“THEY’RE not having it,” said an angry Philip Meek, after police asked for his CCTV footage.

“They said they couldn’t use the footage in my case because it was inconclusive.

“So why should I waste my time letting them look through 15 hours of footage?”

Mr Meek was furious when the police did not prosecute a driver who allegedly deliberately drove into him.

The incident was caught on his shop CCTV. The police didn’t prosecute but he bought a civil claim and the drivers’ insurers caved in and paid £2,071 in compensation.

Mr Meek feels vindicated and is now refusing to let police check his CCTV after a burglary next door to his Wimborne Road shop, STB Electrical.

He has given the police footage in the past, and said he would again in serious cases or incidents involving children.

But the 50-year-old said: “If it’s a burglary or whatever, they can get their own. I paid more than £3,000 for CCTV for my own protection.”

Mr Meek, from Ferndown, was injured in a parking dispute last year.

He tried to stop the other man from pulling away after a collision with his car.

The compensation was split between £1,500 for a twisted knee and the rest for damage to his BMW X5.

He said: “My insurance said that the police should have done him for dangerous driving. I basically got the fob off. I’m now taking legal advice on suing the police.”

A Dorset Police spokesperson said: “The matter was fully investigated and a man was arrested and interviewed.

“There was no further action as it was considered there was no realistic prospect of a successful prosecution.

“It should be remembered the burden of proof in a civil court is only on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

“While we understand Mr Meek is unhappy, it is our responsibility to investigate all crimes and pursue all lines of enquiry.

“No two cases are exactly the same and it may be that his CCTV could prove vital in this case.”