Rotation, rotation, rotation

What happened

New European Union farm subsidy rules in 2005 meant fruit, vegetable and potato farmers could apply for financial help through the Single Payment Scheme. Mr W, an experienced organic farmer, knew he needed to give the RPA correct details about his crops. Mistakes could lose him subsidy or incur fines. He called the RPA helpline to check what code to use for a field of mixed peas and lupins. It was a more difficult question than it sounded. He used the information he wrote down from the call. But he had been given the wrong information.

Years later RPA discovered the mistake. Eventually, RPA worked out that it had overpaid Mr W more than £15,000 because of the crop code mistake and made other overpayments for different reasons. From 2009 to 2012 RPA took back over £29,000 in subsidy.

What we found

RPA misdirected Mr W about the crop code information to put on his farming subsidy claim form for peas and lupins. His record of the call, made at the time, confirms his memory of what happened. We found no other accessible source of information that he could have used.

RPA also mishandled his 2005 claim form by omitting to check a confusing entry he had made; it mishandled its overpayment decision making; delayed unduly in finding and correcting its mistakes; and, in its complaint handling, put greater responsibility for the mistakes on Mr W than on itself.

It was RPA's misdirection that led Mr W to make mistakes in his 2005 subsidy claim. By the time RPA had given him accurate information about what he should have done, he had lost the opportunity to make valid claims based on correct codes. Recovery of the money it had overpaid him lost him the use of that money. He also had to spend more time working on his subsidy claims than he would have done if RPA had acted properly. Mr W used professional advice which, without RPA's failings, he would not have needed. The experience and delay were frustrating and stressful.

Putting it right

RPA accepted our recommendations and agreed to look again at its decision that Mr W made the mistake and that he should have known he had received too much subsidy. It reimbursed Mr W more than £15,000 that it had previously recovered and paid him over £4,000 that he should have received in 2005. It also paid interest on the money it incorrectly recovered. Lastly, RPA reimbursed the professional fees Mr W incurred for advice and made a consolatory payment of £250.

RPA also updated the text of its letters about overpayments so that its customers understood decisions related to recovering subsidies and that they had a right of appeal.