Chapter six: My findings - on each of the individual complaints

• whether there was any maladministration by RPA in their handling of the Single  Payment Scheme claims made by nine complainants; and
• whether that maladministration led to any injustice to any of the  complainants

Introduction

353. I have explained my general findings of maladministration in chapter five.  Each individual who complained to me was affected differently by RPA’s  maladministration, although the broad themes remain familiar. Some of the  individuals were also affected by maladministration particular to their case. I  set out here how my general findings affected each individual. I also set out  any maladministration specific to their particular case. For each person, I  have repeated the summary of complaint that appears in my introduction in  chapter one.

Mrs A

The complaint Mrs A put  to me

354. Mrs A  complained that RPA provided poor quality guidance on how to complete  applications, misdirected her about the status of her case, and otherwise  provided poor quality advice and customer service. In  particular, Mrs A complained that RPA declined to treat the errors she  made in her 2005 SPS claim as ‘obvious errors’. The errors meant Mrs A did  not activate her entitlement. She further complained that RPA have been  inconsistent in their decision about what represents ‘obvious error’ and that,  having paid her £5,000 by mistake, recovered that overpayment.

 My findings  of maladministration and injustice

355. Mrs A’s mistake in her SPS 2005 claim was that she ticked a box to say  she was not claiming a payment and then left blank the column of boxes that  would have indicated that her intention was the opposite. Her claim fell  straight into the maladministration that I identified in my first general  finding in chapter five.
356. In earlier claims for subsidy, Mrs A had used RPA’s claim checking  service. Mrs A has said that that service had ended by the time of SPS  2005 and Defra and RPA have given us no documentary evidence that would  suggest, when considered with the other evidence we have gathered, that her  recollection was wrong. Without access to adequate written or spoken advice,  Mrs A made the fundamental mistake in her claim forms of not activating  her entitlements. RPA’s initial checks on forms were not set up to catch this  type of error, even if staff noticed the omission. And in Mrs A’s case, it  did not fit the courts’ interpretation of ‘obvious error’.
357. RPA also paid Mrs A part of her 2005 SPS claim by mistake, only to  recover it later. She then became aware that they had paid her partner and her  cousin their 2005 SPS claims, although they had made the same mistake as she  had. These errors were examples of RPA’s inconsistent handling of cases.
358. To sum up – Mrs A, as a result of RPA’s maladministration, omitted  to activate her 2005 SPS entitlements by mistake and had no chance to correct  her error.
359. RPA’s general maladministration also meant that they missed the chance  to ‘put things right’ for Mrs A  when they received her representations. RPA focused on the legalities. They  omitted to consider the effects of their own administrative actions and/or  omissions on Mrs A’s claim. In particular, RPA failed to consider whether  the failings of the SPS 2005 Handbook, and the lack of adequate other help,  influenced Mrs A when she completed her claim incorrectly. They also  failed to consider whether their inadequate initial checks allowed her fundamental  error to pass without comment. As a result, RPA failed to look at how the  injustice caused could be remedied outside the Regulations, for example, by way  of an ex gratia payment.
360. Instead, Mrs A went through a lengthy appeal process that measured her  case against the Regulations.
361. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mrs A’s SPS 2005 claim.  They failed to ‘get it right’,  to ‘put things right’ and to ‘be customer focused’.

Injustice

362. Had RPA handled Mrs A’s 2005 SPS claim without  maladministration, I believe she would have indicated in time that she did wish  to activate her entitlements. She would therefore have received her SPS payment  for 2005. Mrs A has suffered the financial loss of her 2005 SPS payments  amounting to £13,281.27 (paragraph 33). She has  also lost the use of that money since, in effect, the end of the SPS 2005  payment window in June 2006.
363. RPA’s maladministration in failing to ‘put things  right’ means that Mrs A’s loss has gone unremedied for longer than  necessary.  
364. RPA’s inconsistent handling of SPS claims was  apparent to Mrs A and has caused her avoidable frustration.
365. Mrs A lost a further £100 paying for an appeal  when her case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
366. Mrs A has experienced distressing financial  worries, inconvenience, frustration and outrage at her unfair treatment.

Mr B

The  complaint Mr B put to me

367. Mr B complained, through his agent Mr J, that RPA delayed notifying him that he would not be paid and also of the reasons  for non‑payment; misdirected him about the status of his particular case;  provided poor quality guidance about how to complete applications that was  sometimes ambiguous; and otherwise provided poor quality advice and customer  service to him and his agent. In particular, he complained about RPA’s  failure to reply to his agent’s correspondence in May 2005 and the  shortcomings in RPA’s guidance and provision of information that led his agent  to request clarification from them. He complained that he has suffered  financial loss and avoidable trouble and inconvenience.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

