Rural Payments Agency

5. Mrs D complains the RPA prevented her from submitting her brother’s claim for the BPS on time. She complains it: • visited Mr Y in 2015 to help register him on the online system but did not make it clear that he needed to take further steps himself to finish submitting his claim for BPS. She says the RPA told her that Mr Y’s application was ‘done and sorted’ and she did not need to take further action • sent an email on 6 July 2015 saying an application had not yet been received but did not say which business this reminder related to • gave conflicting information about Mr Y’s entitlements and eligibility for BPS and continued to pay Mr Y between 2016 and 2017 • unfairly requested to recover the 2016 claim payment of £1,207.42.

6. Mrs D says RPA’s failings caused her to submit Mr Y’s BPS claim 13 days after the deadline. She says they have been financially disadvantaged because:

• they missed out on receiving the claim payment in 2015 • Mr Y was asked to repay the BPS payment he received in 2016 • Mr Y is no longer entitled to BPS payments and this means they lost out on all the payments they could have claimed since 2018 • not getting the payments means they cannot afford to make improvements to their land.

7. Mrs D also says because RPA continued to pay Mr Y between 2016 and 2017, this led them to believe their claim was in order and they had a reasonable expectation that they could continue to claim and receive BPS. Because of this, they have been left with a shortfall in their expected income.

8. Mrs D says the RPA’s lack of acceptance of fault has left her shocked and has caused her and Mr Y worry and distress. She also says she has spent a significant amount of time chasing these issues and contacting the RPA.

9. Mrs D would like the RPA to: • accept its failings and apologise for the impact they had • withdraw its request for them to payback the £1207.42 they received for the 2016 claim • reinstate Mr Y’s entitlements to enable him to claim SFI • reimburse the money they lost out on getting in 2015 (£1204) and each year since 2018 (totalling £7073.50) • pay them for the distress they have experienced.

10. The BPS gives payments to farmers who carry out eligible agricultural activities. To successfully apply for BPS each year, the farm business must hold and ‘activate’ the same number of entitlements as declared in eligible hectares of land. In 2015 the RPA introduced BPS applications using an online system.

11. The RPA ‘CAP reform in England’ 2014 document says, ‘farmers will keep entitlements as long as you declare enough hectares of eligible land on your BPS2015 application’. The RPA told us this means 2015 was a special year where a claim needed to be made to establish the enlistments for the upcoming scheme. If no claim was made in 2015, all entitlements were lost to the national reserve.

12. In 2015 the process for the first year of the scheme was for applicants to register online. The RPA told us that at the time of setting up the business, it understood applicants might need extra help to successfully make BPS applications and it was sending out representatives to help people register as farming businesses. It also sent applicants information giving a timeline for applications along with reminders to apply.

13. Mrs D deals with her brother’s BPS applications. An RPA agent visited Mr Y in May 2015 to update him on the new online system. After this meeting, Mrs D says the RPA agent suggested Mr Y had submitted his application, when in fact this was just the registration. The RPA sent Mrs D a reminder email on 6 July 2015 saying they needed to submit an application. The email did not include a reference as to whether this was about her or her brother’s farm business and Mrs D assumed the email was about her farm. On 23 July the RPA told her it had not received her brother’s application. Mrs D sent Mr Y’s application after the deadline (of 10 July) on 27 July 2015.

14. On 16 October 2015 the RPA wrote to Mrs D (at Mr Y’s home address) saying it could not accept the application because it was late. It said this means Mr Y would not get a BPS payment for 2015 and his entitlements will be taken away. Mrs D says Mr Y did not show her this letter.

15. In 2016 the RPA invited Mr Y to apply for BPS. Mrs D says this led her to believe that Mr Y was still eligible and able to apply for the BPS. Mrs D continued to make BPS claims between 2016 and 2018 and Mr Y was paid in 2016 and 2017. RPA said it made these payments because of an administration error.

16. On 15 August 2019 the RPA told Mrs D they could not claim because Mr Y had not made a claim in 2015 and had forfeited the entitlements. On 9 September 2020 the RPA asked Mrs D to pay back the money it had paid them for the 2016 claim. The RPA did not ask Mr Y to repay the claims he had received for 2017 and 2018 (£1,293.42). It made this decision because BPS guidance in 2015 was clear that if customers did not declare enough eligible land for each entitlement held in 2015, the excess entitlements would be lost. It realised after 2016 that it would not have been as clear that the affected entitlements were not eligible for use.

The RPA did not make it clear that Mr Y needed to complete his 2015 claim and it sent an email saying an application had not been received, without saying what business this related to

19. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after one year, unless we think there is a good reason to. We looked at whether there was a good reason why Mrs D did not go to an MP sooner and discussed this with her. We also considered the time the RPA took to respond to her complaint.

20. On 16 October 2015 the RPA wrote to Mrs D to say it would not accept the late application and it was removing Mr Y’s entitlements. Mrs D complained to her MP on 28 January 2022. This was six years and three months after RPA gave its decision.

