust FOI response SG14423
• Ofcom, 14 March 2024. Asked for its policy on retaining and deleting WhatsApp messages, Ofcom said WhatsApp is not a supported platform, so it has no retention or deletion policy for it, and that staff may not use personal messaging platforms for official business. If staff must not use personal messaging apps for work, put that in written policy so you can state it plainly when asked. Ofcom FOI response 1779786
• Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, 13 March 2024. Asked for its WhatsApp retention and deletion policy, the MHRA said messaging apps such as WhatsApp are forbidden on Agency-provided devices, including for business purposes, so it has no such policy and holds no information. If WhatsApp is not allowed on work devices, say so explicitly in policy, and be clear whether the rule also covers personal phones. MHRA FOI response 24/154
• Department for Education, 12 March 2024. Asked what guidance it issues on WhatsApp, the Department for Education said it follows the Cabinet Office guidance on non-corporate communication channels and has built it into its IT acceptable use policies. The answer covers the department's own staff, not schools. Put your rules on WhatsApp use into your acceptable use policy, as the Department for Education says it has done for its own staff. Written parliamentary answer
• Home Office, 11 March 2024. The Home Office said WhatsApp is not a supported application for its staff and is not available to all of them. Staff in specific roles with a valid business justification can apply through an exceptions process to have it installed on corporate devices, with configuration guidance to meet Home Office security standards. If WhatsApp is allowed at all, limit it to specific roles with a business case and configure it to a stated security standard. Written parliamentary answer
• Ministry of Defence, 11 March 2024. The Ministry of Defence said that, in line with the Cabinet Office policy on non-corporate communication channels, it discourages WhatsApp for anything other than keeping in touch. Its policy says personnel must not share or confirm information above OFFICIAL, a government security classification. Say plainly what WhatsApp may be used for, as the Ministry of Defence does by limiting it to keeping in touch. Written parliamentary answer
• Department of Health and Social Care, 11 March 2024. DHSC said all government departments, including arm's length bodies, apply the Cabinet Office guidance on non-corporate communication channels of March 2023, and that it has used that guidance since then. The guidance covers ministers, special advisers, officials, contractors, non-executive board members and independent experts. If you run a government arm's length body, base your WhatsApp policy on the Cabinet Office guidance, which covers contractors and board members as well as staff. Written parliamentary answer
• Department for Work and Pensions, 7 March 2024. DWP said WhatsApp is approved for download on its mobile devices but should only be used for wellbeing and as a keeping in touch tool, and must not be used for official business. Its guidance also refers to the DWP acceptable use policy and social media policy. A body can allow WhatsApp for staff wellbeing and keeping in touch while barring it for official business, which is the rule DWP adopted. Written parliamentary answer
• Dover Harbour Board (Port of Dover Police), 5 March 2024. An officer set up an intelligence-sharing group on his personal phone, first on WhatsApp and then Telegram, with no risk assessment, terms of reference, oversight or leaver process. The ICO reprimanded Dover Harbour Board (dated 5 March 2024, published 15 March 2024) and considered, but did not impose, a £500,000 penalty. A group chat staff run on their own phones to share information about people is still your processing: give it an owner, rules and a leaver process, or close it. ICO reprimand
• Kent Police, 5 March 2024. In February 2021 an officer photographed an individual's identity document on her personal phone and uploaded it to a Telegram group used by police forces and law enforcement agencies. The ICO reprimanded the Chief Constable, finding an organisational failure to tell officers adequately that using personal devices for personal data obtained on duty was not acceptable. Tell staff that personal phones and outside chat groups must not carry personal data obtained at work: the ICO treated such use as organisational failure, not individual error. ICO reprimand
• A national arts funding public body in London, 1 March 2024. An employee alleged a manager failed to act on 2019 WhatsApp messages from another employee about a reported racial divide in the team, later forwarded to her. The tribunal called the messages hearsay in documentary form; neither side showed what was done next, so the harassment allegation failed. Her remaining claims failed or were withdrawn. When a concern about racism reaches a manager by informal message, keep a durable record of the follow-up so you can show what was done. Employment Tribunal judgment 2200252/2022
• Angiolini Inquiry, Part 1, 29 February 2024. The Angiolini Inquiry found that, with one exception, very offensive messages in a WhatsApp group of former Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers went unchallenged and none were reported at the time. It called this a missed opportunity, because a report might have led to prosecution and misconduct proceedings that could have disrupted later offending. Tell staff that anyone who sees unacceptable messages in a staff group chat is expected to challenge and report them, and give them a route to do so. Angiolini Inquiry Part 1 report (HC 530)
• Cardiff Council, 27 February 2024. A requester sought a councillor's emails and WhatsApp messages with a third party and a consultancy's WhatsApp group. The Commissioner accepted that a councillor's information is the council's only where it relates to council business, found none was held, and judged the council's searches and consultation with the councillor reasonable and proportionate. A councillor's messages fall within the council's FOI duty only where they concern council business; when a request reaches them, ask the councillor directly as part of the search. ICO decision notice IC-262982-F9Z2
• Gambling Commission, 24 February 2024. Answering a request dated 24 February 2024, the Commission said WhatsApp is not a standard communication method, its guidance on non-corporate channels was in draft, staff may not use privately owned wireless equipment for business, IT must approve all software, and only a very small group of staff have WhatsApp on Commission devices for specific work. Where a few staff genuinely need WhatsApp, approve it centrally for named work rather than letting it spread informally. Gambling Commission FOI response
• Scottish Government, 20 February 2024. Releasing redacted internal correspondence on forming its messaging-app policy, the Scottish Government explained that in June 2021 its Executive Team agreed to consider whether further WhatsApp guidance was needed, which led to the November 2021 guidance. Part of the request was refused on cost. Remind staff that record-keeping duties apply on every channel: key decisions made over WhatsApp must still reach the official file. Scottish Government FOI response 202400395064
• London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, 19 February 2024. In a complaint about the council's handling of a direct housing offer, a relative was understood to have sent the council's relationship manager a WhatsApp message with photos of a child's living conditions; the Ombudsman had no record of it and could not verify receipt. It found serious, ongoing failings and the council agreed redress of £10,500 plus monthly payments. Save messages officers receive by WhatsApp to the case file; here the Ombudsman could not verify whether the council had ever received one. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 23 007 900
• HM Treasury, 14 February 2024. A requester asked for all messages on the HM Treasury phone issued to the independent Loan Charge Review lead. HMT's evidence, which the Tribunal accepted, was that the handset would have been wiped under standard procedure and iCloud backup was disabled; the Tribunal found the messages, including WhatsApp, were not held, allowing the appeal only over one email. Before a returned work phone is wiped, capture any messages that form part of the record: once the device is reset they are gone for good. First-tier Tribunal decision [2024] UKFTT 131 (GRC)
• A housing association landlord, 9 February 2024. In an antisocial behaviour case, the resident said some communication with the landlord had been by WhatsApp, but the landlord provided the Ombudsman with none of those messages. The Ombudsman found maladministration in the landlord's record keeping. If staff use WhatsApp for casework, make sure you can retrieve and disclose those messages when a complaint escalates. Housing Ombudsman determination 202229428
• Scottish Ministers, 7 February 2024. The Scottish Information Commissioner launched a Level 3 intervention, the level used for serious systemic practice failures, into the Government's use and retention of informal communications such as WhatsApp, after evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry. He required its policies, retention periods, device guidance and remedial actions by 29 February 2024. Write down your rules on messaging apps, retention periods and moving messages into the record, as these are the first documents a regulator asks for. Scottish Information Commissioner intervention letter
• Blackpool Council, 30 January 2024. A team supervisor set up a WhatsApp group when her team began home working in March 2020; over the next year inappropriate messages were posted, including comments about the disabled service users the team supported. The tribunal upheld her harassment claim in part, found a whistleblowing detriment and found constructive dismissal after the council decided not to investigate formally. If managers know a team WhatsApp group is used for work, the employer answers for its content: investigate complaints and consider moving the team to a managed channel. Employment Tribunal judgment 2408372/2021
• Cabinet Office, 23 January 2024. In a Lords debate on freedom of information, the Cabinet Office minister agreed that records matter and said the 2023 guidance on non-corporate channels was designed to ensure WhatsApp messages of substance in government business are recorded. If your organisation is subject to FOI, treat substantive WhatsApp messages as records to be kept and found when a request arrives. House of Lords Hansard, 23 January 2024
• Cabinet Office, 18 January 2024. Answering a Commons question on personal smartphones used for government business, the Cabinet Office minister said the department does not hold data centrally on personal smartphone use, and pointed to the March 2023 guidance on non-corporate communication channels. Find out which staff use personal phones for work messaging; the Cabinet Office told the Commons it holds no central data on this. House of Commons Hansard, 18 January 2024