368. Mr B’s mistake in his SPS 2005 claim was that he  omitted to update his agent, Mr J, or RPA, after he agreed to let a pea  contractor use some of his land to support a claim for fruit, vegetable and  potato authorisations. The result was that Mr B and the contractor both claimed  SPS on the same land and Mr B paid a penalty for a dual claim.
369. My first general finding of maladministration talks  about the poor quality of the 2005 SPS Handbook. For example, it did not answer  the sort of local-interest queries that could arise in 2005 where a pea  contractor was claiming the fruit, vegetable and potato authorisations on some  of a farmer’s land. The NFU, in an internal document that I quote in my account  of Mr B’s complaint, called the fruit, vegetable and potato regime ‘almost  unworkable’; it was certainly not easy to understand. Although Defra have  made representations to the contrary, Mr J’s account of using RPA’s service has  persuaded me that fruit, vegetable and potato entitlement questions were the  type of query that, in previous years, RPA’s local staff would almost certainly  have understood and been able to answer.
370. RPA’s maladministration deprived Mr B of guidance  and advice that would have allowed claimants and agents to clarify the  (sometimes) complex situations of farmers dealing with pea contractors. In  addition, had RPA replied to Mr J’s letter to them of 12 May 2005, it  is at least possible that he would have received enough information to alert Mr  B to the risk of dual claims.
371. To sum up – Mr B made a dual claim in SPS 2005 by  mistake. As a result of RPA’s maladministration, he did not understand that he  had made a dual claim.
372. RPA were inconsistent in dealing with Mr J’s  representations on Mr B’s case. They led Mr B to believe that he would be paid  for 2005. After they confirmed the penalty, they briefly reversed it before  reimposing it. Mr J (and, through him, Mr B) were also aware of SPS claimants  who made similar errors to Mr B’s, but paid no penalty. Inconsistency is  another part of my first general finding of maladministration. However, Mr B’s  own failure to update RPA, directly or through Mr J, also had a part in what  went wrong in his claim.
373. Mr B’s case is a clear fit with my second general  finding of maladministration about ‘Putting  things right’. RPA failed to consider properly Mr B’s  complaint about their handling of his case. If they had, they might have told  him that pursuing a complaint, or pursuing a complaint as well as appealing on  points of law, could be more suited to his concerns than a further appeal. I  note that when RPA lawyers responded to Mr B’s judicial review claim, they  explained then how to pursue his complaint, apologised for the failure to  respond to Mr J’s letter of 4 August 2008 and offered to pay the  costs he might have avoided if he decided not to pursue his judicial review  claim.
374. This offer by the lawyers was the exception.  Generally, RPA focused on the legalities. They omitted to consider the effects  of their own administrative actions and/or omissions. In particular, they  failed to consider the effects of a poor SPS 2005 Handbook, and the lack of  adequate other help in the first year of a complex scheme, or to respond  adequately to the questions Mr J raised before the complaint reached me. As a  result, RPA failed to look at how the injustice suffered by Mr B could be  remedied outside the Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment.
375. Instead, Mr B went through a lengthy appeal process  that measured the case against the Regulations.
376. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  B’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to be ‘customer  focused’.

Injustice

377. RPA were maladministrative and Mr B has suffered an  injustice. How far are the maladministration and the injustice connected?
378. The dual claim arose because Mr B omitted to update  his claim form after his conversation with the pea contractor. It would have  been prudent, in the first year of a new scheme based on land use, to tell Mr J  or RPA about the new agreement he had reached with the pea contractor. Had Mr B  done so before RPA contacted him, he could have corrected his claim without  penalty.
379. But RPA’s maladministration has contributed to the  injustice Mr B has suffered. Farmers in complex land relationships (and their  agents) need high quality guidance. Mr B and Mr J had no authoritative source  apart from the 2005 SPS Handbook and the customer service centre. Neither  source was good enough. The injustice that RPA’s maladministration caused for  Mr B was the lost opportunity to have a full understanding of the specific  rules for his type of farming. Mr B’s omission (not updating RPA) mitigates the  injustice.
380. Mr B lost a further £100 paying for an appeal and  seeking leave to apply for judicial review when his case should have been dealt  with as an administrative complaint.
381. Mr B has experienced outrage and frustration at the  unfairness of RPA decision making; and inconvenience, upset and avoidable  expense flowing from almost five years of waiting – first for RPA to decide  about the payment and then for them to look properly at the complaint.

Mr C

The  complaint Mr C put to me

382. Mr C complained that RPA failed to  take decisions based on all relevant considerations because they failed to  consider and respond adequately to all the documents submitted with his  application form, and used standard letters which failed to cover all the issues  raised, and provided  poor quality advice and customer service. In particular he said that RPA failed  to take proper account of his circumstances in their decision about the errors  in his 2006 SPS claim; omitted to update his bank details in 2005, which meant  his Entry Level Stewardship payment went to a closed bank account that he could  not access; and have still to pay all of his 2007 entitlement. Mr C said that  RPA’s errors have caused him financial loss and significant anxiety.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

383. Mr C’s mistake in his 2006 SPS claim was to believe  that the preprinted land parcels on his form had already been activated and  that, therefore, he did not need to do so. He also omitted to make any entry in  part E of the claim form, which was also about activating entitlements. He had  written a covering letter, but it referred only to the land parcel he had added  himself. Mr C had made a successful claim in 2005 with the help of his adviser,  but completed his 2006 claim on his own. RPA’s guidance for farmers, the SPS  2006 Handbook, had improved. But Mr C, being deaf, was not in a position to  take full advantage of the telephone advice offered by RPA’s customer service  centre – even if the customer service centre had been able to deal with his  call.
384. Here is a reminder, from the specific standard, of  what the relevant Code of Practice said about good practice by service  providers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of what RPA’s  guidance said. The Code of Practice said:

     ‘The duty of reasonable adjustment  is best met by the service provider trying to anticipate the types of problems  which could arise and by training its employees to enquire rather than act on  assumptions.’

