No compensation for landowner following subsidy errors

What happened

Mr W bought land in spring 2011 and wanted to claim a European Union farming subsidy called the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2011. A newcomer to SPS, Mr W told us he had no knowledge of the scheme and asked his agent to 'get the ball rolling'. The agent sent RPA both land transfer and customer registration forms on Mr W's behalf. Later in 2011, RPA told Mr W by letter that he was registered with it and he need do nothing more if his details were correct. Shortly after, RPA sent Mr W documents showing it had transferred his newly acquired land to his business. The letter contained RPA's contact details.

RPA was legally obliged to send claim forms to claimants, and claims had to be made by late spring each year. RPA said it did not send Mr W a claim form in 2011 because he missed the 'cut?off' date, which was in early spring 2011. RPA said it automatically sent a claim form to everybody registered with it on this date. Anyone who was not registered would not get a claim form. Mr W thought he would automatically be paid SPS for 2011 because RPA's letters said he did not have to do anything. Mr W did not contact RPA until late spring 2012, when RPA told him he would not get SPS for 2011 because he had not made a claim. Mr W appealed RPA's decision in summer 2012 but it was not until spring 2013 that RPA told him its complaints procedure was more appropriate. Mr W's case was that RPA's failure to send him a 2011 claim form was the only reason he did not make a claim and get payment.

What we found

We partly upheld Mr W's complaint. RPA did not publish its cut–off date. If it wanted to maintain this, it had to ensure that the claimants who registered with it after the early spring cut?off date were not disadvantaged because of the date they registered. We concluded that as RPA is legally obliged to send claimants the claim form, that obligation is continuous irrespective of when a claimant registered with RPA. RPA's failure to tell Mr W that its complaints procedure was more appropriate for him until early spring 2012 delayed the outcome of his complaint.

However, Mr W made no effort to find out about SPS processes and procedures. He was unaware that he had to submit a claim or that there was a deadline. We found it would have been reasonable for Mr W to find out about the basic SPS processes/procedures or to contact RPA to find out how to claim. RPA's failure to send the claim form did not directly result in Mr W's failure to claim SPS in 2011.

Putting it right

RPA apologised to Mr W and paid him £250 compensation.