ONE of the men behind a failed “winter wonderland” has admitted in court that he took a “bit of a gamble”.

Victor Mears, 67, told jurors that he set up Lapland New Forest without investing money in the belief that funds would come in as people bought tickets.

He added that rather than write details down, he made verbal agreements and arranged many of the details in his head, like a market trader.

Mears, and his brother Henry, 60, both from Brighton, are on trial at Bristol Crown Court over the failed festive attraction at Matchams, near Ringwood, that opened in November 2008 and closed a few days later amid a blizzard of complaints from visitors.

Previously Victor Mears had told the court that he had paid money to staff but had been short-changed.

He showed a receipt for £70,500 for toys for children and £5,000 for gingerbread men for decoration.

Harassed He said: “These receipts show that I paid out the money and everything was accounted for. I insisted that everything should be accounted for.”

Victor Mears then claimed he had been bullied and harassed by staff.

He was the sole director of Lapland New Forest, the company behind the attraction. The court heard that because of illness he had handed over the running of the theme park to his son, Victor Junior, and his brother Henry.

Earlier in the trial a trading standards officer told the court how he had visited Lapland New Forest following a string of complaints.

Christopher Legg said he had looked at the website advertising the “wonderland” event and expected to find drifts of snow, log cabins and a tunnel of lights.

Instead he said he had walked through what looked like a “decorated walkway” and saw some “summer houses” that other visitors had described as B&Q sheds, with some snow on top.

Mr Legg told how he had received a volley of complaints from people who had visited Lapland New Forest, all saying how it had been misdescribed to them. Jurors have also heard from a string of disappointed visitors who spent hundreds of pounds on tickets.

The Mears brothers deny five charges of engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading action and three of engaging in a commercial practice which is a misleading omission.

Proceeding.