THURROCK Council stands accused of wasting public funds after employing a top barrister to act on its behalf rather than pay costs of £164 to a borough landlord who won a county court judgement against them.

At the end of a series of tortuous legal manoeuvres, the council has succeeded in getting the order set aside - but at a cost running into thousands.

The issue centres of the council's controversial Selective Licensing Scheme which applies to some private landlords across the borough.

The scheme was proposed and approved last year and was due to be implemented in January, when local landlords in 16 selected borough wards were told they must pay a deposit of £236.98 on a licence for each property owned. That was in advance of the granting of a five-year licence and payment of a further £797.92 per property.

Thurrock landlord Jason Sigournay has three properties, two which he rents to family and a third which is a commercial residential let and paid £710.94 as deposit for the three properties.

However, a consortium of local landlords (not including Mr Sigournay) issued a legal challenge against the scheme and were granted a High Court judicial review after calling for the scrapping of the scheme.

At that point it was not known how long the review might take - a similar situation in Luton has dragged on for a number of years.

Because of that Mr Sigournay contacted the council several times and asked for the return of his deposit on the grounds that he saw no justifiable reason for the council to sit on his cash, earning interest, for an unknown period of time.

"It seemed sensible, logical and fair for the money to be returned while the matter was resolved," he told Thurrock Nub News.

However, the council ignored his requests and did not respond - even though his request was supported and backed by then local ward councillor Neil Speight.

With silence prevailing from the council, an upset Mr Sigournay applied to the county court for his request for a refund to be granted.

The council did not contest the claim, even though they were aware of it through correspondence with Mr Sigournay and Mr Speight. And the county court granted the request and also issued a bailiff's order which would allow recovery of the deposit or goods to the equivalent cost.

Only then did the council respond - again alerted by contact from Mr Sigournay and Mr Speight.

But rather than pay, they decided to fight the order on the grounds they had not been served a judgement - which was the responsibility of the county court.

However, the court process is they only post a copy of the judgement to the council and it appears to have been lost within the council's myriad of paperwork. The court could not prove the council had received the order - which gave the council a loophole.

To exploit it they paid £313 to lodge a 'set aside' order with the court - and employed the services of London barrister James Rudall to fight their case.

Mr Rudall is an experienced civil and chancery barrister who practises nationally and receives regular instructions to appear in the High Court and County Court to deal with complex and high-value cases. A court date was set but ahead of it Mr Sigournay wrote to the council's principal lawyer, Godwin Mangse saying:-

"The hearing is set for the 30th April 2026 and both parties are to attend in person. I will be attending, and I will be accompanied by Cllr Neil Speight who will be there in his capacity as my local councillor and also as a journalist covering this debacle.

"As you have now lawfully re-introduced the Selective Licencing scheme I will not be asking the court for the £710.94 back for the 3 pre application fees that I have paid. My whole argument was never about not paying the Selective Licensing fee it was about you holding my money for it when you had no legal right to do so.

"In fact yesterday you took the second payment of £797.92 from my bank account and sent me a draft licence for one of my properties. I have no issue with this, or complying with the Selective Licensing scheme.

"I will, however be attending court to defend my claim that you shouldn't have kept my money while the matter was still being disputed in court. I will be asking the court for my £70 court fee, interest of £3.27 and the warrant cost of £94, a total of £167.27

"I would like to offer you a face saving/taxpayer money-saving opportunity. If you pay me the £167.27 I will inform the court that this matter is concluded. After all, you have already wasted at least £313 of taxpayers' money for the late court fee plus the time of your legal team in dealing tardily with this court case."

However, the council pressed ahead and the matter was heard at Basildon County Court on Thursday, 30 April, attended by Mr Rudall and Mr Sigournay and Mr Speight.

Mr Sigournay told the court he had paid the full amount outstanding, taking his total payment to the council to £3,104.70. He informed the council he no longer wished return of his initial deposit, but did want to recover his costs for going to county court – where his case was initially presented and proved.

He dropped the claim for interest.

The case was heard by District Judge Alison Patricia Humphreys, who was addressed by Mr Rudall, asking for the original court decision to be set aside. It was not disputed that the judgement had been made, but, as it could not be proved it was served, Judge Humphreys said she had no option but to rule in favour of the set aside.

That prompted Mr Rudall to say he had been instructed by the council to seek all its costs, but that was immediately ruled out by the judge who said: "I am not going to order costs against Mr Sigournay, he has done nothing wrong and it is unfortunate that the court service and council appear to have lost his judgement - something which is not his fault. The council will have to bear its own costs."

She then ruled that the two parties should mediate over the remaining costs Mr Sigournay was claiming, saying she could not rule on them but advised both parties they should resolve the matter within 14 days.

Only yesterday (Tuesday, 12 May) did Mr Sigournay hear from the council, who advised him they had prepared a legal defence and were ready to go to court again to ensure they did not have to pay the original court and bailiff fee. It is not known if they planned to engage Mr Rudall to leave his Bedford Row chambers again! The documentation was prepared by council lawyer Mr Mangse.

Mr Sigournay says he has neither the time, not inclination to carry on the matter telling Nub News: "It appears Thurrock Council are so desperate not to pay me £164, that I'll save them further effort. I believe I have the moral victory even though it's cost me £164 to do so but I really don't think I can bear to see the council spending more and more of our money on this ludicrous matter.

"I'll suck it in and bear the lose but I can't help wondering just how much money this council wastes so stupidly in wild goose chases like this. In what world does it make sense to spend thousands to save £164?"

Former councillor Speight agrees and said: "The lunatics have been running the asylum for some time. This is a classic example of the profligacy and waste of senior decision-makers who have no common sense or sense of proportion. Let us hope that can be put to an end under the new administration.

"When the government intervened at Thurrock Council, it insisted the time when council officers could gamble with public money was over.

"Yet clearly not! The stupid and reckless waste of time, money and effort here is in plain sight.

"One would hope that whoever made the decision to employ the expensive services of Mr Rudall to save just a few quid is held to account. Mr Rudall's laughing all the way to the bank, Mr Sigournay has the wit and humour to shrug it off and see the funny side - the only people crying are council taxpayers who see more of their hard-earned money being flushed away by council officers' stupidity, recklessness and total lack of moral responsibility."

Thurrock Council was asked to comment. Despite being given a full briefing on the matter and informed that Mr Sigournay had offered to settle outside of court and that he had already paid the full amount owing to the council for three licences, and that the judge had ruled that under no circumstances would she have granted costs to against Mr Sigournay who was not at fault, its spokesperson said: "The hearing was an application to set aside the judgement in default to protect the Council's position and we were successful.

"The Council had previously sought to resolve this application without the need for a court hearing which the claimant did not agree. The Council therefore had to go to court to defend its position and protect the public purse. The determination of costs takes place at the end of all court hearings and no additional costs were incurred in making an application for costs.

"The Council's application for costs would recover money back into the public purse."

Mr Speight summed up: "That is a final exemplar of how poor Thurrock Council is and how uncoordinated its communications internally are. Even after a judge's verdict and written evidence that it was the council, not Mr Sigournay, that took this matter to court, the council refuses to show any contrition. Whether it's blowing a billion quid or trying to hang on to £164, the arrogance and contempt for residents is a constant."