Rural business compensated for subsidy errors

What happened

Mr F applied to the RPA for a European Union farming subsidy called the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2005. Farmers and other land–based businesses could claim the subsidy based on their entitlements, these are rights to claim the subsidy that were established in 2005. Farmers or other businesses could buy entitlements if they did not establish them in 2005.

Mr F submitted a valid claim, and then queried a discrepancy. RPA failed to process Mr F's 2005 claim or establish what his entitlement was and took so long to respond to Mr F's phone calls and letters that Mr F thought he was not eligible for SPS. After midsummer 2005, Mr F saw no point in contacting RPA.

In summer 2006 RPA wrote to Mr F. He telephoned RPA, who promised to call him back, but never did. RPA and Mr F were not in contact between summer 2006 and early autumn 2011. In 2011, Mr F found out from other people in his industry that they had received SPS payments so he contacted RPA about his own situation, making RPA aware of its 2005 errors.

RPA agreed to pay Mr F SPS for 2005 but because his entitlements had not been established in 2005, Mr F could not retrospectively submit claims for subsequent years. RPA told Mr F that to claim for 2012, he had to buy entitlements. RPA said that had Mr F submitted SPS claims from 2006 to 2011, it could have resolved its errors. Mr F did not see why he should buy entitlements when it was RPA's fault. Mr F's claim for 2012 was rejected because there were no entitlements. Mr F challenged RPA's decision not to pay in early autumn 2011 and appealed RPA's decision not to pay in summer 2012. In summer 2012, RPA told Mr F the nature of his challenge was more suited to its complaints procedure than the appeal process. RPA answered Mr F's complaint in winter 2012. It accepted it had got things wrong by failing to process Mr F's 2005 claim. It paid him SPS for 2005 and £100 compensation.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. RPA failed to process Mr F's application and establish his entitlements in 2005. It also failed to respond to Mr F's letters and phone calls. When Mr F contacted RPA in 2011, it acknowledged its 2005 failure but not the full impact of it, and did not make Mr F aware of the repercussions. RPA left it too long to tell Mr F that his challenge was suited to its complaints procedure rather than the appeal process.

However, Mr F also had some responsibility. While we accepted RPA's continual non–response in 2005 affected Mr F's decision making, he should have pursued RPA with more than one phone call when he received its 2006 letter. Mr F could and should have spoken to colleagues about SPS in 2006 to 2007. Had he done so, he would have discovered RPA's 2005 errors. Again in 2011, while we accepted RPA did not provide Mr F with information about the effects of its 2005 errors, he should have pursued RPA about claim values and the cost of entitlements. This would have allowed him to make an informed business decision about whether to purchase entitlements in 2012. He could then argue with RPA about reimbursing the cost of entitlements.

We nevertheless accepted that RPA's mistakes caused Mr F some injustice.

Putting it right

We recommended that RPA apologise to Mr F for the failings we identified and the impact of these on him; reimburse Mr F the cost of buying entitlements on the open market; compensate Mr F for claim values between 2006 and 2011, subject to an inspection of his land to confirm precise eligibility; compensate Mr F 80% of the claim values between 2012 and 2014, again subject to confirmation of eligibility; and pay Mr F £250 for the frustration he experienced because of the length of time RPA took to answer his challenge and complaint.