Couple Win Damages Over Arrest Linked to WhatsApp Chat

Published: 17 November 2025 Monday. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen say they never imagined a series of messages in a parents’ WhatsApp group would one day lead to their arrest, an overnight ordeal in police custody, and a long, painful battle to clear their names. Yet, ten months after officers entered their home and detained them on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications, the couple say Hertfordshire Police has now accepted liability for the unlawful arrests and agreed to pay £20,000 in damages, along with additional legal costs. For Levine and Allen, the financial settlement offers some formal recognition of wrongdoing, but they say the emotional and social consequences of the experience remain deeply distressing.

Speaking to the BBC, Levine said the police had “accepted liability for unlawful arrest,” confirming that the settlement had been reached after negotiations with the force. BBC News asked Hertfordshire Police to comment on the outcome, but the force has so far not responded publicly. Earlier statements, however, insisted that the arrests had been “necessary to fully investigate the allegations,” a position that the couple have strongly challenged since the day officers arrived at their door.

The dispute originated at Cowley Hill Primary School in Borehamwood, where the parents’ daughter, who has epilepsy, is neurodivergent, and registered disabled, was enrolled. The couple had spent months raising concerns with school leadership, including questions about the recruitment process for a new head teacher and broader issues relating to the care and support their daughter required. Some of these conversations took place in a parents’ WhatsApp group, where they had expressed frustration about leadership decisions and the school’s communication with families. According to The Times, it was those same private messages that were later cited as part of the basis for the complaints that ultimately brought police to their door.

The school had banned the couple from entering the premises following what staff described as persistent and disruptive questioning. After the ban, Levine and Allen continued to email the school regularly with questions and concerns about their daughter’s needs. The school, in turn, claimed it had been faced with a “high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts” that staff, governors and some parents found upsetting or intimidating. Feeling the situation had escalated beyond their capacity to manage internally, the school contacted police for advice.

In December, an officer visited the family and issued a warning, strongly suggesting that the couple withdraw their daughter from the school. The family complied with the advice the following month. But even after their daughter had been removed, the tension between the parents and the school did not ease. Barely a week later, on 29 January, six police officers appeared at the couple’s home. Allen, a producer for Times Radio, recalled the moment vividly, saying he was shocked by the heavy-handed response to what he felt was simply an extended disagreement between concerned parents and a school leadership team.

Both parents were arrested in front of their family. They were held in custody for around 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property. Allen has repeatedly denied using any abusive or threatening language, emphasising that even the more critical comments he made in private WhatsApp exchanges were within the bounds of acceptable discussion among parents. What followed, he said, was a harrowing experience that left his daughter and extended family distressed and confused.

As public interest in the case grew, Hertfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, said there had been “a fundamental breakdown in relationships between a school and parents that shouldn’t have become a police matter.” The case prompted widespread debate about the criminalisation of parental complaints, the role of police in school-related disputes, and the use of harassment laws in situations where communication, however persistent, is arguably part of navigating a child’s educational and health needs.

For Levine, the arrest was not only traumatic but deeply destabilising for her family. She previously said she still had serious concerns about how and why the arrest was authorised at an inspector level. That decision, she said, had long-term effects on her children and elderly mother. Their three-year-old daughter witnessed the arrest as officers entered the home. Levine said her mother, aged 80, became physically ill after learning what had happened. The emotional impact, she said, extended far beyond the single day of detainment.

The family say that even after charges were dropped and they were told no further action would be taken, the stigma of being arrested lingered. In their community, rumours spread quickly, and the couple found themselves answering uncomfortable questions and defending their actions to friends, colleagues and other parents. They also expressed concern about future police interactions, particularly given their daughter’s health needs, fearing they might be viewed through a lens of suspicion rather than as parents advocating for necessary care.

The settlement represents a significant acknowledgement that the handling of the case fell short of acceptable policing standards. Although the force has not issued a public apology, the acceptance of liability and the payment of damages indicate that internal assessments found procedural faults in how the arrests were authorised and conducted. It also raises broader questions about the relationship between schools and law enforcement, particularly in cases where administrative difficulties, communication disputes or complaints about leadership escalate unnecessarily into criminal investigations.

Community advocates and legal experts following the case have noted that parents often feel powerless when disagreements with school leadership intensify. Schools, facing mounting pressure from oversight bodies, regulatory frameworks and safeguarding obligations, may turn to the police more quickly than in previous decades. At the same time, parents say they sometimes feel cornered when their concerns are dismissed or reframed as disruptive behaviour. This case, they argue, highlights the importance of clear communication and mediation before disputes reach crisis point.

For Levine and Allen, the hope now is that their experience will prompt change. Levine said she hopes the case will “highlight failings within the constabulary” and push the chief constable to ensure similar incidents do not occur again. The couple also say they want the situation to serve as a reminder that families raising concerns about their children’s welfare should not be criminalised or intimidated for doing so. They acknowledge, however, that the road to rebuilding trust—both with public institutions and within their local community—will take time.

In the months since the incident, the parents have shifted their focus to their daughter’s wellbeing and education, seeking an environment where her health needs are prioritised and communication with school leadership feels open and collaborative. They say they are relieved to move forward but remain deeply aware of how quickly a conflict can escalate when systems designed to protect children and families fail to recognise the emotional complexities behind parental advocacy.

The case has sparked wider public conversation, particularly among parents of children with special educational needs or medical conditions. Many say they recognise the exhaustion and frustration Levine and Allen described, noting that navigating school bureaucracy can be overwhelming. Others have raised concerns about excessive reliance on police intervention in cases where mediation or pastoral support might offer a more constructive path.

As the couple continue to recover from the ordeal, the settlement gives them a measure of closure. But for many observers, questions remain about what should have happened differently, why the situation deteriorated so dramatically, and how similar events can be prevented in the future. The conversation is likely to continue, particularly as more families come forward to describe experiences where routine communications with schools led to unexpected legal consequences.

For now, Levine and Allen hope their story will serve as a catalyst for change—not only in policing protocols, but also in the way schools respond to parental concerns. They believe that mutual respect, transparency and genuine dialogue should underpin every interaction between families and the institutions that educate their children. While they cannot erase the trauma of the past year, they say they will continue advocating for better processes and protections so that no other family faces the fear and confusion they endured.