A farmer's paper chase

What happened

In autumn 2009, RPA asked Mr H to agree a set of maps for his farm. It asked for a reply within a month but it took Mr H until spring 2010 to reply. RPA took until spring 2012 to deal with his letter and then only after Mr H had started chasing it for action in winter 2011. After three letters from him, including a complaint letter to the Secretary of State, the mapping experts got in touch. Then, separately, the mixed-up map data led another part of RPA to say Mr H had over-claimed farming subsidy. In early 2013 RPA decided that he had given it enough information for his claim to be correct. It apologised, but declined to pay Mr H for the cost of his time and office expenses in pursuing his complaint. He estimated his costs came to £1,750. Mr H was also seriously ill for part of the time that he was in touch with RPA.

What we found

We partly upheld Mr H's complaint. RPA should have dealt with his letter of spring 2010 as soon as possible after receiving it, even if he had been late with his reply. When the mapping experts dealt with Mr H's up-to-date mapping information in 2012, they were not clear that another part of the organisation was dealing with his claim for subsidy and would also need to know his up-to-date information. We could not make a robust argument that the effect of dealing with RPA amounted to a financial cost of £1,750. But its mistakes contributed to Mr H's difficulties. RPA did not know about Mr H's illness, but pursuing his complaint when he was unwell must have been difficult.

Putting it right

RPA apologised to Mr H for the effect of its serious mistakes and paid him £200.