FINAL sign off on York's council accounts has been delayed for the second year running.

Auditors have had to hold off the final closure of City of York Council's final accounts for 2014/15 because of the row over extra payments to top council staff for running the authority's money-making arm.

In the official Statement of Accounts published on the council's website, auditors Mazars write that although they have given their "unqualified opinion" on the books, they cannot issue their final certificate until they have investigated the matter properly.

The document says City of York has "put in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources" and adds that the City of York Trading payments row will not have a "material effect" on the financial statement, but says the auditors need to consider the matter fully.

A council spokesman confirmed that the delay was caused by a complaint by a member of the public about the fact that two senior bosses at the council had been paid thousands of pounds extra to act as directors to the City of York Trading company as well as their roles at the council.

A spokesman added: "The external auditor has given their opinion on the council's accounts and this was published ahead of the recent Audit and Governance meeting. 

"The audit of the council's account is not complete but the council has provided information to Mazars in the usual way to allow them to complete their task."

Last year's books could not be certified until around a year after the accounts were finishes, because of a complaint over the Lendal Bridge fines.

Finance experts could not finally close the accounts from 2013/14 because a member of the public, backed by the National Motorists Action Group , told the auditors that he thought the £1.8 million fines income from Lendal Bridge and Coppergate was "contrary to law". 

The matter was settled last month when Mazars finally reported that they did not agree the fines were against the law, and said that the amount of money concerned was "below the level of materiality" and too small a sum to matter to the overall accounts,