Summary
Jump to
Background
The Single Payment Scheme was a new form of European Union support for farmers that started in 2005. Currently worth about £1.8 billion to farmers in England, it was intended to be simpler and better than earlier subsidy schemes for farmers. The Rural Payments Agency are responsible for running the English scheme. A mix of problems, set out in several official reports since 2005, made implementing it much harder than expected.
The nine complaints investigated by the Ombudsman involved Single Payment Scheme claims for 2005 and 2006. The complainants all ran small businesses in England. They ranged from part‑time farmers claiming just a couple of thousand pounds a year to a farm employing several people and eligible for over £20,000 a year in financial support. They complained that the Rural Payments Agency had mishandled their Single Payment Scheme claims and their later complaints. They said the Rural Payments Agency’s mishandling had caused them financial loss, inconvenience, upset and expense. They wanted an apology, compensation, and an assurance about better handling of their Single Payment Scheme claims in future.
The complaints
In particular, the complainants alleged that the Rural Payments Agency:
- failed to take decisions based on all relevant considerations because they failed to consider (and/or respond adequately to) all the documents submitted, or used standard letters which failed to cover all the issues raised; and/or
- were not customer focused or open and accountable because they delayed notifying them that they would not be paid and also of the reasons for that non-payment; and/or
- failed to return telephone calls when this had been promised; and/or
- misdirected them about the status of their particular cases; and/or
- provided poor quality guidance about how to complete applications which was sometimes ambiguous; and/or
- otherwise provided poor quality advice and customer service to them.
General findings
The Ombudsman made two general findings of maladministration. Each reflected the accumulation of many different mistakes found by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
- The Rural Payments Agency failed to ‘get it right’, or ‘be customer focused’, for a number of cases for the Single Payment Scheme in 2005 and, to a lesser extent, for the Single Payment Scheme in 2006.
The first finding of maladministration reflected problems with the quality and availability of information for farmers; problems with the quality of the checks made on claim forms when the Rural Payments Agency received them; problems in dealing with correspondence, particularly queries about mapping; failings in the service given to disabled claimants; and inconsistent decision‑making, which meant that claims processors applied different standards to different claims.
- The Rural Payments Agency failed to respond appropriately when it came to ‘putting things right’ for individuals affected by the failures of the Single Payment Scheme in 2005 and 2006.
The second finding of maladministration reflected the Rural Payments Agency’s narrow approach to dealing with the effects on farmers of the Rural Payments Agency’s administrative mistakes. In particular, they decided to measure complaints about poor administration against legal regulations, instead of administrative standards, despite concerns that this was unfair. The finding of maladministration also reflected the poor information for farmers about decisions and payments; inconsistency in the decisions about claims; and the general failure to look properly at the effects on customers of the Rural Payments Agency’s own errors and omissions.
What did that mean in practice for the complainants?
The report also makes a number of individual findings in respect of the nine complainants featured and how the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration affected them individually. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to ensure that the injustice identified in each of these cases would be remedied. These stories are outlined below.
