Section 1: Introduction
Jump to
This report sets out the results of my investigation into complaints by Mr W and Mr Y, referred respectively by William Hague MP and Henry Bellingham MP, about the administration of the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England, including the Rural Land Register. The Single Payment Scheme and the Rural Land Register were administered by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Mr W’s and Mr Y’s complaints were broadly typical of the 24 complaints about the same matters referred to me by Members of Parliament. Given that these complaints related to the same Single Payment Scheme and to similar issues, I decided to conduct one investigation into the administration of the Single Payment Scheme, using Mr W and Mr Y as representative complainants.
Annex A to this report contains a full account of RPA’s work on the Single Payment Scheme and its aftermath. Annex B is a summary of the other complaints made to me about delays in making Single Payment Scheme payments, in receiving entitlement statements and in receiving an accurate set of maps.
The complaints
Mr W
Mr W complained that RPA’s failure to provide him with an entitlement statement and make payments under the Single Payment Scheme in accordance with statutory deadlines and announcements, caused his farm to sustain a financial loss. He sought financial redress. Mr W said that he had a legitimate expectation that before January 2006 he would have been told the number, value and type of the entitlements to be allocated to him; he would have been able to calculate his income from the Single Payment Scheme and take business decisions based on that information; and would have had the opportunity to restructure his existing borrowing, or secure additional finance by borrowing against the entitlement.
Mr W said that the delay in receiving his final entitlement statement and payments had caused stress and family hardship. He had taken out an additional bank loan and a family loan so as to save further interest payments. He said that his telephone bill had increased significantly and that he had spent an ‘immense’ amount of time chasing up RPA – time that should have been spent on his business.
Mr W said that his business had been damaged; he had been unable to replace essential equipment or to buy a new stock bull, which had impacted on his cattle breeding programme. Additionally, some land which the farm had used for grazing for several years had become available to purchase; Mr W said he had intended to bid for it but had decided not to do so because of the uncertainty of his financial position.
Mr W said that Defra’s failure to comply with its legal obligations and to act in accordance with its announcements caused his farm to suffer a financial loss, and he wanted redress for that.
Mr W’s grievance was representative of the complaints I received that RPA had failed to inform farmers of their entitlement under the Single Payment Scheme by 31 December 2005, which Mr W said was the deadline for doing so, and that RPA had failed to make Single Payment Scheme payments in accordance with deadlines and ministerial announcements.
Mr Y
Mr Y complained that RPA had not provided him with an agreed set of digital maps, despite repeated corrections and amendments. He also complained about the disjointed service that RPA provided. He alleged that RPA’s failure to provide an agreed set of maps delayed his Single Payment Scheme payments, prevented him from joining Entry Level Stewardship (he expected to receive around £17,000 a year), and affected his cash flow. He had to make an employee redundant. He said he had suffered anxiety and stress, and incurred unnecessary telephone and photocopying costs. He wanted an accurate set of maps, financial redress for the stress he suffered and the unnecessary costs he incurred, and compensation for lost Entry Level Stewardship payments.
Mr Y was one of several farmers who complained to me that RPA had not provided him with an agreed set of digitised maps of his land, despite repeated corrections, causing financial loss, unnecessary expense, and stress. Every field for which Single Payment Scheme payments are being claimed must be registered on the Rural Land Register. Without an agreed set of maps, Single Payment Scheme claims cannot be validated and full payment is delayed. Also, applications to the Environmental Stewardship schemes, which attract separate funding, require land to be recorded on the Rural Land Register. Mr Y’s complaint was representative of these complaints.
In 2005 the Rural Development Service, part of Defra, administered the Environmental Stewardship schemes. It became part of Natural England, a new non-departmental public body, in October 2006. It is not part of this investigation and I have included its actions here only to aid understanding of the background to the complaint.
Summary of my decisions about the complaints
I upheld Mr W’s and Mr Y’s complaints. I concluded that RPA had been maladministrative and that Mr W and Mr Y had suffered an injustice because of RPA’s maladministration. This summary sets out the findings of maladministration and injustice that led me to my decisions on their complaints.
Maladministration
I made five general findings of maladministration.
- RPA did not meet the legal obligation to determine entitlements by 31 December 2005 and did not reveal the true extent of the 2005 Scheme problems until March 2006. Those failings represented a serious shortfall against the Ombudsman’s Principles of getting it right and being open and accountable, which amounted to maladministration.
- Defra and RPA failed to heed the warning information from their own systems and from the Office of Government Commerce about the payment timetable from summer 2005 onwards and they failed to alert farmers. Those failures represented serious shortfalls against the Ombudsman’s Principles of getting it right and being customer focused.
- RPA’s and Defra’s public statements in early 2006 failed to recognise the internal concerns they had. That was a failure to be open and accountable or customer focused and continued the earlier failures to get it right.
- On 30 January 2006 Defra officials and Ministers considered RPA’s position, and the next action they should take. The ‘best case’ scenario was 70% of payments made by the end of March 2006. Defra decided to tell Parliament that RPA would make the ‘bulk’ of payments by the end of March 2006. This was a failure to get it right, or to be open and accountable.
- RPA was the only body in a position to estimate how much more digital mapping work it would have for the 2005 Scheme. Its planning for the mapping process fell far short of getting it right.
Mr W’s specific complaint
I made three findings of maladministration specific to RPA’s dealings with Mr W. These findings reflected RPA’s serious failures to get it right, be customer focused or be open and accountable with Mr W.
- RPA issued Mr W’s entitlement statement ten months after the legal deadline for determining entitlements and four months after the deadline for making 96.14% of payments.
- RPA mishandled Mr W’s application.
- RPA misdirected Mr W about the likely timing of his payment.
