Thanet Council is facing fresh questions over its deal to allow ferry company TransEuropa to defer port fees at Ramsgate which saw the company run up debts of £3.3m.

The council says it did not present senior councillors with any formal reports or background papers setting out details of the arrangement and has confirmed the former Conservative cabinet did not vote on it.

It has also confirmed that no formal reports or background papers were shared in confidence with any other members of the council over the time the deal was in place.

Transeuropa folded in May leaving a £3.3m debt in its wake - the result of the council allowing it to defer port fees since 2011.

The revelations about the lack of any official paper trail were made in response to a Freedom of Information request made by the KM Group.

They have prompted questions about whether the council ignored legislation and its own rules on key policy decisions taken by the cabinet. Councils discussing or agreeing any decision involving significant sums of money are required to have those decisions officially ratified by the cabinet.

And where those decisions represent any departure from previously agreed policy, they should be voted on by the full council.

But in the case of the deal with TransEuropa, neither of these happened - although the council said it had shared the “course of action” with the then leader and the finance cabinet member.

Critics say the council has questions to answer but the former Conservative leader orginally involved said there was a concern the issue would leak.

Cllr Bob Bayford said: “As far as I was concerned, I saw paperwork but whether that came in an official report, I can’t remember to be honest. It did not formally go to cabinet. You take officers’ advice as to what is best. Thanet council has not always had a good track record in terms of confidentiality..there may have been concerns over a leak.”

Green councillor Ian Driver, who has called for an independent inquiry into the deal, said it raised questions over whether the council had ignored its own constitution.

“It is scandalous. I would have thought that the cabinet should have been provided with quite detailed financial information.”

In its response to our FOI request, the council stated it held other briefing notes and papers about the deal but would not release them because disclosure might prejudice any legal action to recover the money.