• Social Work England – social worker at Stoke City Council, 20 December 2023. A children's social worker sent a parent on his caseload inappropriate WhatsApp messages and texts from his personal phone, without her knowing it was personal, and left her gifts. The panel found he failed to maintain professional boundaries, that the conduct was sexually motivated, and made a removal order. Staff should contact the families they work with only through work channels and devices, never personal WhatsApp accounts. Social Work England decision SW42369
• Scottish Government, 28 November 2023. Asked for each messaging policy covering ministers since February 2020, the Scottish Government identified its 'Mobile messaging apps – usage and policy' guidance (version 2.1, November 2021) and released two earlier drafts. Keep every version of your messaging policy with its dates, so you can show which rules applied at a given time. Scottish Government FOI response 202300383064
• Scottish Government, 24 November 2023. The Scottish Government released April 2020 intranet guidance saying chat messages should be transitory, not the official record, and deleted once no longer needed, alongside its records policy that information relevant to the corporate record must be saved. Inquiry-related correspondence was withheld under exemptions. Pair any 'delete chat messages when no longer needed' rule with a clear step for saving decisions to the official record first. Scottish Government FOI response 202300382735
• A housing association landlord, 17 November 2023. A damp specialist contractor skipped an arranged visit and asked the resident for photos by WhatsApp instead, without telling the landlord, which left it unaware the visit had not happened. The Ombudsman criticised the confusion and suggested the landlord consider how contractors report back to it; it found reasonable redress on the damp and mould. Agree a protocol requiring contractors to tell you when they depart from an arranged visit, such as asking for WhatsApp photos instead of attending. Housing Ombudsman determination 202200500
• Scottish Information Commissioner, 2 November 2023. The Commissioner issued a statement that information in non-corporate messaging tools such as WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams will, in most cases, fall within Scotland's FOI laws when used for official business. He expects authorities to consider it when answering requests, and may consider regulatory action over poor searching or records management. If your school or service is part of a Scottish public authority, treat staff WhatsApp used for official business as information to search under FOI. Scottish Information Commissioner statement
• A London borough council in south London, 13 October 2023. WhatsApp exchanges between an agency worker and his line manager decided the facts: her sympathetic reply about his ill son was at odds with an alleged sexist comment, which the tribunal found was never made, and his rude messages undermined his credibility. All claims failed. Keep manager–worker messages retrievable; those written at the time are often the best evidence of the working relationship, and their tone counts as much as their content. Employment Tribunal judgment 2306219/2020
• A city council in West Yorkshire (family support service), 11 October 2023. A family support worker moved contact with a parent she supported from work email to Facebook and then WhatsApp, where it became a romantic relationship. The service agreement banned social media contact with families, and the tribunal held her summary dismissal within the band of reasonable responses. State plainly in writing that staff must not contact families on personal social media or messaging apps; a clear rule supported the dismissal here. Employment Tribunal judgment 1802710/2023
• Metropolitan Police Service, October 2023. Metropolitan Police guidance from October 2023, disclosed under FOI in June 2024, requires instant messaging for work to use force-issued devices, bans personal devices for work, and bars sensitive, evidential and operational decision-making content from instant messaging. It still allows WhatsApp contact with the public and victims. Ban personal phones for work messaging and keep sensitive, evidential and decision-making content out of chats. Metropolitan Police guidance disclosed under FOI
• General Medical Council – doctor's WhatsApp contact with a patient, 28 September 2023. A doctor contacted a patient he had treated in A&E by WhatsApp from his personal phone; the exchanges crossed professional boundaries and he deleted his messages, so the evidence came from the patient. On the Professional Standards Authority's appeal, the High Court quashed the tribunal's decision and sent the case to a new tribunal. Contact with patients or service users from personal phones can leave the organisation with no record of it; require staff to use work channels. High Court judgment [2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
• ICO audits of police and criminal justice bodies, 20 September 2023. ICO audits of police and criminal justice bodies in England and Wales between October 2020 and March 2023 found that not all had sufficient controls on mobile devices or social media for work, and that controls on using WhatsApp for work tasks, including sharing personal data, were not satisfactorily documented. Write down whether staff may use WhatsApp or their own devices for work, including for personal data, tell staff, and check compliance in proportion to the risk. ICO audit outcomes report
• NHS Lanarkshire, 31 July 2023. A WhatsApp group to which 26 staff had access held at least 533 entries with patient names and clinical images between 2020 and 2022, and someone was added to it in error. The ICO reprimanded the board: the app had been made available on its devices without an approved process, a DPIA or a risk assessment. Before a messaging app is available on staff devices, assess the data protection risks and say in writing whether it may carry personal data. ICO reprimand
• A housing association landlord, 13 July 2023. A landlord stopped accepting antisocial behaviour evidence by WhatsApp, citing data protection and 'WhatsApp guidance' that the determination does not identify, and offered email and an online form instead. The Ombudsman found no maladministration and accepted the landlord's explanation as reasonable. In this case the Ombudsman accepted withdrawing WhatsApp as a reporting channel for data protection reasons, because the landlord explained why and offered workable alternatives. Housing Ombudsman determination 202204395
• Cabinet Office, 6 July 2023. The Cabinet Office challenged a UK Covid-19 Inquiry notice requiring unredacted WhatsApp messages, diaries and notebooks, arguing it captured plainly irrelevant material. The Divisional Court dismissed the claim and held the notice valid; a holder who thinks documents obviously irrelevant can apply to the inquiry chair rather than redacting them unilaterally. A statutory inquiry can compel work WhatsApp messages in full; raise any material you think irrelevant with the inquiry rather than redacting it yourself. High Court judgment [2023] EWHC 1702 (Admin)
• A metropolitan borough council in Merseyside, 20 June 2023. During an employee's grievance appeal and sick leave, a senior manager removed him without warning from the team's work WhatsApp group, which also had a social function. The tribunal accepted there was no malice but counted it among acts that breached trust and confidence; constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. Before removing someone from a work messaging group, especially during absence or a grievance, speak to them first and explain why. Employment Tribunal judgment 2403087/2022
• House of Commons Committee of Privileges, 15 June 2023. In its inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister misled the House about gatherings in No. 10, the committee relied partly on government-supplied evidence that included officials' WhatsApp messages. It noted that it received only a limited number of his own messages. Keep work WhatsApp messages producible, since an inquiry can call for them alongside emails and photographs. Committee of Privileges report HC 564
• Cabinet Office, 5 June 2023. The Minister for the Cabinet Office told the Commons the government was seeking judicial review of a Covid-19 Inquiry notice requiring WhatsApp messages and other documents, arguing the inquiry could not compel material that was 'unambiguously irrelevant', including personal communications. This was the government's argument at the time; the High Court dismissed the challenge in July 2023. Keep work and personal chats apart, because mixed WhatsApp threads lead to disputes when an inquiry demands the messages. Hansard ministerial statement, House of Commons
• South Yorkshire Police, 2 June 2023. An officer used his personal phone to send colleagues WhatsApp images of detained people with derogatory comments, and shared personal details of a convicted person, details of a hate crime report and a body-worn video image. A panel found gross misconduct proven and he was dismissed without notice, despite having completed training on sharing operational material. Forbid sharing photographs or personal details of the people in your care over personal WhatsApp, even with colleagues, and say so in staff training. IOPC news release
• Metropolitan Police Service, 23 May 2023. Three Met officers faced misconduct proceedings after an offensive meme about a woman's kidnap by a serving officer was shared on WhatsApp. Two constables received final written warnings, one for posting it and one for failing to challenge or report it; a third, who forwarded it rather than report it, was dealt with through reflective practice. Tell staff that failing to challenge or report an offensive post in a work group chat can bring the same sanction as posting it. IOPC news release
• A metropolitan district council in West Yorkshire (children's social work), 31 March 2023. A manager used WhatsApp as a main management tool with a social worker. The warm exchanges showed no problems and nothing prepared her for an adverse reference citing sickness and commitment during pregnancies; her pregnancy and maternity claim succeeded, with £7,000 for injury to feelings. Record performance concerns at the time; a reference or criticism that the management chat history never mentions will look inconsistent and may be read as discriminatory. Employment Tribunal judgment 1802552/2022
• Cabinet Office, 30 March 2023. The Cabinet Office's current guidance (March 2023) on using WhatsApp, private email and SMS for government business says significant government information in such channels should be captured into government systems, and that any use of disappearing messages must not affect record-keeping or transparency. It applies to central government and arm's length bodies. Write a short rule that anything significant decided or discussed on WhatsApp is copied, screenshotted or summarised into your own records system. Cabinet Office guidance
