Police Sergeant Gabriel Chandler Dismissed for Threatening Driving School After Son Didn’t Pass Test

A long-serving police sergeant has been dismissed without notice after a misconduct panel concluded that he carried out a sustained campaign of abuse and intimidation against a driving school and its owner, using his status as a police officer to threaten severe consequences. Gabriel Chandler, who had served with Kent Police since 2002, was found to have engaged in behaviour that fell far below the standards expected of an officer, even when acting in a personal capacity.

The case centres on a dispute over a refund for an intensive driving course booked for his son, a dispute that escalated into months of aggressive communications, false allegations of criminal activity, and explicit threats of police action and imprisonment. The findings of the hearing underline the strict professional obligations placed on officers, regardless of whether they are on or off duty, and highlight the serious consequences of abusing authority to pursue personal grievances.

Background to the Dispute and the Driving Course Refund

The events that ultimately led to PS Gabriel Chandler’s dismissal began with the booking of an intensive driving course for his son with the company Intensives UK in June 2021. The total cost of the course was £1,359, which included a deposit and associated fees. As with many such courses, the deposit was non-refundable, and participation was contingent on the student having passed the required theory test before practical training could begin. This condition was clearly set out as part of the booking process and formed a prerequisite for enrolment on the course.

Before the course could start, Gabriel Chandler’s son either failed to pass or did not take the necessary theory test. As a result, he was unable to commence the practical element of the driving programme. PS Chandler sought a full refund of the amount paid, despite the non-refundable nature of the deposit. In March 2022, Intensives UK offered a partial refund of £1,122, reflecting the return of fees beyond the deposit. This offer was not accepted.

What might ordinarily have remained a contractual dispute escalated significantly over the following months. From February to August 2022, PS Chandler embarked on a prolonged and intensive campaign directed at the company and its owner, Mark Elliot. The misconduct panel heard evidence that he made extraordinarily frequent telephone calls, at times between 30 and 50 per day, to the company’s office and to Mr Elliot personally. Alongside these calls, he sent numerous emails that were described as abusive and threatening in tone.

Read : Corporate Titans: Unveiling the Top 10 Most Profitable Companies Globally

Central to the panel’s findings was the nature of the language used and the assertions made. Gabriel Chandler accused the company of operating a scam and made wholly unsubstantiated claims that it was linked to serious criminal activity, including drug funding, paedophilia, and child sexual exploitation. These allegations were repeated across emails, calls, and online reviews, despite there being no evidence to support them. The panel concluded that the accusations were false and malicious, designed to exert pressure rather than to raise legitimate concerns.

Threatening Communications and Abuse of Police Authority

The misconduct hearing examined in detail the content of PS Chandler’s communications, many of which explicitly invoked his role as a police officer. In one email sent on 11 March, he introduced himself as “Detective Sergeant Gabriel Candler” and invited the recipient to look up criminals he had previously arrested, implying a position of power and influence.

On the same day, he warned that if the company did not “do the right thing,” he would initiate actions he claimed he could not stop, including raids on homes and offices, heavy custodial sentences, and the destruction of families. Such statements were found to be overt threats, designed to intimidate and coerce.

Read : Garfield High School Basketball Coach Brandon Roy Dismissed After Championship Success

Further emails reinforced this pattern. In later correspondence, Gabriel Chandler described himself as enjoying the pressure he was exerting and promised that there was “lots more to come.” He warned recipients to “try and sleep while you can” and suggested that a storm was heading their way. The panel noted that these messages were not isolated outbursts but formed part of a consistent course of conduct over several months.

In addition to direct communications, PS Chandler was found to have left numerous online reviews targeting business pages associated with Intensives UK. These reviews repeated claims that the company was fraudulent and demanded that it return money he alleged had been stolen from customers. He again accused staff of being organised criminals linked to serious offences. The panel described these actions as malicious and persistent, further amplifying the impact of his conduct beyond private correspondence.

A key aggravating factor was PS Chandler’s reliance on his status as a serving police sergeant. By referencing his role, threatening arrests, and mentioning imprisonment, he blurred the line between personal grievance and official authority. The panel concluded that this amounted to a clear abuse of position, undermining public confidence in policing. Officers are expected to act with integrity and restraint, particularly given the power they hold, and the panel found that PS Chandler’s behaviour represented a serious departure from these principles.

Misconduct Proceedings and the Decision to Dismiss

The situation came to the attention of the authorities when Mr Elliot reported the matter to the police in August 2022. Following this report, PS Chandler contacted Kent Police’s professional standards department, asserting that any complaints made against him were malicious and originated from criminals. This response formed part of the evidence considered by the panel during the misconduct proceedings.

Read : 4-Year-Old Reggie Davison’s Brain Tumor Symptoms Dismissed as Acid Reflux

The hearing, held between 8 and 12 December 2025, assessed whether PS Chandler’s actions amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct under the relevant professional standards. PS Chandler defended his conduct by claiming that he felt compelled to communicate in a forceful manner to show the company that he would not be pushed around. He stated that he believed Intensives UK was operating fraudulently and that his actions were motivated by a desire to protect the public, including pensioners, young people, and children.

The panel rejected this explanation. In its findings, it described PS Chandler as an experienced and intelligent officer who should have understood both the limits of his authority and the appropriate channels for raising concerns. If he genuinely believed that a company was acting fraudulently, the panel noted, there were lawful and professional mechanisms available to report and investigate such suspicions. Instead, he chose to engage in a campaign of threats and intimidation, leveraging his position to seek a personal outcome.

The panel concluded that the conduct met the threshold for gross misconduct and that dismissal without notice was the only appropriate sanction. In reaching this decision, it emphasised the seriousness of abusing police authority and the potential damage to public trust. The ruling made clear that length of service and prior experience could not mitigate behaviour of this nature.

Following the decision, Detective Chief Superintendent Jon Armory, head of professional standards at Kent Police, issued a statement underscoring the expectations placed on officers. He noted that police officers are held to the highest standards of professional conduct at all times, including when off duty, and stated that PS Chandler’s behaviour fell far below what is expected. He also highlighted that the vast majority of officers and staff uphold these standards, often going beyond their duties to protect victims and bring offenders to justice.

When officers fail to meet these expectations, he said, accountability is essential. The dismissal of PS Chandler brings to a close a case that illustrates the serious consequences of conflating personal disputes with professional authority. It serves as a reminder that the powers granted to police officers carry corresponding responsibilities, and that misuse of those powers, even in private matters, can result in the loss of a career built over decades.