     The Code acknowledged there might be situations  where it was not reasonable for a service provider to anticipate a particular  requirement. It also said that sometimes the changes needed might be  ‘little more than an extension of the  courtesies which most service providers already show to their customers’. Among  other things, RPA’s own guidance said: ‘Our customers are in business and therefore it is for them to seek assistance for  themselves’.

385. How does Mr C’s 2006 SPS claim fit into the  maladministration that I identified in my first general finding in chapter five?  In particular, was it a serious mistake for RPA to process Mr C’s claim without  contacting him to check his intentions? In Mr C’s case, RPA’s failure to look  into his ‘partial activation’ was not a serious mistake and not maladministration.  It was reasonable for RPA to treat Mr C’s field data sheet as properly  completed, because he had activated some of his entitlements. 
386. RPA’s guidance about initial checks was that staff  should send claimants an SPV1 letter (the standard letter requesting more  information on a claim) if part E of the claim form was blank. Separately,  their guidance on contacting claimants was that staff should attempt to  telephone claimants three times before resorting to a letter. We have seen no  evidence to suggest that RPA followed their guidance on either point in  Mr C’s case. That was maladministration, and falls within my first general  finding of maladministration. But RPA had decided (in effect) that they would  ignore errors in part E in 2006 (paragraph 218 and, in the  glossary, the entry for ‘validation’). Without any reason to correct part E,  there was no trigger for RPA or Mr C to know that his partial activation  had been a mistake.
387. I can see why it might seem clear to Mr C and  his representative that in September and November 2006 RPA had an  opportunity to correct his claim. (In September 2006 Mr C recalls  telling RPA his 2006 claim was the same as for 2005; in November 2006 RPA  sent him a summary of what areas he had established and activated in 2005.) Yet  even if RPA had recognised Mr C’s mistake in September or November, it was too  late for them to correct his claim within the SPS regulations unless they  believed it was ‘obvious error’, and they did not.
388. But another part of my first general finding of  maladministration is the shortfall in RPA’s service to customers with  disabilities. In Mr C’s case this meant they failed to anticipate the needs of  customers with disabilities who might be disadvantaged by having to rely on  telephone‑based information to resolve queries about their claim forms. In his  comments on a draft of this report, Mr C has told us that he attended an  explanatory meeting in 2005, but was unable to hear the information given. 
389. To sum up – RPA failed to anticipate how customers  with disabilities, such as Mr C, might be disadvantaged in claiming SPS.  That was maladministration and limited Mr C’s opportunities to get his SPS  claim right; although the evidence we have seen in this investigation does not  lead me to believe that the maladministration was the reason Mr C did not  complete his 2006 claim form correctly.
390. RPA’s maladministration also meant that they then  missed the chance to ‘putthings  right’ for Mr C when they received his representations. I set out that  maladministration in my second general finding in chapter five. 
391. A letter from Mr C’s adviser to RPA in  January 2007 is the first explicit evidence we have seen of RPA being told  that Mr C was deaf. However, we have spoken to Mr C ourselves. Anyone who spoke  to Mr C in 2005 or 2006 would have realised that he was deaf, although the  first record we have seen in which RPA noted this fact was in May 2007. It  is clear to me that Mr C's rights under disability law were engaged here, but  we have seen no evidence in their papers that RPA took their duties under  disability discrimination legislation or the nature of Mr C's disabilities into  account when deciding what sort of service they should be offering him or when  making decisions about him. As a result, they did not properly  consider his needs and did not ensure he had equal access to their  service. RPA failed to ‘get it right’ here and it was for disability-related  reasons.
392. I have identified the following mistakes that were  specific to Mr C’s complaint:    
     • Mr C had problems when he changed the bank account  into which his SPS and Environmental Stewardship Scheme (see glossary) payments  were paid. RPA failed to check whether Mr C had more than one SBI number. In  August 2006, RPA accepted that they had made an error on the SBI number,  but they changed their position when Mr C asked for compensation. It took more  than 15 months for RPA to award Mr C £50 by way of apology.   
     • Mr C’s other difficulty was about RPA’s calculation  of the common land allocation for the relevant common. RPA’s replies to Mr C  omitted to explain matters properly, and left him without confidence that they  had paid his 2007 SPS claim accurately.
     • Apart from the common land question, Mr C has had  further difficulties in communicating with RPA about the land area covered by  his SPS claim.
393. These three areas were serious failures to ‘get it right’ and to ‘be customer focused’.
394. As in the other complaints in this investigation,  RPA focused on the legalities of SPS. They omitted to consider the effects on  Mr C’s claim of their own administrative actions and/or omissions. As a result,  RPA failed to look at how the injustice caused could be remedied outside the  Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment. 
395. Instead, Mr C went through a lengthy appeal process  that measured the case against the Regulations. 
396. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  C’s SPS 2006 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’. 
397. As I note in chapter five, in commenting on a draft  of this report, the Defra Permanent Secretary said: ‘…where farmers had activated some of their entitlements, that  demonstrates an understanding of a need to do so and double checking their  intentions then goes beyond good customer care’. She also said:  

     ‘I have considered whether, if RPA  had been more alive towards its responsibilities in dealing with the needs of  disabled people, Mr C would made the error he did. Given the error was  based on partial activation, it is difficult to see how it would [have  avoided the error].’