• Cabinet Office, 30 March 2023. A written ministerial statement announced new Cabinet Office guidance on non-corporate communication channels, replacing 2013 guidance on private email. It lets government use such channels when appropriate while considering record-keeping, transparency, security and data protection implications, and takes account of the Information Commissioner's report 'Behind the screens: maintaining government transparency and data security in the age of messaging apps'. Build your staff messaging policy around record-keeping, transparency, security and data protection, the four implications the government's guidance addresses. Written ministerial statement HCWS703
• Department of Health and Social Care, 28 March 2023. A request covered a minister's government-business correspondence outside departmental email. The department said over 100,000 WhatsApp messages disclosed by the former minister were never transferred to the official record, and the Commissioner found it did not hold the information; the First-tier Tribunal overturned this in July 2024, finding the department held it and ordering compliance. Transfer business WhatsApp messages into your records; here a 'not held' answer for messages left outside the record was overturned by the tribunal, which found the department held them. ICO decision notice IC-207013-X9T3 (overturned on appeal)
• Cabinet Office, 24 March 2023. A requester asked how many messages, including WhatsApp, the Prime Minister's then chief adviser sent on one day in September 2020. The ICO found the Cabinet Office had not searched at the time and probably held the information then, but it was no longer held, so no steps could be ordered. Search the accounts and devices staff actually use for work as soon as a request arrives; once people leave, the information can be lost for good. ICO decision notice IC-89985-K6C2
• A county council in the West Midlands, 23 March 2023. An employee complained that a service head had called his phone too often, and two WhatsApp messages were sent to the manager from that number, supposedly by a relative. The tribunal found he had most probably sent them himself; the whole claim failed and he was ordered to pay the council's costs. When a manager has to reach an absent employee, use a documented work channel and log each contact attempt; tribunals test messages and call logs for authenticity. Employment Tribunal judgment 1305084/2020
• Metropolitan Police Service, 21 March 2023. Officers told the Baroness Casey Review that some in the Specialist Firearms Command were taught to leave, delete and recreate WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram groups once a complaint or misconduct investigation touched them. Separately, one officer told the review that officers at a briefing were encouraged to delete their WhatsApp messages. Officers described group chats being wiped once a complaint arrived; keep work conversations where the organisation holds the record, so it cannot vanish when needed. Baroness Casey Review final report
• Cabinet Office, 8 March 2023. Answering a Lords question on ministers' WhatsApp use, the Cabinet Office minister said substantive communications must be captured on government systems but not every message kept, with ephemeral and trivial information to be deleted, and that new guidance would cover disappearing messages. Say in your messaging policy which messages count as substantive and must be captured, rather than requiring every message to be kept. House of Lords Hansard, 8 March 2023
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Metropolitan Police Service, 6 March 2023. The IOPC's Operation Argens report examined discriminatory and offensive messages in a 2019 WhatsApp group of Met officers who had all served in the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. It set out that force's social media policy, which held staff accountable for posts in private accounts including WhatsApp and required them to report colleagues' misconduct. Say in your staff social media policy that it covers private accounts and group chats, and that staff must report misconduct they see there. IOPC Operation Argens final report
• Upton Bishop Parish Council, 19 January 2023. A request covered councillors' messages on WhatsApp, Messenger and other systems. The Commissioner accepted no further information was held and upheld redactions of personal email addresses and names, but raised concern that information in councillors' own email accounts had not been secured when they resigned, so potentially relevant information was lost. When a member leaves, recover any organisational records held in their personal email or messaging accounts before access is lost. ICO decision notice IC-193926-S0T9
• Metropolitan Police Service and Civil Nuclear Constabulary, 9 December 2022. A gross misconduct panel found proven the cases against six serving and former constables in the Operation Argens WhatsApp group, for sending offensive messages and failing to report or challenge messages they received. The two still serving were dismissed without notice; the other four would have been dismissed had they still been serving. The IOPC analysed more than 6,000 messages. Make clear that failing to report unacceptable messages in a staff group chat can itself be a disciplinary matter, not only sending them. IOPC news release on the Operation Argens misconduct hearing
• HM Treasury, 6 December 2022. A requester sought messages from a Treasury iPhone issued to the person leading the Loan Charge Review. On appeal, after the Treasury accepted that what it told the Commissioner was wrong, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part over one email, since disclosed, and found no SMS or WhatsApp messages held because the phone was wiped on reallocation. If work phones are wiped when reissued, make sure any messages that matter are in your records system before a phone is reallocated. ICO decision notice IC-179260-X8F3 (partly overturned on appeal)
• Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, 6 December 2022. The FCDO said its messaging-app policy began as a 2017 Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy covering WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Line, Signal and WeChat, updated several times. In February 2022 it was renamed the FCDO Instant Messaging Policy and required two-factor verification on business messaging apps. Require two-step verification on any messaging app staff use for work, and keep the policy updated over time. Written parliamentary answer
• Department of Health and Social Care, 5 December 2022. During the investigation of a request for a minister's communications with another individual, the department cited section 14(1), grossly oppressive burden, for the WhatsApp messages. The Commissioner found the burden had not been shown, upheld section 40(2) for other information and required the department to search and respond again. If you refuse a request as too burdensome because of WhatsApp messages, evidence the burden and weigh it against the request's value; an unevidenced refusal will not stand. ICO decision notice IC-123460-K8B2
• Government ministers – Court of Appeal on messaging records, 1 December 2022. A campaign group appealed over ministers' use of WhatsApp, Signal, SMS and private email, citing alleged breaches of eight government policies, including failures to preserve messages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: there is no implied duty to retain records under the Public Records Act, and the policies were not enforceable by judicial review. Write down your own rules for moving important messaging-app content into your records, because the court left retention to organisations' policies, and breaching them can still be a disciplinary matter. Court of Appeal judgment [2022] EWCA Civ 1580
• Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service, 20 November 2022. A retained crew manager who administered a watch WhatsApp group, used for shift scheduling as well as social chat, was dismissed for failing to challenge offensive and homophobic posts by others, joining a coordinated effort in the group to delay a policy change, and lack of candour. The tribunal found the dismissal fair. Make sure conduct and social media policies clearly cover messaging apps, and tell managers they are expected to challenge unacceptable posts in work groups. Employment Tribunal judgment 1300590/2021
• Department for Education, 16 November 2022. Asked about ministers and civil servants using SMS, WhatsApp and Signal, the Department for Education said relevant content from ministers' informal conversations is passed back to officials, and that only approved and assured systems may be used for official data. This is the department's rule for its own data, not for schools. Hold official data only on approved and assured systems, and make sure relevant content from informal chats is passed back into official records. Written parliamentary answer
• A central London borough council, 3 November 2022. An assistant finance manager was dismissed for gross misconduct for sexually harassing male colleagues, much of it by WhatsApp, Teams and text, and for malicious counter-grievances. The tribunal relied on the message trail, including who blocked whom, to reject her allegations; all claims failed. Treat persistent unwanted contact between colleagues on personal WhatsApp as conduct to address, and collect the full message trail early when allegations compete. Employment Tribunal judgment 2203476/2020 and 2202018/2021
• West Mercia Police, November 2022. West Mercia Police's Acceptable Use Policy (November 2022) requires messaging apps such as WhatsApp used for work to run on force devices, not personal ones, with no official data shared on them. It also bars social groups, including social networks with colleagues, from work devices. Keep work messaging on organisation devices, and keep social chats with colleagues off them. West Mercia Police Acceptable Use Policy
• Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, 18 October 2022. The trust said its social media policy allows only closed WhatsApp groups set up with guidance from its Communications Team, and that no patient information should be shared on WhatsApp. It said private groups are not tracked and no statistics could be provided, and that it uses the messaging system in its Electronic Patient Record. If you allow staff WhatsApp groups, require them to be set up through an agreed route so you know which groups exist. Royal Devon University Healthcare FOI response F4926
• Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust, 4 October 2022. The trust said WhatsApp is not an approved application and colleagues are encouraged not to use it. It said WhatsApp may have been used early in the pandemic for video consultations or recruitment panels, and that it knew of messages between colleagues and patients via WhatsApp, but this use was not recorded, so it gave no figures. Not approving an app does not stop staff using it with service users; record any such contact so you know how much happens. Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust FOI response 2022.167