Mrs A usually asked the Rural Payments Agency to check her claim forms for her. That service, gradually withdrawn over some years, no longer existed by 2005 when the new scheme started. Mrs A misunderstood the new claim form. Instead of claiming subsidy, she only staked a claim to payment in later years. No one questioned her mistake, even though the Rural Payments Agency knew this was a common error by farmers. Mrs A found out her mistake almost a year after submitting her claim, when she asked what had happened to her payment. Losing her Single Payment Scheme payment for 2005 left Mrs A unable to pay all her bills, and relying on her partner’s goodwill. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mrs A should receive an apology; her £13,281.27 Single Payment Scheme payment for 2005; interest; the £100 cost of her appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr B used an agent to complete his claim forms. Each year, like many farmers in his part of England, he reached agreements with contractors on how to handle his pea crops. Mr B’s agent had been unable to obtain all the information he wanted from the Rural Payments Agency about how to treat these agreements for the Single Payment Scheme. Separately, Mr B made the mistake in 2005 of not telling his agent or the Rural Payments Agency about an agreement he had made. The result was that he and the contractor both claimed for the same land and Mr B received a penalty that reduced his payment for 2005 from around £6,000 to 1p. The Ombudsman decided that Mr B’s mistake in omitting to update his agent or the Rural Payments Agency was the main reason for the penalty, but that the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration meant that Mr B had not understood that he had made a dual claim. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr B should receive an apology; £1,000 by way of apology for losing him the opportunity to have adequate information at the right time; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr C, who is deaf and in his 70s, had some trouble with his 2005 payments from the Rural Payments Agency. But in 2006 he had more serious problems. By mistake, he claimed for only some of his land, instead of all of it. He received only a few hundred pounds instead of several thousand. The Ombudsman decided that the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration was not responsible for his mistake in completing his claim form and it was reasonable for them to treat his claim form as correct. However, the Ombudsman also found maladministration in that the Rural Payments Agency had failed to anticipate how customers with disabilities, such as Mr C, might be disadvantaged in claiming the Single Payment Scheme. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr C should receive an apology; £3,635.39 by way of apology for the effect on him of their maladministration; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr D made the same mistake as Mrs A, having misunderstood the guidance to farmers about claiming under the Single Payment Scheme. He only established his entitlements, when he should have established and activated them. He received nothing for his 2005 claim. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr D should receive £7,745.39 for his Single Payment Scheme claim for 2005, with interest; an apology; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr and Mrs E telephoned the Rural Payments Agency helpline to check how to claim under the Single Payment Scheme in 2005. Based on their information, Mrs E changed her claim form and lost all the 2005 payment. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr and Mrs E should receive an apology; £5,183.99 for their 2005 Single Payment Scheme claim; interest; the £100 cost of their appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr F paid a penalty because of mistakes he made in his 2005 Single Payment Scheme claim. In 2005 Mr F told the Rural Payments Agency about his history of illness after suspected organophosphate poisoning. He visited the Rural Payments Agency offices to talk about his claim and when he made his Single Payment Scheme claim his covering letter said he did not know how to claim under the scheme. The Ombudsman decided that the Rural Payments Agency failed to recognise how their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 might affect Mr F’s access to their service. He received no payment for his 2005 claim. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr F should receive an apology; £9,278.09 for his 2005 Single Payment Scheme claim; interest; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr G made the same mistake as Mrs A and Mr D, having misunderstood the guidance to farmers about claiming under the Single Payment Scheme. He only established his entitlements, when he should have established and activated them. This meant he received nothing for his 2005 claim, except £380 the Rural Payments Agency paid him by mistake. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr G should receive £2,088.42 for his Single Payment Scheme claim for 2005, with interest; an apology; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr H had carefully researched the Single Payment Scheme and the correct way to complete his 2005 claim. But he made a similar mistake to Mr C. He claimed for only some of his land instead of all of it. The Rural Payments Agency then told Mr H in writing, incorrectly, that they would pay his claim in full despite his mistake. They took a year to give him the correct information that he would not be paid. In that time, Mr H invested in necessary farm machinery believing he was going to receive about £15,000 in a delayed payment. The Ombudsman decided that the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration was not responsible for Mr H’s mistake in completing his claim form and it was reasonable for them to treat his claim form as correct. However, their failure meant he made a significant decision without accurate information. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr H should receive an apology; £500 and fresh consideration by the Rural Payments Agency of further compensation for the effect on him of having inaccurate information when he decided to replace his combine harvester; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
Mr I had made his Single Payment Scheme claim successfully in 2005. In 2006 he needed information from the Rural Payments Agency in order to complete his claim form accurately. He telephoned and then repeatedly wrote to them, but was unable to make his claim until after the deadline for 2006 claims. The Rural Payments Agency refused to pay his claim. The Ombudsman found that Mr I would have claimed on time if the Rural Payments Agency had given him the information he needed. The Ombudsman’s main recommendations were that Mr I should receive an apology; £11,479.13 for his 2006 Single Payment Scheme claim; interest; the £100 cost of his appeal; and £500 by way of apology for the upset caused by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration.
In total the Ombudsman made fifteen recommendations, fourteen of these related to the individual complainants whose complaints were investigated and the injustice caused to them by the Rural Payments Agency’s maladministration. The Ombudsman’s fifteenth recommendation is intended to address some of the systemic issues identified in the report. The Rural Payments Agency have agreed to provide the Ombudsman, and the complainants, with an action plan outlining what systemic changes are being made in order to address the maladministration found in the investigation.