Injustice

398. Had RPA acted without maladministration, Mr C would  have had more choices in obtaining information about completing his SPS 2006  claim form. In addition, had RPA followed their guidance and contacted  Mr C, they would have had a better chance of discovering Mr C’s true  intention for his 2006 SPS claim. I recognise that Mr C is sure that he  would have activated all his entitlements. To me, the issue seems less clear  cut than that. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what course  any exchange between Mr C and RPA would have taken. I recognise that it is  possible that Mr C’s true intention would have been established, but it is  also possible that it would not. In my view, the injustice to Mr C is that  he will remain uncertain about whether or not, with a little more help from  RPA, he would have received his full SPS payment for 2006. The injustice of  this uncertainty is made worse by RPA’s failure to take proper account of  Mr C’s disability.
399. RPA’s maladministration in failing to ‘put things  right’ means that uncertainty about Mr C’s position has persisted for longer  than necessary.  
400. Mr C lost a further £100 paying for an appeal when  his case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
401. Mr C told us that he incurred interest of £91.27  from 10 May to 27 July 2006 and a £50 overdraft arrangement fee.  He has received an ex gratia payment of £50 from RPA. I recognise that Mr C  believes RPA should recover all the money paid to the incorrect bank account.  However, I believe that RPA will be unable to do that without Mr C reaching  agreement with the bank about the closed account. He has had the benefit of the  money, to the extent that it is in an account that, although closed, was his to  pursue. In my view, the injustice is that RPA have not yet engaged properly  with Mr C about the full effect on him of the money going to the wrong  account. In the absence of adequate and tailored explanation from RPA,  Mr C also remains uncertain about what the correct payments of SPS should  have been since the 2005 SPS claim year.
402. RPA’s failure to consider what adjustments they  needed to make in Mr C’s case contributed to the inconvenience, distress and  frustration that he suffered.

Mr D

The  complaint Mr D put to me

403. Mr D complained that RPA provided poor quality  guidance about how to complete applications that was sometimes ambiguous; were  not ‘customer focused’ or ‘open and accountable’ because they delayed notifying him that he would not be paid; misdirected him about  the status of his particular case; andotherwise  provided poor quality advice and customer service. In particular, he  complained that the guidance on completing the 2005 claim form was misleading;  RPA took too long to give him a decision about his claim and then misled him  into believing he would be paid. Mr D further complained that they failed to  take proper account of his circumstances when he first disputed their decision  and that RPA’s independent appeal panel was too closely guided by RPA staff. Mr  D claimed that he has suffered financial hardship and anxiety as a result of  RPA’s mishandling. He said his family, particularly his wife, have suffered  significant stress. He said that he has increased his overdraft, sold land and  taken on extra part‑time work in order to meet the financial shortfall.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

404. Mr D misunderstood the 2005 SPS Handbook  explanation of how to fill in the SPS claim form. He believed he should not  attempt to activate his entitlements until after he had established them. This  was a fundamental error in terms of making a successful claim to SPS. RPA’s  initial checks on forms were not set up to catch this type of error, even if  staff noticed the omission. And in Mr D’s case, the error did not fit the  courts’ interpretation of ‘obvious error’. Mr D’s SPS 2005 claim fell straight  into the maladministration that my first general finding identified in chapter five.
405. To sum up – Mr D, as a result of RPA’s maladministration,  omitted to activate his 2005 SPS entitlements by mistake and had no chance to  correct his error.
406. RPA’s maladministration also meant that they were  unable to give Mr D accurate information about the outcome of his claim when he  asked about this payment. They then missed the chance to ‘put things right’ for Mr D when they  received his representations. I set out that maladministration in my second  general finding.
407. RPA focused on the legalities. They omitted to  consider the effects of their own administrative actions and/or omissionson on  Mr D’s claim. In particular, RPA failed to consider whether the failings of the  SPS 2005 Handbook affected him when he completed his claim incorrectly. They  also failed to consider whether their inadequate initial checks allowed his  fundamental error to pass without comment. As a result, RPA failed to look at  how the injustice caused could be remedied outside the Regulations, for  example, by way of an ex gratia payment. Instead, Mr D went through a lengthy  appeal process that measured his case against the Regulations.
408. Mr D also complained that the appeal failed to look  at his circumstances and that the panel was too closely guided by RPA staff. It  seems to me that Mr D’s dissatisfaction on those points arose because RPA were  using an inappropriate process to look at a complaint.
409. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  D’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’.

Injustice

410. Had RPA handled Mr D’s 2005 SPS claim without  maladministration, I believe he would have indicated in time that he did wish  to activate his entitlements. He would therefore have received his SPS payment  for 2005. Mr D has suffered the financial loss of his 2005 SPS payments  amounting to £7,745.39 (paragraph 33). He has  also lost the use of that money since, in effect, the end of the SPS 2005  payment window in June 2006.
411. RPA’s maladministration in failing to ‘put things  right’ means that Mr D’s loss has gone unremedied for longer than  necessary.  
412. Mr D lost a further £100 paying for an appeal when  his case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
413. Mr D has experienced considerable inconvenience,  distress and frustration and has told us that his wife, particularly, became  very depressed as the family dealt with the financial loss.