• South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, 27 September 2022. The ambulance trust said WhatsApp is not on its approved-app list for trust-issued phones and iPads and is not approved for patient contact or patient data. It added that staff can install apps on those devices under their own personal accounts, and that IT does not check such apps. An approved-app list may not keep WhatsApp off work devices if staff can add apps under personal accounts; decide deliberately whether to allow that. South East Coast Ambulance Service FOI response
• University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, 26 September 2022. The trust said it does not encourage WhatsApp and does not install it on corporate devices by default. It knew of incidental use between colleagues but could not quantify the number of users or how often, and knew of no use with patients. Knowing that staff use WhatsApp is not the same as knowing how much; ask staff which work messaging groups they run. University Hospitals of North Midlands FOI response 337-2223
• Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, 22 September 2022. Asked in September 2022 whether and how often staff had used WhatsApp at work since January 2021, the trust replied in one line that it does not advocate WhatsApp for any trust activity. It gave no usage figures. A statement that WhatsApp is not encouraged does not tell you whether staff use it; find out how staff actually message before relying on policy. Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust FOI response HWHCT-189
• University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, 21 September 2022. In a reply published on 21 September 2022, the trust said WhatsApp is not an official UHB communications channel. It did not say whether staff had used it informally. Saying WhatsApp is not an official channel does not answer whether staff use it; check practice as well as policy. University Hospitals Birmingham FOI response 2521
• Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 20 September 2022. Answering a request received on 20 September 2022, the trust said it set up opt-in WhatsApp broadcast groups for urgent internal staff information during Covid-19 and still uses them for corporate updates. It said teams use WhatsApp, which it described as secure, but no patient information is permitted on it. If you allow WhatsApp for staff updates, state in writing what may never be shared on it, such as pupil, child or resident information. Milton Keynes University Hospital FOI response
• Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 20 September 2022. Answering a request dated 20 September 2022, the trust confirmed WhatsApp had been used for core communications during Covid-19 and for business continuity and emergency preparedness (EPRR) work. It held no information on how often, and its policy bars patient-identifiable data and sensitive business information on WhatsApp, an answer identical to Alder Hey's. If you permit WhatsApp for emergencies or business continuity, write down what may never go on it and keep a record of when it is used. Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital FOI response FOI202223/220
• Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, 20 September 2022. The children's hospital trust confirmed WhatsApp had been used for core communications during Covid-19 and for business continuity and emergency-preparedness work, but held no central record of how often. Its policy bars patient-identifiable data and sensitive business information on WhatsApp, in a reply identical to Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital's. If nobody records WhatsApp use centrally, you cannot say how often it happens when asked; decide now what record you will keep. Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust FOI disclosure log
• Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry, 5 August 2022. In August 2022 the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry sent preservation letters to 152 organisations and individuals, asking them to keep all potentially relevant material, explicitly including text and WhatsApp messages, and reminding them that deliberately destroying documents can be an offence under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005. If an inquiry asks you to preserve records, tell staff at once that work texts and WhatsApp messages must be kept too, not deleted. Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry preservation letter
• London Borough of Haringey, 3 August 2022. A woman complained that an early help family support worker shared personal experiences with her and misrepresented her situation. The ombudsman found her own text messages to early help corroborated the council's record of her disclosure, and accepted the council's apology for the worker sharing personal experiences as a suitable remedy. Messages from the people you support can decide a later complaint: here a woman's own texts to early help corroborated the council's record of her disclosure. Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decision 21 015 547
• Department of Health and Social Care, 11 July 2022. The ICO found private channels, including WhatsApp, Hotmail and Google Mail, were regularly used for messages containing personal data despite official accounts being provided. It issued a reprimand for not fully complying with UK GDPR and recommended reviewing the platforms used, secure BYOD options and rules for deleting information once on the official record. Apply your messaging policy to everyone, senior leaders and governors included, and set rules for moving messages to the official record and then deleting them. ICO reprimand
• Metropolitan Police Service, 8 July 2022. Two constables guarding a murder scene photographed the victims and shared the images with colleagues, one also via WhatsApp to members of the public; both were jailed. Three officers who failed to challenge or report the images received written warnings, and the Met accepted recommendations for the station to review supervision and promote a duty to challenge. Make clear that staff who receive images of the people you serve must challenge and report them, and that supervisors are expected to stop such behaviour. IOPC news release
• Essex Safeguarding Adults Board, July 2022. A safeguarding adults review into a man in Essex supported by housing, social care and police found that during the pandemic much of the professionals' contact with him was by text message, making it difficult to spot that some of what he told them was untrue or conflicting. He died of natural causes in February 2021. When contact moves to text messages, check what you are told with other agencies; the review said greater multi-agency information sharing may have overcome the problem. Essex Safeguarding Adults Board safeguarding adults review (July 2022, final version)
• A housing association landlord, 17 June 2022. A resident's WhatsApp messages to one staff member went unanswered; the landlord said she was on annual leave and that it had advised using its shared email address. The Ombudsman found this explanation rational, found no fault in communication, and concluded the landlord had offered reasonable redress overall. Messages sent to one employee's WhatsApp are missed when they are away; direct people to a shared channel that someone checks every working day. Housing Ombudsman determination 202008022
• Humberside Police, 10 June 2022. Between 2019 and 2020 an officer passed confidential police information to a member of the public without a policing purpose, including a WhatsApp image of her computer screen showing a confidential briefing sheet. She received a suspended sentence for misconduct in public office, and a misconduct process found she would have been dismissed without notice. Tell staff that photographing a work screen and sending it by WhatsApp discloses everything shown on it. IOPC news release
• Cabinet Office and government ministers, 29 April 2022. Two judicial reviews argued that ministers' and officials' use of WhatsApp, Signal and private email for government business, including auto-delete, breached the Public Records Act 1958 and government policy. The Divisional Court dismissed both: the Act's duty is to make arrangements, not to retain records, and the internal policies were not enforceable in public law. Have written arrangements for deciding which messaging-app content is saved into your own records, because the court looked at arrangements rather than a duty to keep every message. High Court judgment [2022] EWHC 960 (Admin)
• Cabinet Office, 31 March 2022. A request sought a senior adviser's communications about the 2019 prorogation of Parliament. The Commissioner found no further information held on the balance of probabilities, but said the Cabinet Office should have searched more thoroughly at the time, and that this and the adviser's departure left him unable to decide on material in private email accounts or personal devices. Search personal accounts and devices promptly when a request arrives; once the person leaves, the information may be beyond reach. ICO decision notice IC-40467-C7K2
• Cabinet Office, 31 March 2022. Answering a Lords question on ministers using messaging services on personal devices, the government minister said the 2013 Cabinet Office guidance covered any non-corporate channel, and that ministers and officials must capture a record of substantive discussions and decisions in the official system. Require staff to move any decision or substantive discussion held on a messaging app onto the organisation's record system. House of Lords Hansard, 31 March 2022
• Department of Health and Social Care, 2 March 2022. Responding to a Commons Humble Address (an order for papers) about Randox contracts, DHSC said it had searched departmental and personal communications, including current and former ministers' personal WhatsApp messages. A later Lords answer said it had found no record of WhatsApp or text messages between the former minister and an employee of a second company. If work is done on personal phones, those messages may have to be searched and produced, so keep business conversations on systems you can search. Written parliamentary answer
• Metropolitan Police Service, Charing Cross Police Station, 1 February 2022. The IOPC's Operation Hotton investigations found offensive and discriminatory messages among Met officers, some in WhatsApp groups of 17 and 19 officers, with 'banter' offered as a defence. Its learning report made 15 recommendations to the Met, including that privacy is no defence to discreditable conduct and deleting messages is no way to avoid discipline. State in your conduct policy that staff group chats are covered, that 'banter' is no defence, and that deleting messages will not avoid disciplinary action. IOPC Operation Hotton learning report (January 2022)
• A London borough council (customer services), 31 January 2022. An employee was not told the face-to-face team was returning to the office and was left out of its WhatsApp group, which needed the mobile number she had not wanted her manager to use. Telling her would have been good practice, but it was not discrimination; all claims failed. Make sure key operational notices reach every employee through an official channel that does not depend on a personal phone number or group membership. Employment Tribunal judgment 2203363/2021