I identified four types of injustice sustained by Mr W. In making my findings about injustice, I decided that the actual financial loss was best considered in the round rather than precisely calibrated, because the issues were not clear-cut. Mr W’s 2005 Single Payment, when he received it, was worth £40,000.
- He lost the opportunity to plan his affairs with adequate information to hand.
- Worry about his Single Payment caused him stress and heartache.
- He incurred costs, for example some bank interest, that he would otherwise have avoided.
- He let go investment opportunities and postponed repairs, because he did not have access to funds when he needed it.
Mr Y’s specific complaint
I made three findings of maladministration specific to RPA’s dealings with Mr Y. These findings reflected RPA’s prolonged failure to get it right or to be customer focused with Mr Y.
- From early 2005 until January 2007 Mr Y had repeated difficulty in resolving errors on the digitised maps of his farm.
- Communication with RPA was confusing for Mr Y.
- Map changes agreed with RPA were missing from Mr Y’s Stewardship Scheme application pack.
I identified four types of injustice sustained by Mr Y. As in Mr W’s case, in making my findings about injustice, I decided that the actual financial loss was best considered in the round rather than precisely calibrated, again because the issues were not clear-cut. Mr Y’s Single Payment, when he received it, was worth over £85,000. He had also expected to receive £17,000 a year in funding from the Environmental Stewardship Scheme.
- He lost the opportunity to plan his affairs with adequate information to hand.
- He suffered unnecessary anxiety and trouble.
- He incurred costs, for example some staff costs and professional fees, that he would otherwise have avoided.
- He let go opportunities and sold crops early, accepting a lower price than usual, because he did not have access to funds when he needed it.
Summary of the injustice
As I have summarised here, and set out in more detail later in this report, Mr W and Mr Y each lost the opportunity to plan their affairs with adequate information to hand. Each suffered unnecessary trouble and anxiety as they tried to establish the facts about their cases and how RPA would put things right. Each also sustained a financial loss in consequence of RPA’s maladministration.
Remedy
I have made five recommendations for putting right the injustice sustained by Mr W and Mr Y and any similar injustice sustained by the other complainants listed in Annex B.
- My first recommendation is that the Chief Executive of RPA should send Mr W a personal, written apology which acknowledges the maladministration that occurred in his case and the injustice that resulted. This should be sent to Mr W within one month of the date of this report.
- My second recommendation is that RPA should pay Mr W £3,500, within two months of the date of this report, in recognition of the stress, heartache, effect on his ability to make informed decisions and the cumulative financial impact that flowed from its maladministration.
- My third recommendation is that the Chief Executive of RPA should send Mr Y a personal, written apology acknowledging the maladministration that occurred in his case and the injustice that resulted. This should be sent to Mr Y within one month of the date of this report.
- My fourth recommendation is that RPA should pay Mr Y £5,500, within two months of the date of this report, in recognition of the anxiety, inconvenience, effect on his ability to make informed decisions and the cumulative financial impact that flowed from its maladministration.
- My fifth recommendation is that RPA should carefully and critically review the complaints made by the 22 individuals listed in Annex B (whose details we will give to RPA) and identify where administrative errors have led to unremedied injustice. In doing so, it should keep in mind the general findings I have made in this report about the administration of the scheme and also the Ombudsman’s Principles. RPA should then provide any individuals who it finds have sustained such injustice with an appropriate remedy (financial or otherwise), being guided by the Principles for Remedy and the recommendations I have made in this report. RPA should complete this work within three months of the date of this report and inform my Office of the outcome on each case.
The investigation – how we set about our work on these complaints
In the course of the investigation we have made enquiries of Defra and RPA, examined their relevant files and visited an RPA office to gather background information. My officers visited Mr W and Mr Y to talk to them about their complaints, and we have considered the papers they supplied. We have taken account of the reports on RPA’s implementation of the Single Payment Scheme published by the House of Commons Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. We shared drafts of this report with Defra, RPA, Mr W and Mr Y in 2008 and again, after substantial revision, in 2009. I also met the Permanent Secretary of Defra and her officials in 2008 and discussed with them my draft findings and recommendations. In reaching my findings, I have taken account of the comments we have received. I have not included all the information found during the course of the investigation but I am satisfied that I have not omitted anything of significance to the complaint and my findings.
My role and remit
My role is determined by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (the 1967 Act), which enables me to investigate action taken by or on behalf of bodies within my jurisdiction in the exercise of their administrative functions. Complaints are referred to me by a Member of Parliament on behalf of a member of the public who claims to have suffered injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken.
When deciding whether I should investigate any individual complaint I have to satisfy myself, first, that the body or bodies complained about are within my jurisdiction. Such bodies are listed in Schedules 2 and 4 to the 1967 Act. Secondly, I must also be satisfied that the actions complained about were taken in the exercise of that body’s administrative functions and are not matters that I am precluded from investigating by the terms of Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act, which lists the matters over which I have no jurisdiction. Mr W’s and Mr Y’s complaints were directed at RPA, as the agency responsible for administration of the Single Payment Scheme. RPA is an executive agency of Defra, which is listed in Schedule 2 to the 1967 Act, and so it and its executive agencies are within my jurisdiction. Mr W and Mr Y complained about administrative functions, which are also within my jurisdiction.
My approach when I conduct an investigation is to consider whether or not there is evidence to show that maladministration has occurred that has led to an injustice. If there is an unremedied injustice, I will recommend that the public body in question provides the complainant with an appropriate remedy (in line with my Principles for Remedy). My recommendations may take a number of forms such as asking the body to issue an apology, or to consider making an award for any financial loss, inconvenience or worry caused. I may also recommend that the body in question reviews its practice to ensure that similar failings do not occur.
