Ex-Met police officer ‘intimidated’ neighbours by spraying them with hose in dog poo row
A former Met Police officer washed her dog’s faeces and urine into her neighbour’s garden before spraying them with a hosepipe when they complained, a hearing has been told.
Mel Chinn was found guilty of gross misconduct by a police disciplinary panel after the shocking allegations against her were revealed.
The former detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, who has left the force since the accusations were made, first became embroiled in a row with her neighbours in 2019 over a planning dispute involving a ground-floor extension she built.
But their relationship deteriorated even further in late 2021 when Ms Chinn got a puppy and began teaching her dog to go to the toilet in a crate directly next to their dividing fence.
Their relationship deteriorated even further in late 2021 when Ms Chinn got a puppy and began teaching her dog to go to the toilet in a crate directly next to their dividing fence. (Stock photo) ((Alamy/PA))
Ms Chinn’s account was that she and her family would clean up after the dog by removing its faeces and washing down the passageway with water and fairy liquid.
However, her neighbours claimed she would then deliberately direct her puppy’s urine and faeces into their garden.
Her neighbours described the act as a “deliberate attempt to antagonise”, but matters only got worse when they attempted to clean up the mess.
Ms Chinn’s neighbours began spraying the fence to mitigate the smell of urine and to stop “flies gathering”.
The panel was told Ms Chinn did not take this well and began spraying her neighbours with her own hose in August 2022.
The tribunal heard she had called her neighbour “unhinged,” and said “she should have a mental health assessment” and criticised her parenting skills.
It report said Ms Chinn had not accepted her wrongdoing and made no apology.
A misconduct panel found Ms Chinn guilty of gross misconduct and ruled she would have been handed a final warning if she had not already left the force.
In its ruling, the panel concluded that the “members of the public would be dismayed to see an experienced police officer behaving in such a way towards anyone, let alone their next door neighbour”.
It added that the “spraying episodes had a threatening and abusive element to them”, and that “the numerous incidences of washing of urine and/or faeces onto their neighbour’s land was targeted at those neighbours”.
Mitigating factors acknowledged by the panel included that there was no evidence of similar behaviour directed at others, and character references suggest it had been out of character.