Mr and Mrs E

The  complaint Mr and Mrs E put to me

414. Mr and Mrs E complained that RPA misdirected  Mrs E when she asked them to clarify the RPA guidance, which they felt was  incomprehensible, about claiming special entitlements in her 2005 SPS  application. As a result, she altered her claim form and, in doing so, did not  activate her entitlement for 2005. They complained that they have lost entitlement  to payment for that year.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

415. Mr and Mrs E needed to claim special entitlements  under SPS 2005 in order to receive any money for that claim year. They failed  to do so. Their SPS 2005 claim fell straight into the maladministration that I  have identified in my first general finding in chapter five.
416. I believe Mrs E’s account of being unable to decide  how to complete the form from the 2005 SPS Handbook; of telephoning RPA; and of  receiving incorrect advice. As a result of that inadequate advice from RPA, Mr  and Mrs E made a mistake in their claim form. It was not a mistake that  RPA’s initial checks would pick up, even if staff noticed it. The mistake also  fell outside the courts’ interpretation of ‘obvious error’.
417. To sum up – Mr and Mrs E, as a result of RPA’s  maladministration, omitted to activate their 2005 SPS entitlements by mistake  and had no chance to correct their error.
418. RPA’s maladministration also meant that they missed  the chance to ‘put things right’  for Mr and Mrs E when they received their representations. I describe that  maladministration in my second general finding.
419. RPA focused on the legalities. They omitted to  consider the effects of RPA’s own administrative actions and/or omissions on Mr  and Mrs E’s claim. In particular, RPA failed to consider whether the  failings of the SPS 2005 Handbook, and the lack of adequate other help,  influenced Mrs E when she completed her claim incorrectly. Their approach  was to dismiss her complaint of misdirection because they could find no record  of a telephone conversation with her. RPA also failed to consider whether their  inadequate initial checks allowed her fundamental error to pass without  comment. As a result, RPA failed to look at how the injustice caused could be  remedied outside the Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment.
420. Instead, Mr and Mrs E went through a  lengthy appeal process that measured the case against the Regulations.
421. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with  Mr and Mrs E’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get it right’, to ‘put things right’ and to ‘be customer focused’.

Injustice

422. Had RPA handled Mr and Mrs E’s 2005 SPS claim  without maladministration, I believe they would have activated their  entitlements. They would therefore have received their SPS payment for 2005. Mr  and Mrs E have suffered the financial loss of their 2005 SPS payments  amounting to £5,183.99 (paragraph 33). They have  also lost the use of that money since, in effect, the end of the SPS 2005  payment window in June 2006.
423. RPA’s maladministration in failing to ‘put things  right’ means that their loss has gone unremedied for longer than necessary.
424. Mr and Mrs E lost a further £100 paying for an  appeal when their case should have been dealt with as an administrative  complaint.
425. Mr and Mrs E have experienced considerable  inconvenience, distress and frustration. In particular, they were unable to  manage their farm without the funds to pay for extra help. Only their son’s  intervention allowed them to continue.

Mr F

The  complaint Mr F put to me

426. Mr F complained that RPA failed to take all  relevant considerations into account when they decided to penalise him  following his overdeclaration of land in his 2005 SPS application. Mr F  complained that he has suffered a financial loss.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

427. Mr F’s mistake in his SPS 2005 claim was that he  went through RPA to resolve a doubt about what land he should include in his  SPS claim. His landlord had died, which ended what Mr F has called a ‘gentleman’s  agreement’ on some grazing land. Mr F felt unable to resolve matters with  the agent for his late landlord’s estate. Bear in mind also the information in  the letter to Mr F’s GP, which RPA received in April 2005. RPA may have  been unaware of Mr F’s overall health conditions, such as his stroke. But they  did have this letter, which said that Mr F had had exposure to organophosphate  pesticides and that chronic fatigue syndrome and neurological damage were among  the possible effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides. Mr F’s SPS 2005  claim fits into the maladministration that my first general finding identified  in chapter five because of the way RPA dealt with the evidence he gave them  about his health problems.
428.   Here is a reminder, from the specific standard, of  what the relevant Code of Practice said about good practice by service  providers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of  what RPA’s guidance said. The Code of Practice said:    

     ‘The duty of reasonable adjustment  is best met by the service provider trying to anticipate the types of problems  which could arise and by training its employees to enquire rather than act on  assumptions.’

     The Code acknowledged there might be situations  where it was not reasonable for a service provider to anticipate a particular  requirement. It also said that sometimes the changes needed might be  ‘little more than an extension of the  courtesies which most service providers already show to their customers’.Among other things, RPA’s own guidance said: ‘Our customers are in business and therefore it is for them to seek  assistance for themselves’.

