Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 2000 > Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April to September 2000
Volume 3 - 3rd REPORT - SESSION 2000-2001
Chapter 2
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Case No: C.262/96
Refusal to compensate for late payment of arable aid
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from a farmer that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) had delayed making payments to which he was entitled under the 1995 Area Arable Payments Scheme (the scheme). The Ombudsman found that the relevant European Community legislation required MAFF to make the scheme payments for 1995 within the period 16 October to 31 December, and that that requirement was mirrored in MAFF's own published charter target. The Ombudsman criticised MAFF for poor planning, under-resourcing, inadequate management information, failure to administer the scheme effectively, and allowing data to be corrupted. The Ombudsman found flawed MAFF's decision to drop a proposal to pay interest to those whose payments had been made after the deadline, and the grounds on which they justified that decision spurious. The Ombudsman found that in deciding to pay some scheme claims at the expense of others it was incumbent upon MAFF to redress the disadvantage to the farmer (and to others in a similar position) who had through no fault of his own been deprived of the use of over £51,000 for a period of several weeks. MAFF agreed to compensate the farmer, and any other applicants in England whose payments had been delayed in 1995 in the same circumstances. The Ombudsman said that he would be looking to MAFF to compensate all those who through no fault of their own had received their payments late. The compensation should take the form of interest reflecting the delay between the target date for payment (31 December 1995) and the dates when payments had actually been made, subject to a de minimis threshold of £50 compensation.
Back to top Case No: C.693/97
Refusal to compensate for late payment of arable aid
D Farms complained that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) had delayed making payments to which they were entitled under the 1994, 1995 and 1996 Area Arable Payments Schemes (the scheme). MAFF paid interest to D Farms for the delay in dealing with their 1994 claim. The Ombudsman welcomed that decision. For the 1995 scheme, the Ombudsman found that the relevant European Community legislation required MAFF to make the scheme payments within the period 16 October to 31 December, and that that requirement was mirrored in MAFF's own published charter target. The Ombudsman criticised MAFF for poor planning, under-resourcing, inadequate information, failure to administer the scheme properly and corruption of data. MAFF agreed to compensate D Farms, and any other applicants in England whose payments had been delayed in 1995 in the same circumstances. The Ombudsman said that he would be looking to MAFF to compensate all those who through no fault of their own had received their payments late. The compensation should take the form of interest reflecting the delay between the target date for payment (31 December 1995) and the dates when payments had actually been made, subject to a de minimis threshold of £50 compensation. In considering D Farms' complaint about the late payment of aid under the 1996 scheme the Ombudsman found that much of the delay could be attributed to the complexity of the application and the errors made in its submission, rather than maladministration on the part of MAFF.
Back to top
Case No: C.29/00
Rejection of an application to change the status of land to become eligible under the arable area payment scheme
Mr K complained that MAFF had been unreasonable regarding the evidence that they required from him in support of his application to change the status of a field in order that it might be eligible under the arable area payments scheme. It was not in dispute that in 1993 Mr K and his landlord had each separately told MAFF in writing that the eight fields in question were in permanent pasture and ineligible under the scheme. That continued to be the case on Mr K's written applications for each of the scheme years up to and including 1996. The Ombudsman was satisfied that it was entirely reasonable, in order to protect the public purse, that MAFF required a full explanation from Mr K justifying the change in status sought in the 1997 scheme year. The onus was on Mr K to ensure that the information he gave on his applications was correct. The evidence that Mr K was able to produce was not field or date specific, and amounted only to circumstantial evidence. MAFF acknowledged that Mr K had gone to great lengths to try to produce the evidence required but have decided that that evidence does not suffice because it is neither primary documentation nor field specific. MAFF apologised for minor shortcomings in dealing with Mr K's case. However, the Ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration in MAFF's decision making process.
Back to top Case No: C.343/00
Sheep Annual Premium
Until 31 March 1985 Mr P farmed in partnership with his wife. On 1 April 1985 Mr P's son joined the partnership. From 1984-1996 Mr P claimed sheep annual premium (premium) as a sole producer on behalf of the partnership. Apart from signing the 1996 claim form as "owner, partner", he gave no other indication on the forms that he had applied on behalf of the partnership. MAFF paid the premium claimed. In 1997 Mr P's son claimed premium as a sole producer on the partnership's behalf. Apart from signing the form as "partner", he gave no other indication on the form that he had applied on behalf of the partnership. Having established that a partnership existed, MAFF rejected the 1997 claim on the ground that the partnership should have applied as a producer group. Mr P complained that MAFF had rejected the 1997 claim even though the partnership had applied as a sole producer in accordance with previous practice and their interpretation of MAFF's guidance. The Ombudsman found that since the 1992 scheme year, MAFF's guidance had made it sufficiently clear that to apply to the scheme properly a partnership should apply as a producer group.
Back to top Case No: C. 559/00
The standard of evidence required to prove eligibility of land under the Arable Area Payment scheme
In October 1996 Mr S, a farmer, acquired the tenancy of a piece of land. By Mr S's account he telephoned MAFF in March 1997 asking for advice about where to site his required set aside land to allow him to make a claim under the Arable Area Payments scheme (the scheme). He says he was told that his obligatory set aside could be sited wherever he chose; MAFF retained no record of that conversation. In April 1997 Mr S made a claim under the scheme; he had sited all of his obligatory set aside requirement on the newly acquired land. Correspondence followed between MAFF and Mr S in an attempt to establish the eligibility of the land under the scheme. In October MAFF told Mr S that they had identified the land but it appeared that it had not been registered for the scheme before. Mr S provided MAFF with the previous field reference; named the farmer who had claimed under the 1995 scheme; and said local residents had said that no crops had been grown in 1996. Mr S enclosed a copy of a tenancy tender document which he said showed that the field had previously been registered with MAFF; it had been cropped to wheat in 1995 but had been fallow since then. MAFF informed Mr S that the land was not eligible to be set aside as it had not been cropped in 1996, nor had it been in a set aside scheme; that had been confirmed by the information supplied by Mr S. His claim had been disallowed because he had placed all of his set aside on ineligible land, and therefore had no eligible set aside to support his claim. On appeal MAFF decided that the original decision had been correct. Mr S provided statements from his landlord and another person saying that a crop had been grown on the land in 1996 but had been abandoned and not harvested. MAFF considered those statements but said that they could not reconsider their decision on Mr S's disallowed claim without further contemporaneous evidence of the land's eligibility such as cropping records; aerial photographs; or satellite imagery. Mr S said that no cropping records or aerial photographs existed; he could obtain satellite imagery but that would be very expensive and asked MAFF again to reconsider his claim based on the statements he had provided. MAFF maintained that contemporaneous evidence was needed. The Ombudsman criticised MAFF for not keeping records of the advice given to Mr S regarding the siting of his obligatory set aside. However, he found that MAFF had given proper consideration to all of the evidence provided by Mr S and considered that their request for contemporaneous evidence of eligibility of the land had been reasonable.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