• A housing association landlord, 22 December 2021. In the pandemic, contact between a resident and an antisocial behaviour officer ran across WhatsApp, text, phone and email, and the landlord admitted in its complaint response that this affected the standard of communication. The Ombudsman found service failure, ordering £100 and a policy amendment, but found the use of several channels with written summaries reasonable. Agree one recorded channel per case; this landlord admitted that spreading contact across WhatsApp, text, phone and email lowered the standard of its communication. Housing Ombudsman determination 202006936
• A London borough council, 13 December 2021. In a probation misconduct process over alleged sexual harassment of a colleague, an employee was prevented from sharing WhatsApp messages he considered important, and further messages at appeal were not put to him, which the tribunal found troubling. A reasonable adjustments claim partly succeeded on other process failings; £28,721.13 was awarded. In a misconduct case that turns on messages, let the accused put forward their own messages and comment on any new ones, including at appeal. Employment Tribunal judgment 2303933/2019
• Gwent Police, December 2021. Asked about officers investigated for inappropriate social media use since 2018, including WhatsApp, Gwent Police listed five constables in 2021 for inappropriate WhatsApp comments. They were dealt with through the Reflective Practice Review Process, a learning outcome rather than a sanction. Set out in writing what is acceptable for staff to post on WhatsApp; inappropriate WhatsApp comments put five officers through a conduct process in a single year. FOI response 2021/24677, Gwent Police
• A London borough council, 5 November 2021. A manager's text the morning after a director's hospital attendance, instructing HR to draft a probation extension letter, contradicted the manager's account that it had been discussed earlier. With back-dated letters, this supported disability discrimination findings over the extension and dismissal; £4,580,587.39 was awarded at the 2024 remedy hearing. Record decisions about staff on sick leave formally and promptly; an informal text can show when a decision was really taken and contradict later letters. Employment Tribunal judgment 2206237/2018
• Care Inspectorate Wales national overview of council social services, 4 November 2021. Care Inspectorate Wales's national overview of pandemic assurance checks recorded that Welsh councils' social services kept in contact with people through Facebook, Zoom, Microsoft Teams and WhatsApp, and gave people smartphones and iPads. It presented this as adaptation and made no requirement about it. Do not cite this report as approval of WhatsApp contact; CIW did not examine records or data protection for those channels. Care Inspectorate Wales national overview report
• Ministry of Defence Police, 27 October 2021. Asked about officers disciplined or dismissed for conduct on WhatsApp or other social media in 2018–2021, the Ministry of Defence Police listed eight cases by platform. One 2019 case, recorded against Kik/WhatsApp, involved images uploaded and shared and ended in the officer's dismissal. Make clear that your conduct rules cover images staff upload and share on messaging apps, not only written messages. FOI response, Ministry of Defence Police (eCase FOI 2021/11267)
• West Midlands Police, 7 October 2021. Asked how many officers had been disciplined or dismissed for conduct on WhatsApp or social media in 2018–2021, West Midlands Police refused on cost: its complaint records have no category for this, so each would need reading by hand. The refusal does not show whether any cases occurred. Record the platform involved when you log a conduct complaint, so you can answer questions about WhatsApp misuse without reading every file. FOI response 1406A/21, West Midlands Police
• HM Treasury, 24 September 2021. Responding to the Treasury Committee, HM Treasury said its remote-wipe policy was put in place having regard to the Minimum Cyber Security Standard. It accepted that, in exceptional circumstances, information not yet transferred to the departmental record could be lost, but decided to keep the security feature. If your devices can be remotely wiped, require staff to transfer substantive messages to the organisation's systems promptly. Government response, Treasury Committee HC 723
• National Police Chiefs' Council, 9 September 2021. Minutes of an NPCC working group on misuse of instant messaging record a remark that many Met staff had no work phone and used personal phones for work, including to contact victims, raising data-governance issues. Members proposed gathering forces' phone and app policies to inform a recommendation on WhatsApp. Before writing your messaging rule, find out which staff lack a work phone and use their own to contact the people you serve. NPCC working group minutes (disclosure 064/2022)
• Scottish Ministers, 12 August 2021. A request sought special advisers' SMS and WhatsApp messages about a poll over four days in October 2020; searches a week later found nothing. The Scottish Information Commissioner accepted nothing was held, noted messages may have existed and been gone by the search, and raised concern that there was no specific SMS or WhatsApp policy. Set a retention policy for text and WhatsApp messages so business messages are kept before anyone needs to search for them. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 122/2021
• Leicester City Council, 4 August 2021. A neighbourhood housing officer, told not to make inappropriate contact with his line manager, sent her an out-of-hours WhatsApp message about her appearance and his feelings and was dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but held he would have been fairly dismissed anyway, so made no compensatory award and cut his basic award by 75%. Make clear that a personal WhatsApp message breaching a no-contact instruction is misconduct, even out of hours, and still follow a fair dismissal procedure. Employment Tribunal judgment 2602275/2019
• House of Commons Treasury Committee, 20 July 2021. HM Treasury could not provide its Permanent Secretary's text replies to a lobbyist because his phone was reset after locking on repeated wrong passwords. The committee said he acted correctly in transferring substantive messages to the official record, did not think the deletion deliberate, and recommended reviewing policies and IT. Copy significant work messages into the organisation's records promptly, because a security reset can wipe the device's copy and leave an FOI request unanswerable. Treasury Committee report HC 151
• Independent Office for Police Conduct, 23 April 2021. The IOPC warned that officers who post or share offensive material on social media could face misconduct investigation, and asked the National Police Chiefs' Council to remind forces of their obligations. It cited a Kent officer sacked after a force investigation for posting crime-scene photos on WhatsApp, found when another member's phone was searched in a separate criminal investigation. Remind staff that group chat messages can surface through another member's phone: in the Kent case they emerged when that phone was searched in a separate criminal investigation. IOPC news release
• Leicestershire Police, 14 April 2021. Asked how many officers or staff had been disciplined or dismissed over posts shared on WhatsApp from 2019 to 2021, the force said none had been disciplined or dismissed in relation to WhatsApp in that period. Note the platform in conduct records, so you can say how many cases involved staff messaging groups if you are ever asked. Leicestershire Police FOI response 000910/21
• Ministry of Defence Police, 12 April 2021. Asked the same 2021 question on officers or staff disciplined or dismissed over posts shared on WhatsApp between 2019 and 2021, the Ministry of Defence Police said it held information in scope and gave the answer 'Nil'. Record conduct cases in a form you can count by platform, so you can answer the same question put to many organisations. Ministry of Defence Police FOI response 2021/02972
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary, 18 March 2021. Asked in March 2021 how many officers or staff had been disciplined or dismissed over posts shared on WhatsApp, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary confirmed it held information of that type and said the answer was zero. Expect the same FOI question about staff conduct on WhatsApp to reach many bodies at once, and know who will answer it for you. FOI response letter, Civil Nuclear Constabulary
• Carmarthenshire County Council, 15 January 2021. Estyn's national report on council support for schools during COVID-19 cited Carmarthenshire officers using an existing WhatsApp support group to keep Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families engaged and to offer support. Estyn presented it as positive practice and did not consider records, retention or governance for the group. Inspectorate praise for a WhatsApp group covered engagement only, not records, retention or governance, so settle those separately before copying the approach. Estyn national report
• Financial Conduct Authority, 11 January 2021. The FCA's Market Watch 66 flagged greater use of WhatsApp and similar apps during pandemic homeworking, required in-scope communications on business devices to be recorded, and said firms should consider banning private devices for in-scope work where recording is impossible. It noted action against people who used WhatsApp and other platforms to arrange deals. Review the messaging policy whenever working patterns change, and bar personal devices for work the organisation must be able to record. FCA Market Watch 66 newsletter
• A city council in the east of Scotland (school staff), 25 November 2020. A headteacher's WhatsApp message to a member of staff, said to be on behalf of the senior leadership team, was pleaded as unfavourable treatment. At a preliminary hearing the tribunal refused to strike it out, holding that context and oral evidence would decide, and the case went to a final hearing. Keep a record of leaders' messages to absent or disabled staff and why they were sent; context, not wording alone, will decide whether they were unfavourable. Employment Tribunal judgment 4100189/2020
• Scottish Ministers, 16 October 2020. A request sought all messages in a WhatsApp group used by the Health Secretary, a health minister and a special adviser. The messages were deleted; the Ministers said the group was only for logistics, substantive business would have been saved to the corporate record, and they had no specific WhatsApp guidance. The Scottish Information Commissioner accepted they were not held. If WhatsApp is used even for logistics, set a rule for when a message must be copied into your records before chats are deleted. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 131/2020
• Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland, 28 August 2020. Asked for texts and WhatsApp messages between the then Police and Crime Commissioner and a media adviser, the Cleveland OPCC released redacted screenshots but said images sent on WhatsApp could not be retrieved because the device did not retain them. Decide where work messages are stored: they can be requested under FOI, and what a phone does not keep cannot be disclosed. FOI response 256, Cleveland OPCC
• Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland, August 2020. The Cleveland OPCC's interim WhatsApp policy (August 2020) says WhatsApp is not an approved business tool, allows only a few branded work groups, and asks group members to delete the previous seven days' messages each week. It notes that work chats may be requestable under FOI. If you allow work WhatsApp groups, set a written retention and deletion rule, remembering that chats mainly about work may be requestable under FOI. Cleveland OPCC WhatsApp policy
• A borough council in Worcestershire (housing repairs team), 16 July 2020. An operative opened a WhatsApp message at a staff briefing and sounds found to be sexual played aloud. His account of deleting it by accident was inconsistent, the message was missing from both phones, and the tribunal upheld summary dismissal for dishonesty and playing the message. When a disputed message has vanished, test the explanation of how it was deleted, as these managers did; an implausible account can decide the case on honesty. Employment Tribunal judgment 1306316/2019
• Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council, 26 March 2020. In a claim by companies over a trading-standards investigation, the High Court ordered the council to list the work-issued devices, including mobile phones, held by each of 22 current and former staff, and formally to ask the key former employee for council documents under his control. Searching the other staff's sources beyond work-issued devices was held disproportionate. Keep a record of which work devices each member of staff holds, because a court can order you to account for them and to ask former staff for work material. High Court judgment [2020] EWHC 701 (QB)
• Department of Health and Social Care, 26 March 2020. Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, DHSC said mental health providers were looking at phone and video consultations where home visits were not possible, naming WhatsApp alongside Skype and FaceTime, and that NHSX guidance had been published to support their use. Treat pandemic-era advice naming WhatsApp for remote care contacts as of its time, and check current NHS guidance before relying on it. Written parliamentary answer
• General Medical Council – doctors' closed WhatsApp group, 12 March 2020. Ten doctors referred to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal over messages in a closed WhatsApp group, and over not leaving it or reporting the content, argued the messages were private. At the permission stage the High Court refused anonymity and found no arguable ground for judicial review, leaving the matter to the tribunal. Tell staff that a 'private' staff WhatsApp group can still lead to professional proceedings, and that failing to report offensive posts in it can form part of the case. High Court judgment [2020] EWHC 3800 (Admin)
• University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, 9 December 2019. In a 2019 freedom of information response, the trust said it had a bring-your-own-device policy, that its clinicians do not use WhatsApp for Trust business, and that it provides an alternative platform, Careflow Connect, at an annual charge of £170,000. If staff are told not to use WhatsApp for work, provide an approved alternative so they have somewhere else to go. Freedom of information response
• University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, 17 June 2019. In a 2019 freedom of information response, the trust said it had social media and messaging-app policies, actively discouraged WhatsApp, had disciplined no staff in two years, and that its policy did not permit WhatsApp for work communication. The only platform it had implemented was Skype for Business. Put in writing whether WhatsApp is permitted for work communication, so the organisation has a clear position to point to when asked. Freedom of information response
• Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 7 June 2019. In a freedom of information response to a request received on 7 June 2019, the trust said it had a social media policy but no messaging-app policy, did not recognise or recommend WhatsApp, had formally disciplined one member of staff over messaging apps in two years, and had no approved messaging platform. Not recommending WhatsApp is not the same as having a messaging policy; set out in writing what staff may and may not use. Freedom of information response
• Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust, 6 June 2019. In a freedom of information response to a request received on 6 June 2019, the trust said it had no messaging-app policy and was drafting a mobile devices policy. Staff were told in information governance training that WhatsApp must not carry patient-care information. It withheld its 2017 disciplinary figure as the numbers were low, and had implemented Careflow. Tell staff in information governance training what WhatsApp must not be used for, and follow it with a written messaging-app policy. Freedom of information response
• NHS England, 9 November 2018. In 2018 NHS England announced instant messaging guidance after clinicians used apps such as WhatsApp to coordinate care in emergencies. Staff were told to use only apps meeting the NHS encryption standard, keep notifications off lock screens, and transcribe clinical advice into the medical record before deleting the messages. Where advice about someone's care is given over a messaging app, copy it into the official record, because the chat is no substitute for it. NHS England news release (2018)
• Burghill Parish Council, 6 September 2018. The council relied on councillors and neighbourhood-plan steering-group members to search their own private computers and email, having given them no retention guidance. The Commissioner found no further information held, but said evidence suggested information had once been held and destroyed through poor records management, and reminded the council that members' correspondence on its behalf is within FOI. If members or volunteers do your business on their own devices, give written retention guidance and have copies passed to the organisation, or the record will be lost. ICO decision notice FS50696568
• East Meon Parish Council, 12 September 2017. The complainant believed three councillors held information about a planning recommendation in private email accounts. The Commissioner ordered the council to consider some site-visit timing emails for disclosure, otherwise found no further information held, and said records management was deficient and suspicion could have been avoided had committee members copied the clerk into their correspondence. Have members copy the clerk or office into correspondence on organisational business from private accounts, so it reaches your records and can be found when a request arrives. ICO decision notice FS50654957
• Wales Office, September 2017. Asked in 2017 for staff WhatsApp group-chat messages from June 2016 and June 2017, the Wales Office said its work smartphones do not contain WhatsApp and are locked against adding it, and on that basis said there had been no group chats by its staff. Locking WhatsApp off work phones says nothing about staff's personal phones; your messaging policy needs to cover both. Wales Office FOI response 17FOI 84
• Gloucestershire Constabulary, July 2017. A 2017 Gloucestershire Constabulary social media policy, marked draft v1.2, names WhatsApp among its examples and says officers, staff, contractors and volunteers are fully accountable for what they share on personal accounts, including in closed WhatsApp groups. Tell staff and volunteers that conduct rules apply in private WhatsApp groups as well as in public posts. Gloucestershire Constabulary social media policy
• Maldon District Council, 28 February 2017. A requester sought emails about themselves, including any to or from specific councillors on planning matters. The Commissioner found councillors might hold council business in private email accounts and required the council to ask them to search; the ICO records that a tribunal later allowed an appeal against this notice. Where business may sit in members' private email accounts, plan how you would ask them to search; a tribunal later allowed an appeal against this notice, so treat it cautiously. ICO decision notice FS50612839
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 23 July 2014. A requester asked for text messages and emails between two specified individuals. The council withheld the emails under section 36 and said it held no text messages, as it did not retain texts; the Commissioner upheld both positions in this 2014 decision, which predates the ICO's later approach to messaging. Expect FOI requests to name text messages alongside emails, and be ready to explain how you established whether any were held. ICO decision notice FS50532076
• Cabinet Office, 14 April 2014. A requester sought copies of texts between the Prime Minister and another individual, and the Cabinet Office said it did not hold them. The Commissioner found, on the balance of probabilities, that this was correct. FOI requests can reach text messages between senior people and outside contacts, so be able to show, on the balance of probabilities, whether any are held. ICO decision notice FS50505736
• North Norfolk District Council, 8 October 2013. A requester sought emails between a senior employee's work address and four specified addresses about a parish council matter. The council disclosed some and said the rest were private; the Commissioner agreed the withheld emails were held only on another's behalf, being hosted on the council's system, and so were not held by the council. Genuinely private correspondence on your email system is not within your FOI duty where it does not concern your business and you have no interest in or control over it. ICO decision notice FS50483056
• Falkirk Council, 10 September 2013. A councillor asked for all texts and emails, including personal ones, on an employee's council mobile during a 15-minute window. Business messages had already been provided. The Scottish Information Commissioner accepted that personal messages were held for the employee, not the council, because its signed acceptable use policy allowed limited personal use. Have staff sign a clear acceptable-use policy for work phones that sets out what personal use is allowed. Scottish Information Commissioner decision 197/2013
• Department for Education, 1 March 2012. In the leading early notice on personal accounts, the department said it held no emails from the Secretary of State to a named individual, but the complainant produced one sent from a private email account. The Commissioner found the email was held on its behalf, found a breach of section 1 and ordered disclosure or a valid refusal. Official business done through a personal account is held by the organisation for FOI purposes; the account it was sent from does not decide the question. ICO decision notice FS50422276