429. I am satisfied that Mr F met RPA staff to talk  about his circumstances and that he wrote RPA a letter in May 2005  explaining the possible dual claim. Mr F has given a credible account, and  RPA’s records include letters in which Mr F refers to his meetings with RPA  staff. RPA’s records do not include the letter in which Mr F set out several fields  that might be claimed by his late landlord’s estate. But even if RPA had logged  his letter in May 2005, Mr F had omitted one field that was large enough  to trigger the maximum dual claim penalty. 
430. However, Mr F’s covering letter for his SPS claim  form could not have been plainer. He said his farm had been poisoned and he had  picked up the poison himself from the cattle. He said: ‘I do not know how to do the single farm payment scheme because it is  difficult to run a business with so much worry’. Separately, RPA had  received written evidence of Mr F’s health problems in April 2005. I  believe it would have been reasonable at this stage for RPA to treat Mr F as  someone who might need extra support with his SPS claim.
431. RPA also misdirected Mr  F about his payment for 2005. While penalties had been applied to his claim  that had reduced his payment to nil, they did not tell him about this until the  end of December 2006. They also gave him confusing messages about his 2006  payment.
432. To sum up – RPA failed to recognise how their  duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 might affect  their handling of Mr F’s claim. Mr F, as a result of RPA’s maladministration, did  not have the opportunity to correct mistakes which led to his penalties. In  saying that, I am not ignoring Mr F’s responsibility to find out all the  relevant facts he needed in order to make an accurate SPS claim. 
433. RPA’s general maladministration also meant that  they missed the chance to ‘put things  right’ for Mr F when they received his representations. It would have  been reasonable for RPA to have taken into account their failure to respond  flexibly to his request for help. As in the other complaints in this  investigation, RPA focused on the legalities. Mr F gave RPA more evidence about  his health in his representations about his claim. It would have been  reasonable at this stage for RPA to have treated him as someone who was likely  to fall within the terms of disability discrimination legislation. 
434. RPA omitted to consider the effects on Mr F’s claim  of their own administrative actions and/or omissions – notably, their failure  to anticipate how his health problems might affect his dealings with them. As a  result, RPA failed to look at how the injustice caused could be remedied  outside the Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment. 
435. Instead, Mr F went through a lengthy appeal process  that measured the case against the Regulations. 
436. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  F’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’. 

Injustice

437. Mr F could have done more to avoid the mistakes  which led to penalties. But RPA failed to act on the information they had about  Mr F’s needs. Had RPA done so, I believe they would have understood what he was  trying to tell them. It follows that, in the absence of RPA’s  maladministration, it is unlikely that Mr F would have been penalised on his  2005 SPS claim. As a consequence of the maladministration, he has lost the  money he would have received for SPS 2005. He has also lost the use of that  money from the end of the SPS payment window for the 2005 claim year.
438. RPA’s maladministration in failing to put things  right means that Mr F’s loss has gone unremedied for longer than  necessary.  
439. Mr F lost a further £100 paying for an appeal when  his case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
440. RPA’s failure to consider what adjustments they  needed to make in Mr F’s case contributed to the inconvenience, distress and  frustration that he suffered.

Mr G

The  complaint that Mr G put to me

441. Mr G complained that RPA provided poor quality  guidance about how to complete applications that was sometimes ambiguous; were  not ‘customer focused’ or ‘open and accountable’ because they delayed notifying  him that he would not be paid and also the reasons for non‑payment; misdirected  him about the status of his particular case and otherwise provided poor quality  advice and customer service to him. In particular he complained that:
     • RPA’s guidance about completing the 2005 claim form  was misleading;
     • they made avoidable errors in processing his claim;
     • they took too long to give him a decision about  payment of his claim; and
     • during that time, misled him into believing he  would be paid.
442. He further complained that RPA failed to take  proper account of his circumstances when he disputed their decision; and their  independent appeal panel was too closely guided by RPA staff. Without the SPS payment of about £2,642, Mr G had to support the farm  with money from his other work and by making household economies. He complained  that he and his family have suffered a great deal of worry and uncertainty and  he has not been able to have a holiday for two years.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

443. Mr G’s SPS 2005 claim fell straight into the  maladministration that my first general finding identified in chapter five.  Like Mr D, another of the nine complainants, he misunderstood the 2005 SPS  Handbook. As a result, Mr G made mistakes in his claim forms. The mistakes did  not fit the courts’ interpretation of ‘obvious error’. At the checking stage,  in early May 2005, RPA had returned Mr G’s claim to him so he could  endorse some changes. But they omitted to tell him that he had not activated  his entitlements.

444. Among other examples of poor handling in Mr G’s  2005 SPS claim, RPA paid him some of his SPS 2005 claim by mistake.
445. To sum up – Mr G, as a result of RPA’s  maladministration, omitted to activate his 2005 SPS entitlements by mistake and  had no chance to correct his error.
446. RPA’s maladministration also meant that they were  unable to give Mr G accurate information about the outcome of his claim when he  asked about this payment. They missed the chance to ‘put things right’ for Mr G when they received his representations.  I have explained that maladministration in my second general finding.
447. For Mr G, as for the other complainants in this  investigation, RPA focused on the legalities. They omitted to consider the  effects of their own administrative actions and/or omissions on Mr G’s claim.  In particular, RPA failed to consider whether the failings of the SPS 2005  Handbook, and the lack of adequate other help, influenced Mr G when he  completed his claim incorrectly. They also failed to consider whether their  inadequate initial checks allowed his fundamental error to pass without  comment. As a result, RPA failed to look at how the injustice caused could be  remedied outside the Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment.
448. Instead, Mr G went through a lengthy appeal process  that measured the case against the Regulations.
449. Mr G also complained that the appeal failed to look  at his circumstances and that the panel was too closely guided by RPA staff. It  seems to me that his dissatisfaction on those points arose because RPA were  using an inappropriate process to look at a complaint.
450. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  G’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’.

