4. Mr E complains that the RPA took too long to provide any answers as to why his 2015 and 2016 Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) applications were unsuccessful.
5. He says the delay in providing this information prejudiced his future applications as he missed out on the opportunity to take corrective action to ensure that future applications met the criteria for success.
6. He would like compensation.
7. Mr E submitted a BPS application in April 2015.
8. When the payment window opened in December, he began contacting the RPA for updates on his application. During this time the RPA advised either his ‘claim was in progress’ or ‘he could expect a payment soon’.
9. In March 2016, the RPA issued a letter advising payment was ‘due shortly’ but no payment ever arrived.
10. Mr E continued to seek clarification, and on 8 September the RPA informed him that as his claim was below the minimum size it had disallowed it.
11. Prior to this news, Mr E had submitted a BPS application for the following year.
12. On 28 March 2017, the RPA wrote to Mr E explaining that after a land eligibility cross-check, it found that some parcels of his land were eligible, but others were not.
13. Mr E contested this and wrote several letters to the RPA requesting clarification. It responded in January 2018. In October, the RPA reviewed his case but advised it could not change its position. It apologised for not sharing all the relevant information with him earlier.
14. The RPA issued a final response in November 2020 apologising for not providing a full explanation for the rejections, until the Review Team investigated his concerns in March 2017. It provided a £100 consolatory payment in recognition that its ‘service fell far short of what [it] would have liked’ as well as for the stress and inconvenience the RPA likely caused.
15. Mr E has confirmed that he now accepts the RPA’s explanations for refusing his applications. He understands that his land was insufficient in size to qualify for the BPS scheme. However, he believes that the RPA’s delay in providing this information prejudiced his applications and prevented him from taking action that could have helped future applications succeed.
17. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.
18. Having done this, we believe that the RPA did likely fail to provide Mr E with the reasons it refused his applications as early as it could have. However, we do not agree that this prejudiced his future applications.
19. Mr E is unhappy that it took the RPA until March 2017, almost two years since his first application, to advise him exactly why his applications were unsuccessful. He argues that the delay in providing this information prejudiced his future applications as he missed out on the opportunity to take corrective action to ensure that future applications met the criteria for success. Such corrective action would be to purchase or rent land and entitlements from other landowners within the local area, to ensure his applications met the relevant criteria to qualify for the BPS.
20. The RPA acknowledged its delay and apologised that its service fell short of what it would have liked, and for the stress and inconvenience caused. It also offered a £100 consolatory payment.
21. Though we agree that there likely would have been stress and inconvenience caused by the service, these are not the impacts Mr E is claiming. Instead, we have looked at whether the delay in providing this information could have prejudiced his future BPS applications.
22. We fully understand his point that without the RPA’s feedback on why his earlier applications were unsuccessful, he may not have known exactly what changes he had to make to increase his chances of success.
23. We agree that the delay led to a missed opportunity to take action to make a successful future application. Had the RPA given Mr E the information he had requested much earlier it is possible he could have taken remedial action, such as purchasing further entitlements, to ensure his future applications had an increased chance of success.
24. However, even if the RPA had provided clarity sooner, on balance, it was unlikely this would have allowed Mr E the opportunity to purchase what he needed to in the correct areas to demonstrate that he met the criteria for the BPS. Mr E has provided no evidence of land and entitlements that were available at that time that he could have purchased, only the argument that he would have tried.
25. We agree that the RPA should have acted sooner. However, as we could not reasonably determine that the delay had a material impact on Mr E’s future decision-making and applications, we have decided to take no further action.
1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about the Rural Payments Agency (RPA).
2. We recognise how frustrating Mr E’s dealings with the RPA have been for him. We acknowledge the difficulties these events placed on him, and the fact he believes the RPA’s actions have caused him financial detriment.
3. We believe that the RPA did likely fail to provide Mr E with the reasons it refused his applications as early as it could have. However, we do not agree that this prejudiced his future applications.