Actions against WhatsApp itself (2)

Fines imposed on the company under the EU GDPR. They concern WhatsApp’s own processing, not organisations that use it.

• Irish Data Protection Commission legal-basis decision on WhatsApp Ireland, 19 January 2023. Adopting an EDPB binding determination it had disagreed with, Ireland's Data Protection Commission found WhatsApp Ireland could not rely on contract as the legal basis for service improvement and security purposes (other than IT security). It fined the company €5.5 million and ordered compliance within six months (decision 12 January 2023, announced 19 January 2023); the fine is pending appeal. This EU finding concerns WhatsApp's own processing, not organisations using the app; it is an Irish decision under EU GDPR and remains under appeal. Irish Data Protection Commission announcement
• Irish Data Protection Commission decision on WhatsApp Ireland, 2 September 2021. Ireland's Data Protection Commission found WhatsApp Ireland had not met its GDPR transparency duties to users and non-users, including about sharing data with other Facebook companies. Following a binding EDPB decision, it fined WhatsApp €225 million and issued a reprimand (decision 20 August 2021, announced 2 September 2021); the fine is pending appeal. An EU regulator found WhatsApp's transparency to users and non-users fell short; this is an Irish decision under EU GDPR, not a UK ruling, and remains under appeal. Irish Data Protection Commission press release

