A police sergeant has been dismissed without notice after harassing a driving instruction company and threatening to have its bosses jailed when his son was unable to take a booked course.
PS Gabriel Chandler, who was based in Medway and had served with Kent Police since 2002, launched a prolonged campaign of abuse against Intensive UK after his son failed to complete the requirements needed to begin an intensive driving course.
A misconduct hearing held between December 8 and December 12, 2025, concluded that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and ruled that he should be sacked.
The case stemmed from events in June 2021, when PS Chandler booked an intensive driving course for his son.
However, the course could not go ahead because his son either failed his theory test or did not provide proof that he had passed it in time.
Despite being told that the deposit was non-refundable, PS Chandler demanded all his money back.
The total cost of the course was £1,359. Intensive UK offered him a partial refund of £1,122, but he refused to accept it.
What followed was described by the misconduct panel as an extraordinary and sustained campaign of harassment.
Between February and August 2022, PS Chandler repeatedly contacted the company and its boss, Mark Elliot, making hundreds of phone calls – sometimes up to 50 a day – and sending numerous emails that were described in the hearing report as ‘threatening and abusive’.
In one message, PS Chandler warned: ‘Keep looking over your shoulder. I know your (sic) anxious but this will all be over soon enough.’
PS Gabriel Chandler, who was based in Medway and had served with Kent Police since 2002, launched a prolonged campaign of abuse against Intensive UK after his son failed to complete the requirements needed to begin an intensive driving course
A misconduct hearing held between December 8 and December 12 2025, concluded that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and ruled that he should be sacked
In another, he wrote: ‘Detective Sergeant Gabriel Candler (sic.) at your service. Please call me anytime. You can look up criminals I’ve taken over the years on Kent online.’
He accused Intensive UK of being ‘bogus’, alleged fraud and told staff he was ‘going to take them down and enjoy it’. He also claimed he was building a case against the company and would have its bosses arrested.
In further emails, PS Chandler wrote: ‘Your [sic.] facing prison. Hard Time. If you want to do the right thing, call me, and it will go in your favour if you have no previous convictions.
‘Return the money you have stolen from all these people. Close down your fraudulent sites. Surrender to you [sic.] nearest police station and pray you avoid prison.’
Mr Elliot was told that his family would be ‘ripped apart’, that teams of officers were allegedly working overnight to ‘ruin his little op’, and that PS Chandler would not stop until the driving instructor was either jailed or returned the money.
The panel heard that PS Chandler even said he was ‘enjoying’ the harassment and went on to make the false claim the company had links to ‘drugs, paedophilia and child sexual exploitation’ – allegations described as particularly serious and concerning.
He also posted multiple negative online reviews about Intensive UK, which were described as ‘malicious and persistent’, accused its bosses of using fake names and encouraged members of the public to report the business to the DVSA counter-fraud and integrity team.
Eventually, in August 2022, Mr Elliot reported the matter to police as a criminal complaint.
However, PS Chandler attempted to pre-empt the allegations by contacting the Professional Standards Department (PSD), warning them about potential ‘malicious reports’ from ‘criminals’.
He told PSD that he had ‘conducted himself properly as a customer and with dignity’ and denied abusing his position as a police officer.
At the misconduct hearing, PS Chandler argued that he felt he had to be threatening or abusive to be taken seriously.
The report states: ‘PS Chandler stated that he felt that he had to communicate in this way to demonstrate to the company that he was not going to allow it to push him around, as he felt it had done to other people who had complained.
‘He stated that he felt he had to be direct in his communication, otherwise he would get nowhere.
‘He believed the company was operating in a fraudulent manner and he had to protect the public from them, particularly pensioners, young people and children.’
In one message, PS Chandler warned: ‘Keep looking over your shoulder. I know your (sic) anxious but this will all be over soon enough’
However, the panel found there was no evidence the company was fraudulent and said PS Chandler should have known his actions were wholly inappropriate.
‘As a police leader and a police officer of over 20 years’ experience, he knew, or should have known, that it was wrong of him to continue with his enquiries in the way he did,’ the panel said.
‘He clearly had a conflict of interest, and he should have reported the matter in full to his supervisor at Kent Police.’
The panel described PS Chandler as an ‘intelligent and successful’ officer, noting that he had achieved the highest mark in Kent on his detective exams and had passed his Inspector’s exams, and said this made his conduct even more serious.
They also found that he had lied to PSD about his behaviour and the actions of Mr Elliot, and were ‘satisfied that he deliberately used his position as a police officer to seek to threaten and intimidate Mark Elliot and the company’.
The misconduct was described as being of the ‘most serious kind’ and intended to cause ‘the maximum disruption and upset’.
The report concluded: ‘Chandler did not treat Mark Elliot and the staff at Intensives UK with respect and courtesy, and in so acting and speaking, PS Chandler failed to act with self-control and tolerance.
‘His words and actions discredited the police force and undermined public confidence.
‘This is particularly so given PS Chandler’s reference to himself as a police officer in his course of conduct.
‘PS Chandler was holding a position of trust at the time of this misconduct. He was a police supervisor and a police leader. He had a leadership responsibility.
‘He had passed his Inspector’s exams. He should have been acting as a role model for more junior officers.’
The panel ruled that dismissal without notice was the only appropriate outcome.
Detective Chief Superintendent Jon Armory, head of professional standards at Kent Police, said: ‘Even when off duty, police officers are still held to the highest standards of professional conduct and, in this case, PC Chandler’s behaviour fell far below what is expected of our officers and staff.
‘The vast majority of Kent Police officers and staff uphold the expected standards of Kent Police, often going above and beyond to ensure crimes are solved, victims are protected, and offenders are brought to justice.
‘When officers do not conduct themselves in the manner expected, either on or off duty, it is only right that they are held accountable for their actions.’
