Rural Payments Agency

4. Mr A complains on behalf of Mr B about the RPA. Mr A complains that the RPA provided incorrect advice to B in June 2024 about what he could include in his Round 2 Funding Application.

5. He says due to this misadvice Mr B’s Round 2 Application was disadvantaged and he missed out on £327,838.86 in funding.

6. He would like the RPA to reconsider the Round 2 Application as it was submitted following the advice offered.

7. Mr B had successfully applied for an improving Farming Productivity Grant at Round 1 in early-2024. This is a UK government-funded capital grant supporting farmers, growers, and contractors to improve productivity and sustainability.

8. In June 2024, they contacted the RPA to ask if the application forms could be used for a grant towards a robotic tractor. The RPA responded on the same day to advice that they could.

9. Mr B subsequently submitted a Round 2 application that included funding for robotic tractors. The RPA rejected this as it was a ‘significantly different’ to the application that was submitted at Round 1.

10. Mr B proceeded to try and appeal this decision as he felt the application was submitted in line with the response and advice given by the RPA in its June email. The RPA did not accept this and advised he could either resubmit his application as it appeared in Round 1 or withdraw.

11. Mr B chose to withdraw his application.

14. Mr A complains that the RPA misadvised Mr B about what he could include in his Round 2 funding application. He states that this later disadvantaged his application leading to its rejection.

15. The Application Guidance is to aid the public in making their Round 2 applications. Under the ‘what you will need for your full application’ section, it outlines that you need to use the ‘same project that you used in your Stage 1: online application’. It goes on to elaborate that though some ‘minor project details may change’ the main application itself should not be ‘significantly different’ as this may lead to the project being rejected.

16. Our Principles set out how we expect organisations to act. In order to be customer focussed, we expect organisations to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements and about their own responsibilities.

17. Mr B’s email to the RPA asked them to confirm that they can use the Round 2 application forms the RPA had provided to apply for a grant for a robotic tractor. The email said, ‘can you please confirm that we are still able to use the forms you have sent over to apply for the Farm Productivity Grant Scheme for a grant towards purchasing a Robotic Tractor’. The RPA responded three minutes later explaining that you can use the forms to do this by the deadline.

18. From what we have seen, we believe that the RPA’s response was, as far as the contextual information available to it allowed, accurate. The forms it had provided could be used to apply for a grant for robotic tractors. The issue was that Mr B’s initial application was not for a robotic tractor. So, to amend it now to include this would be an example of a significant change which the Application Guidance says an applicant cannot make.

19. We can see there has been a misunderstanding between both parties. The RPA is correct to say the forms can be used for a robotic tractor but Mr B was speaking in the context of his ongoing application. Mr B’s email did not state that he was planning to make changes to his application. Without outlining that his question referred to a change in his original application made during Round 1, the RPA did not know that Mr B’s proposed Round 2 application contradicted the rules set out in the guidance. While fuller advice from the RPA could potentially have helped avoid this misunderstanding, we find its response did not contain misadvice because it did not include any inaccuracies or contradictory statements. While we recognise there has been a misunderstanding which is clearly frustrating for Mr B, the RPA was correct when it said the forms provided could be used for the application.

20. We believe that RPA acted both in line with the Application Guidance and also our Principles. While there was an opportunity for the RPA to provide greater clarity, it acted on the information provided to it. Also, the rules governing the grant process are readily available and the responsibility for reading and complying with these rules also fell to Mr B. Given he was already familiar with the Grants process following the Round 1 application, we believe Mr B would have some knowledge of his entitlements and responsibilities. Ultimately, the RPA could only act on the information it was given and it did so in line with our Principles. Therefore, there is no indication anything went seriously wrong.

21. We understand that this situation has caused Mr B significant frustration and disappointment. He put considerable effort into preparing his application and trusted the advice he had interpreted from the RPA only for his application to be rejected. We appreciate that this outcome was upsetting for him and has likely left him feeling let down, especially given the time and effort he invested in the process. We hope our decision provides some clarity about the RPA’s actions and we wish him well.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint and we have decided to take no further action.

2. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, we believe that the RPA did not misadvise him during the Round 2 Application process. Given the context Mr B provided in his email, the RPA’s response was correct. We find the RPA could not say further without being provided the information to do so by Mr B.

3. We understand this has been a difficult and frustrating experience for Mr B. We know he believes the RPA’s decision was unfair and that his application was actively disadvantaged by its actions. Our decision is in no way meant to detract from how significant these matters are to him.