What the register adds up to

Across 795 cases the same few failures recur. A group was set up for a good reason and nobody approved it, assessed the risk or wrote down what it was for. It lived on personal phones, so the organisation could not search it, and people who left took it with them. When a request, a complaint, an inspection or a hearing arrived, the organisation either could not produce the messages or found them used against it, and the regulator or tribunal treated the gap as the organisation's failure, not the individual's.

A policy closes the first part of that gap. It cannot make a WhatsApp group searchable or bring back what a leaver's phone holds. That is the gap ComplyChat was built for: a channel the organisation owns, which staff, volunteers and families can use as easily as a group chat, where the conversation is the organisation's record as it is sent and, on paid plans, meets your retention schedules within your own Microsoft 365 subscription once your tenant is connected. Everyone added is told it is on the record.

The question to take to the next leadership or board meeting: which of these cases could have been about us?

Questions people ask

Can WhatsApp messages be used against an employer?

WhatsApp messages can be used as evidence against an employer in an employment tribunal, a regulator's investigation or a freedom of information complaint, and the cases in this register include harassment findings against employers over messages in team groups their managers knew about. Messages are disclosable whether they are on a work phone or a personal one, if they concern the work.

Can I be sacked for messages in a private WhatsApp group?

Employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have upheld dismissals for messages in WhatsApp groups that members thought were private, where the group concerned work or colleagues and the messages breached the employer's conduct rules. Each case turns on its facts, including the employer's policy and how the messages came to light.

Has a teacher been banned over WhatsApp messages?

The Teaching Regulation Agency has banned teachers from teaching after professional conduct panels found that WhatsApp messages, with pupils or about colleagues and pupils in staff chats, amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The decisions listed here are published on gov.uk and cited by their reference.

Where to read the decisions yourself

The ICO's enforcement action and decision notice pages, the National Archives' Find Case Law service and gov.uk's employment tribunal decisions are all searchable for the word WhatsApp. Every entry above links to its own primary source.

This register summarises published decisions and is not legal advice. Decisions can be appealed or overturned; check the source before relying on one, and take advice on a live matter.