A painful battle for understanding

What happened

The Single Payments Scheme (SPS) was a new European Union (EU) farming subsidy scheme, introduced in 2005. It replaced 11 separate subsidies based on production capacity. It included ways to help farmers who, for some reasons, might lose out financially under the new scheme rules. This included farmers who had only recently started or added to their business who might receive less money than farmers who had been established for many years, and farmers who may have suffered hardship. RPA used funds from the National Reserve to top up payments for farmers in these situations.

In 2001 Mr H had lost his livestock as a result of culls in a foot and mouth disease outbreak. In 2005 he applied to the National Reserve, under its 'Investor (alternative)' category, in the hope that he would meet the rules for a top–up payment because of his hardship. Initially RPA refused his application but in 2007 Mr H successfully appealed the decision. In 2008 RPA wrote to Mr H about his appeal and said it had assessed his case against a different standard from the one it had published in the 2005 SPS guidance. It was clear that RPA had difficulties in deciding claims in this category because the SPS 2005 Handbook guidance was so hard to understand.

In 2008 RPA re–published the National Reserve guidance from the 2005 SPS Handbook and reviewed the decisions it had made in the 'Investor' category since 2005. In 2009 it decided it had to refuse Mr H's claim after all. Bitterly disappointed, Mr H appealed, for the second time, and pressed RPA to explain matters.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. The 2005 guidance on the National Reserve 'Investor (alternative)' category was hard to understand. We recognised the difficulties faced by RPA in dealing with applications in this category and

the steps it took to put things right by

publishing new guidance. However, RPA's failings in the 2005 guidance it gave farmers and its own officials about the Investor category were serious. The clarification it gave in 2008 came too late to undo that earlier failure.

RPA's handling of Mr H's appeal against its decision was so bad, and so far from offering an independent review of the issues, that it failed to be fair and proportionate. The delays meant that any reasonable person in Mr H's position would have reached the point of believing RPA's 2007 analysis of his case, in his favour, was the right one.

However, we were satisfied that a fresh decision on Mr H's application would produce the same outcome for him.

Putting it right

RPA had already apologised to Mr H, refunded his appeal fee and paid him £500 as a consolatory payment. It had given Mr H a fresh hearing and offered him access to a scheme expert to advise him in 2009. It gave him more time to make his representations in 2010 and individual RPA officials also helped make sure Mr H had a fair and proportionate new hearing.

The information in our report gave Mr H the material he needed to make sense of RPA's decision making. However, we recommended that RPA should apologise again to Mr H for the effects of the failings we found, and also pay him a further £500 in recognition of the uncertainty, worry and upset it had caused him. RPA complied with our recommendations. It also offered to give Mr H further explanation for its approach, including a visit by a senior level official.