21. Mrs D accepts Mr Y likely received the 16 October 2015 letter but she did not see this because he likely put the letter to one side thinking it had been dealt with. We accept Mr Y likely did not tell Mrs D the 2015 claim had not been paid until the RPA wrote to them on 15 August 2019. But, the evidence shows the RPA provided Mr Y (and by extension Mrs D) with its decision in October 2015. In these circumstances, we have not seen a reasonable explanation for the time it took to go to the MP about this. It was Mr Y’s responsibility to act on or share any letters with Mrs D who was managing his account. While we accept that Mrs D did not realise there was a problem with their eligibility to claim because the RPA asked them to claim BPS in 2016 and 2017, this does not change the fact the 2015 application process was unsuccessful. The RPA did not pay Mr Y in 2015 and told them about this. For these reasons, we have not seen exceptional circumstances to allow us to put the time limit to one side and investigate further.

Conflicting information about Mr Y’s entitlements and eligibility for BPS and continuing to pay him between 2016 and 2017

22. We agree there are signs the RPA gave Mrs D and Mr Y conflicting information about Mr Y’s entitlements and eligibility for BPS and it incorrectly continued to pay Mr Y between 2016 and 2017.

23. We accept the RPA told Mr Y his 2015 application was unsuccessful and the guidance was clear that this would mean future entitlements would be lost. We have seen the RPA made this information available for Mrs D, by: • a letter dated 16 October 2015 saying it would not accept the late application and it was removing Mr Y’s entitlements • referring to the RPA guidance, ‘The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in England 2015’ that says: • ‘all BPS entitlements have been given a ‘use-by date’ of 2016. If an entitlement (which isn’t ‘lost’ by an applicant in 2015) isn’t used by 2016, it will expire (and it can’t be used to claim BPS) • if an applicant does not have eligible land to go with an entitlement, it will be considered an ‘excess entitlement’ and it will be lost.’

24. This means farmers who do not make an application in 2015 will lose all their entitlements, because they will be considered excess entitlements.

25. Despite this, we have seen the RPA sent Mrs D and Mr Y emails that heavily suggested Mr Y was able to apply again. On 22 March 2016 the RPA asked Mr Y to apply for BPS and a second email said, ‘BPS 2016 – apply by 16 May. Everything you need to apply for 2016 is now available.’

26. We have seen signs the RPA provided confusing information. It: • sent Mr Y claim reminders by email • incorrectly said the claim was successful in 2016 • accepted a technical fault meant it did not remove the entitlements and incorrectly paid Mr Y between 2016 and 2017.

27. The evidence suggests Mrs D and Mr Y experienced distress, worry and inconvenience from the shock of finding out Mr Y was not entitled to the money the RPA had paid him, or to make future claims. They also had the inconvenience and worry of planning to repay the money to the RPA.

28. We consider these signs of failings by the RPA were partly responsible for causing this distress. We cannot say the RPA’s actions were fully responsible because it showed that Mrs D and Mr Y had responsibility to read and understand the letters and information about eligibility and entitlements. This includes:

• the RPA’s guidance ‘The Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in England 2015’, explaining how ‘excess entitlement’ will be lost • the RPA sent Mr Y a letter dated 16 October 2015 saying it would not accept the late application and it was removing Mr Y’s entitlements.

29. Based on this information, we can see Mrs D and Mr Y were told that he was not entitled to make future claims before receiving money in 2016 and 2017.

30. We wrote to RPA about this and as a result of our enquiries it has offered to pay them £200 for the confusion it created by giving inconsistent information and continuing to pay Mr Y. Mrs D and Mr Y experienced a degree of distress and inconvenience over an extended time. We know Mrs has spent several years (since August 2019) trying to resolve her concerns. We used our guidance on financial remedy and think the payment offered is a fair and appropriate way to put things right.

31. We do not think we need to ask the RPA to do more. We recognise Mrs D may be disappointed by this decision. We hope she finds our explanation helpful.

The RPA unfairly requested to recover the 2016 BPS claim payment

32. We understand how distressed and shocked Mrs D and Mr Y were when the RPA requested this repayment. BPS guidance in 2015 was clear that if customers did not declare sufficient eligible land for each entitlement held in 2015, the excess entitlements would be lost. In line with this guidance, the RPA’s decision to request recovery of the 2016 payment of £1,207.42 was correct, because this payment had been incorrectly awarded.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs D’s complaint about the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). Mrs D complains (on behalf of her brother, Mr Y) failings by the RPA prevented her submitting his claim for the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) on time (now called the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI)). She also complains the RPA gave them conflicting information about Mr Y’s entitlements and eligibility for BPS, continued to pay Mr Y between 2016 and 2017 and unfairly requested to recover the 2016 claim payment of £1,207.42.

2. We recognise Mrs D says she and Mr Y have been left with a shortfall in their expected income and have experienced worry, distress and inconvenience.

3. After speaking to Mrs D and considering the issues we have decided:

• the complaint that the RPA prevented her submitting Mr Y’s BPS claim on time falls outside of our time limit and we have not seen good reason to put this to one side and investigate the issue further

• there are signs that the RPA gave Mrs D and Mr Y conflicting information about his entitlements and eligibility for BPS and it incorrectly continued to pay him between 2016 and 2017. We wrote to RPA about this and it has offered to pay them £200. We have decided this is enough to put things right

• the RPA did nothing wrong when it requested to recover the 2016 BPS claim payment.

4. We recognise how important these issues are to Mrs D and we know she has spent many years trying to resolve her concerns. We understand Mrs D may be disappointed with our decision but we hope she finds the information and explanations in this statement helpful.