Injustice

451. Had RPA handled Mr G’s 2005 SPS claim without  maladministration, I believe he would have been able to clarify that he did  wish to activate his entitlements. He would therefore have received his SPS  payment for 2005. Mr G has suffered the financial loss of his 2005 SPS payments  amounting to £2,088.42 (see paragraph 33). He has  also lost the use of the money since, in effect, the end of the SPS 2005  payment window in June 2006.
452. RPA’s maladministration in failing to put things  right means that Mr G’s loss has gone unremedied for longer than  necessary.  
453. Mr G lost a further £100 paying for an appeal when  his case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
454. RPA’s inconsistent handling of SPS claims was  apparent to Mr G and contributed to his frustration.
455. Mr G has experienced considerable inconvenience,  distress and frustration.

Mr H

The  complaint Mr H put to me

456. Mr H complained that RPA failed to take decisions  based on all relevant considerations; were not ‘customer focused’ or ‘open and  accountable’ because they delayed telling him that he would not be paid and  also the reasons for non‑payments; that they misdirected him about the status  of his case; that they provided poor quality guidance about how to complete applications  and that they otherwise provided him with poor quality advice and customer  service. In particular, Mr H complained that RPA’s guidance about completing  the 2005 claim form was inadequate and they took too long to give him a  decision about his claim. He further complained that they accepted his failure  to activate was an ‘obvious error’, only to reverse their decision a year  later. He said he has suffered financial loss because of RPA’s mistakes; bought  new farm machinery for £15,000 after they told him they would treat his mistake  as ‘obvious error’; and has suffered stress and anxiety.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

457. Mr H knew what he needed to do to complete his 2005  SPS claim form successfully. He activated some entitlements. His mistake was to  overlook a full page of entitlements on his claim form.⁵⁷ He established them, but omitted to activate them. Those entitlements made up  most of his claim. RPA’s initial checks on claim forms would not have picked up  Mr H’s error and RPA staff would not have contacted him, even if they had noticed  the anomaly. It would have been better if RPA had contacted Mr H, but their  failure to do so was not a serious error and does not amount to  maladministration.
458.     As I have described in chapter five, in commenting  on a draft of this report, the Defra Permanent Secretary said:    

     ‘…in the first year (2005) of a  new and complex scheme, where farmers were asked to make a vital one off  application of entitlements, the absence of a claim for payment against any of  those entitlements could have signalled that the claimant had misunderstood  what was required in order to receive a payment. A customer focussed response  would have been for RPA to double check the intentions of those farmers.  However, where farmers had activated some of their entitlements, that  demonstrates an understanding of a need to do so and double checking their  intentions then goes beyond good customer care.’

     I am persuaded by the Permanent Secretary’s argument on this issue.

459. The maladministration that I have identified in my  first general finding of maladministration in chapter five did affect Mr H,  however. RPA told Mr H, in writing, that they would treat his mistake as  ‘obvious error’. They did this in September 2006, but his repeated contact  with them failed to obtain payment. Almost a year after their letter, they told  him their decision to treat his mistake as ‘obvious error’ had been wrong.  RPA’s actions here fit into the picture behind my general finding of  maladministration: their decision making was inconsistent and they failed to  give farmers accurate, or timely, information about the outcome of their  claims. 
460. To sum up – Mr H omitted to activate all his 2005  SPS entitlements by mistake and he was unable to correct his error in time to  obtain full payment within the SPS rules. RPA’s maladministration played no  part in that. But it was maladministration by RPA that led Mr H to believe, for  12 months, that they would pay him.
461. RPA also failed to ‘put things right’ for Mr H. Their handling of his  representations and appeal fits into the maladministration I identified in my  second general finding of maladministration.
462. As in the other complaints in this investigation,  RPA focused on the legalities when they looked at Mr H’s representations. They  omitted to consider the full effects on Mr H’s claim of their own  administrative actions and/or omissions. In particular, RPA failed to consider  whether their inadequate initial checks allowed Mr H’s fundamental error  to pass without comment. They also failed to consider fully how their late and  inaccurate information had affected him. It is possible that Mr H would have  committed himself to spending £15,000 on farm equipment in 2007‑08 with or  without his full SPS 2005 payment. We have seen no evidence that RPA even  asked Mr H to give them documentary evidence of when he bought the equipment or  how much it cost. Instead, they offered him a payment of £500 by way of apology  after his unsuccessful appeal. He refused it. There was no investigation of how  their misdirection influenced Mr H’s actions or fully argued rationale for  deciding against further compensation than the £500.
463. Mr H went through a lengthy appeal process  that measured the case against the Regulations. Mr H’s comments on a draft  of this report, and the comments made about his state of mind by people who  have known him throughout this time, speak to the burden placed on Mr H  first by the uncertainty of his position, then by his regret and frustration  about making a decision without accurate information about the money he had to  spend; and finally by the anxiety of having to re-budget to accommodate his  changed finances (paragraphs E250 and E251).
464. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  H’s SPS 2005 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’.

