A businessman has hit out at a council for wasting taxpayers' money after pursuing him over the position of his garden light and then dropping the case.

Dan Trivedi, from Trivedi Property Developments, 38, from The Street in Costessey, first put up two small lights on posts in February 2019 to aid his home security.

South Norfolk Council took him to Norwich Magistrates' Court in September 2022 over an alleged breach of an abatement notice over the positioning of the lights, which he denied.

The father-of-two said there was a subsequent court hearing at Great Yarmouth Magistrates' Court in October where a trial date was set for January.

Mr Trivedi believes he was "wongly pursued" by the council and wanted to help people who felt "unfairly targeted" by councils.

This is because he felt he had complied with information from the council.

He said: "The council should not have pursued the case. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. They should be embarrassed."

The property developer wants an apology and is claiming back the £14,000 he has spent on legal fees from the council but said he would accept 80pc of that figure, if paid back quickly.

Mr Trivedi said the authority first contacted him in February 2021 saying there had been a complaint about the lights and a month later the property developer received an abatement notice ordering him to move them, which he did.

READ MORE: £8k kitchen 'nightmare' as wrong and broken parts delivered from The Range

He altered one of them temporarily in December 2021 so his son could do football training and believed he could after seeking police advice.

He moved it back in March after receiving a council email regarding a complaint.

Mr Trivedi did not accept a subsequent council caution for the initial non-compliance charge against the abatement order, which changed to a breach in August.

The criminal charge and January court date against Mr Trivedi was discontinued by the council on December 12 because "it is considered that on a review of evidence there is not a realistic prospect of conviction", according to a letter from Birketts law firm.

A council spokesman said: "The council exercised its duty to review legal proceedings and took the decision to discontinue when new information came to light."