A BUSINESS owner claims he had to make staff redundant after the council brought criminal proceedings against him for failing to close during the pandemic - only to drop the charges two years later.

Chris Kettle, of Happy Buddha, which had stores in Poole and Bournemouth, claims he had to spend £52,000 on a defence case after being accused of failing to close as a non-essential business in November 2020 and January and February 2021.

He has now had to close his Bournemouth store and has sent a bill to BCP Council for the money after the offences were withdrawn at Poole Magistrates’ Court last month.

Bournemouth Echo:

READ MORE: Happy Buddha owner says shops won't close despite Covid sanction

Mr Kettle told the Daily Echo: “The council has given us a lot of harassment over the last two years, we asked for evidence that our shop was any more dangerous than Poundland or the gambling store and they were unable to provide any at all.

“We asked for evidence it’s in the public interest test that must be met before any prosecution is brought.

“We are not really sure what our next steps are, we are out of pocket, the council refused us the grants.”

Mr Kettle said he ended up closing one of his stores because of the cost of putting together a defence case.

“We made three people redundant as a result, it was heart-breaking, you carry this guilt over laying people off,” he continued.

“The biggest frustration was the fact we were refused the grant, refused any help whatsoever and then we get the fine on top of that.

“We still haven’t really got the confirmation we’re essential, if something like this happens again we still don’t know our standing.

“I am absolutely appalled at the council’s actions. They have a responsibility when implementing government policy and they seem to want to shrug their shoulders and kick it under the carpet.

“All we wanted was our day in court and we didn’t get that.”

A BCP Council spokesperson said: “The council’s decision to initiate a prosecution against Chris Kettle of Happy Buddha was based on what we believed to be a breach of Covid-19 regulations applicable at that time, whereby only shops selling predominantly essential items were permitted to remain open.

“Due to the unprecedented backlog of cases in the courts as a result of lockdown, this particular case could not be considered until nearly two years after the initial alleged offences had been committed.

“With such a long delay and the subsequent removal of lockdown restrictions, we concluded that it was no longer in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. 

“Most shops were closed during the lockdown and lost revenue, although Government made available various forms of financial assistance to those businesses eligible to apply.

“The council is not in a position to offer financial compensation for losses incurred by those businesses that were required by Covid legislation to remain closed during lockdown.”