Annex B: summary of the other complaints made about delays in making Single Payment Scheme payments, receiving entitlement statements and receiving an accurate set of maps
Jump to
Summary of the other complaints made about delays in making Single Payment Scheme payments, receiving entitlement statements and receiving an accurate set of maps
Complainant A complained that they had not received their full Single Payment Scheme payments by 30 June 2006, and that delay in receiving a full set of maps in relation to the Rural Land Register had delayed their entry into the Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. The cash flow of the business had been adversely affected.
Complainant B complained about the delay in receiving an accurate set of maps of her holding in relation to the Single Payment Scheme and the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. Fields were missing from maps and requested amendments were not made. She said that she had made numerous telephone calls to the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to try to resolve the situation and had suffered distress. The monies she had expected to receive from the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme were to have been spent on hay-making equipment to generate more income. She said the lack of an agreed set of maps had affected her rental arrangements with a farmer who used some of her land for grazing, and she had reduced the rent she was charging.
Complainant C complained that RPA had taken a year to produce an accurate set of maps, despite repeated requests for corrections. That had delayed Single Payment Scheme payments and acceptance onto the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. They had been put to unnecessary time, effort and expense trying to get matters resolved, and had incurred increased agents’ fees and overdraft charges.
Complainant D complained about the problems he had encountered with RPA in getting a full set of accurate maps of his holding. He said he had been put to unnecessary time and trouble, his Single Payment Scheme payments had been delayed and he had not been able to join the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme as early as he had planned.
Complainant E complained that the maps RPA had sent him had several fields missing and that it had taken nearly a year to finalise mapping amendments he had requested. He also complained that RPA had not made Single Payment Scheme payments by the deadline.
Complainant F complained that RPA had not sent him an accurate set of maps of his holding and that errors had not been corrected. He said that without an agreed set of maps he could not join any of the Environmental Stewardship schemes, which was causing him a financial loss which he estimated at £26,250. He had also incurred increased overdraft charges of around £1,500.
Complainant G complained that each set of maps RPA had sent him was incorrect and that, when RPA sent him revised maps, they were still inaccurate. He said that he had received two completely different sets of maps on consecutive days, from two different RPA offices. He said that the delay held up validation of his Single Payment Scheme application, and that he had been put to unnecessary time, trouble and expense in sending maps back to RPA for correction. He had also incurred travel costs visiting RPA’s Carlisle office and the National Farmers Union. His overdraft charges had increased.
Complainant H complained about difficulties obtaining an accurate set of maps from RPA. He said that RPA would make corrections on the maps, only for previously correct details to be altered or omitted. That had delayed his application to the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme.
Complainant I complained about delay in receiving her Single Payment Scheme payments and that RPA had taken several months to add a new piece of land to the Rural Land Register. The delay in receiving an accurate map had delayed entry to Entry Level Stewardship, causing a loss of income.
Complainant J complained that RPA failed to notify them of their definitive allocation of entitlements under the Single Payment Scheme by the deadline of 31 December 2005, and had not made Single Payment Scheme payments within the promised timescale. That had adversely affected their business; they said they had been unable to implement improvements to the farm, had suffered a financial loss and had taken out an overdraft. They said they had been put to the time and expense of making numerous telephone calls to RPA.
Complainant K complained that RPA had not notified them of their Single Payment Scheme entitlement by the deadline. Payments were not made within the published timescales, which caused their business financial difficulties. They said they had suffered a financial loss, their inability to plan had been compromised, a bank had called in an overdraft, and they had sold animals at a less advantageous time. They put their loss at around £10,000.
Complainant L complained that by the deadline of 31 December 2005 RPA had still not informed her of her definitive entitlement allocation under the Single Payment Scheme. Single Payment Scheme payments were then made late, causing problems for her business and financial uncertainty.
Complainant M complained that she had not been informed of her Single Payment Scheme entitlements before the deadline of
31 December 2005. Late Single Payment Scheme payments had caused her financial difficulties, such as additional bank charges. Planning was made difficult.
Complainant N complained that no entitlement statement or payment notification had been received by the December 2005 deadline. An entitlement statement had still not been sent by the time he planned to transfer entitlements the following March, and a provisional entitlement statement was only received in May 2006. This has caused serious difficulties for his business. He further complained that the response to his complaint had been inadequate.
Complainant O complained that he had never received a validated entitlement statement and was unable to make financial decisions necessary for his business. Because of delayed payments he had been unable to make business decisions without knowing his final entitlement. He had extended an overdraft to pay the rent that was due in April 2006, and his bank estimated that he had paid £1,047.12 in additional interest. He complained of mental strain and worry.
Complainant P complained that he was underpaid £8,000 by RPA in respect of his Single Payment Scheme entitlement. He said that RPA’s complaint handling was poor and that the compensation RPA had offered had not covered the costs its mistakes had caused him.
Complainant Q complained that RPA had not sent him an entitlement statement by the deadline of 31 December 2005, and that it had been late in making Single Payment Scheme payments. This was said to have had severe financial implications for his business. He had extended his overdraft facility and borrowed funds at high interest rates. A planned expansion of the business had been halted because of the financial uncertainty, and family members had contributed £50,000 from savings and had lost interest as a result.
Complainant R complained that by the December 2005 deadline he had not received an entitlement statement. This was compounded by late payments which had caused his business financial difficulties, such as increased overdraft costs, interest payments, and the postponement of capital expenditure. Forward planning was more difficult.
Complainant S complained that he had not received all of his 2005 Single Payment Scheme payments, which had caused him stress and financial hardship, and RPA had failed to provide an explanation or a remedy for his problem.
Complainant T complained that he had not received his entitlement statement for 2005, which meant that he had been unable to properly complete his application form for 2006. His 2005 claim had been underpaid and attempts to write and telephone RPA had produced no results.
Complainant U complained about RPA’s failure to send him a statement detailing his 2005 Single Payment Scheme entitlement by the deadline of December 2005. Furthermore, late Single Payment Scheme payments had caused his business financial difficulties; he had increased borrowings from his bank and from creditors, he had reached the limit on his credit card and he had incurred high interest charges. He complained that his payments to suppliers had been delayed and that HM Revenue& Customs had started action against him in respect of unpaid VAT. He estimated that he had spent £1,284 in additional overdraft fees and interest.
Complainant V complained that RPA had not sent him an entitlement statement before the published deadline of 31 December 2005, and that Single Payment Scheme payments had been made later than expected. He had incurred bank charges and professional fees as a result.
Back to top