Injustice

465. Had RPA handled Mr H’s 2005 SPS claim without  maladministration, Mr H would have received prompt and accurate information  about the amount of his 2005 SPS claim. Instead, he had to deal with  inconsistent messages from RPA, on top of the financial strain imposed by his  mistake.
466. RPA’s maladministration in failing to put things  right meant that the uncertainty about Mr H’s true financial position  continued for longer than necessary and that he made a significant decision  about investing in farm machinery for his business without accurate information  on his 2005 subsidy payment. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Defra  Permanent Secretary said: ‘I believe it  was unacceptable for [Mr H] to be left under the impression for a year  that he would be paid before the Agency reversed his decision’.
467. Mr H lost a further £100 paying for an appeal when  his case should have been dealt with as an administrative complaint.
468. Mr H has experienced considerable inconvenience,  distress and frustration.

Mr I

The  complaint Mr I put to me

469. Mr I complained that RPA failed to take decisions  based on all relevant considerations because they failed to consider and  respond adequately to all the documents submitted with application forms or  used standard letters which failed to cover all the issues raised; were not  ‘customer focused’ or ‘open and accountable’ because they delayed notifying him  that he would not be paid; misdirected him about the status of his particular  case; and gave him poor quality advice and customer service. In particular, Mr  I complained that RPA’s failure to produce an accurate set of maps for his land  prevented him from making a complete 2006 SPS claim. He further complained that  they failed to reply to some of his letters about the problems with his claim;  they told him they had accepted his late claim, without penalty, but then changed  their mind; and, during the appeal process, they failed to explain the reasons  for their changed decision on his entitlement. Mr I said RPA’s errors have  caused him financial loss and avoidable upset.

My findings  of maladministration and injustice

470. Mr I’s problems arose with his 2006 SPS claim. He  wanted to be sure his form was accurate before he submitted it, but he was  unable to obtain the information he needed from RPA. His 2006 claim fell into  the general maladministration I set out in my first general finding in chapter five.
471. The problems arose from RPA’s trouble with the  Rural Land Register and their trouble with answering telephone calls or letters  in 2005 and in 2006. Even a year after the February 2005 opening of the  customer service centre, RPA were not able to answer Mr I’s calls.
472. RPA also failed to follow their own guidance. From  September 2005, this said that RPA staff should make three attempts to  telephone the claimant before writing to him or her. We have seen no evidence  that RPA even attempted to telephone Mr I in the period when it mattered.  This was the period between 26 April 2006, when RPA received his  first SPS 2006 claim form, up to the point when penalties would apply.  Generally, that would have been 31 May 2006, but RPA had more time to  answer Mr I in the 2006 claim year – until 15 June (inclusive).
473. Had RPA spoken to Mr I about his letters, or  provided a set of maps when he asked for them in February and in April 2006, it  seems to me that Mr I would have made a complete claim within the deadline.  Instead, RPA’s customer service centre was unavailable when he called it and  they did not deal adequately with his letters until August 2006.
474. To sum up – Mr I, as a result of RPA’s  maladministration, was unable to submit a complete and accurate SPS 2006 claim  within the SPS deadline.
475. RPA were also inconsistent in their decision making  in Mr I’s case. They told him in August 2006 they could accept his late  claim. They then told him they could not pay him – only to send him half of what  he would have been entitled to in February 2007.
476. RPA’s maladministration also meant that they missed  the chance to ‘put thingsright’  for Mr I when they received his representations. I set out that  maladministration in my second general finding in chapter five.
477. As in the other complaints in this investigation,  RPA focused on the legalities. They omitted to consider the effects on Mr I’s  claim of their own administrative actions and/or omissions – notably, their  failure to give him a timely and adequate reply to his letters. As a result,  RPA failed to look at how the injustice caused could be remedied outside the  Regulations, for example, by way of an ex gratia payment. He went through a  lengthy appeal process that measured the case against the Regulations.
478. RPA acted with maladministration in dealing with Mr  I’s SPS 2006 claim. They failed to ‘get  it right’, to ‘put things  right’ and to ‘be customer  focused’.

Injustice

479. Did Mr I’s responsibility to understand how to  claim outweigh, or at least match, RPA’s responsibility to get it right and be  customer focused when he contacted them in March to May 2006? In my view, Mr I  took the actions I would expect of a citizen doing his part in working with a  public body. He tried to find out the data he needed and, in doing that, he  gave RPA the chance to tell him what he should do.
480. It seems to me that Mr I was justifiably cautious  in declining to sign the declaration about the accuracy of his claim until he  was confident about the information he had used to complete it. Had he  overclaimed, it is likely that he would have been penalised. It follows that Mr  I has been unjustly denied full payment of his 2006 SPS claim amounting to  £11,479.13 (paragraph 33), after  taking account of the amount RPA paid him by mistake in 2007. He also lost  entitlement to top‑ups of his SPS payments from the National Reserve. He also  lost the use of that money from, in effect, the end of the SPS 2006 payment  window in June 2007.
481. Mr I paid £100 for an appeal when his case should  have been dealt with as an administrative complaint. He suffered further  confusion, because RPA paid him almost £15,000 by mistake for 2006. (It is not  clear how much of that, if any, RPA have recovered from him.) He was concerned  about the effect of the financial uncertainty on his staff.
482. Mr I has experienced considerable inconvenience,  distress and frustration.

Conclusion

483. In chapter six I have set out my findings of  maladministration and injustice for each of the nine complainants. In chapter seven  I make my recommendations for remedying the injustice I have found.