Rural Payments Agency

3. Mr I says the RPA took too long to respond to his questions about a rejected application for Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) payments, specifically in relation to an erroneously attributed historic feature on his farm.

4. Mr I tells us he missed out on an SFI payment in 2023 and an expanded SFI payment in 2024. He explains the combined total of these payments is £36,994.68. He also describes the significant stress this has caused, including spending around six months and approximately 150 hours trying to resolve the issue, as well as being left out of pocket.

5. Mr I seeks a payment of £36,994.68 to reflect the missed SFI income, and a simpler process for farmers affected by mapping or data errors in future.

6. In April 2024, Mr I applied for payment under RPA’s Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme. This is a scheme under which farmers and land managers with a ‘management control’ of the land can apply for funding in exchange for taking up or maintaining farming practices that protect and benefit the environment, support food production and improve productivity.

7. As part of the application process, the RPA carry out checks to see whether the land to be used as part of the application is suitable for that use. The RPA did this in Mr I’s case and found that part of the relevant land appeared to contain some historical features (known as Lynchets – a ridge or ledge formed along the downhill side of a plot by ploughing in ancient times). On this basis, it deemed that Mr I’s application was likely to be ineligible for payment.

8. Mr I believed this to be an error (as, to his knowledge, his land did not contain these features). In May 2024, he contacted the RPA by email to explain his position, but it appears the RPA did not respond.

9. However, to try to ensure he was eligible for some payment, he also asked the RPA whether he could amend his application to exclude the contested land. The RPA responded and said this would not be possible and advised him to withdraw the application and start the process again.

10. In July 2024, the government began an expanded SFI scheme which included new options to support more sustainable food production. According to the RPA’s records, in the same month Mr I made contact to check on the status of his existing application. However, the following month, he contacted the RPA again to confirm he was withdrawing his application and instead would be applying for the expanded scheme.

11. In September 2024, following contact from Mr I in which he provided further documentation relating to the land in question, the RPA told him it agreed a mistake appeared to have been made with the mapping of that land. The RPA advised him to contact Historic England (the organisation responsible for compiling the land data the RPA had relied on when making its decision) and ask it to investigate the matter. The RPA advised that, if Historic England agreed a mistake had been made, it would likely amend the land data which the RPA could use going forward.

12. Mr I subsequently contacted Historic England as advised. He said it appeared the land in question had been misidentified and the disputed features were on land owned by a neighbour, not Mr I. Historic England responded and said it had relied on information provided by a third organisation (a heritage trust) who had been responsible for maintaining the archaeological records for Mr I’s area. Heritage England advised Mr I to contact the heritage trust to get the records corrected if he believed a mistake had been made.

13. Mr I contacted the heritage trust who agreed that a mistake had been made with the mapping. This was subsequently corrected, and the relevant datasets were updated by all parties.

14. Mr I complained to the RPA about what had happened and about the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue. The RPA responded and upheld the complaint about its service. It acknowledged that it had delayed in providing Mr I with the advice he required and offered to pay him £100 in recognition of this.

15. Mr I complained to us and said the RPA’s errors had led to him missing out on the SFI payment he would otherwise have received. He said the SFI process was too rigid and reliant on databases which were ‘beyond the comprehension of the average farmer’. He said the process does not allow for a common sense or pragmatic approach to resolving active errors in the databases.

17. To put this complaint, and our decision, into context, it may be helpful to explain more about the SFI and about our role in situations like this.

18. As we have said elsewhere, the SFI is a government scheme aimed at rewarding environmental land management.

19. The RPA issue guidance for people applying for the SFI. This includes information on what the person should do before applying, including checking whether the land is eligible and its details are up to date on digital maps.

20. When making payments to farmers, traders, and landowners, the RPA must apply the relevant regulations and scheme rules consistently and fairly.

21. It is not our role to decide who should receive payments or how much those payments should be. That is for the RPA to determine in line with the applicable rules. Our role is to look at whether, in reaching its decisions, the RPA followed a fair and reasonable process, took account of relevant information. In doing so, we have regard to our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right – under which we expect organisations, when making decisions, to take account of all relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately.

Mr I says the RPA took too long to respond to his questions about a rejected application for Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) payments, specifically in relation to an erroneously attributed historic feature on his farm.

22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not already put right. Having done so, we have found that the RPA has already done enough to address the impact of these events.

23. We must begin by saying we have seen nothing wrong in the RPA’s decision to reject the application. The evidence shows that the RPA based this decision on relevant information (namely the data made available by Historic England). Although it later transpired later the information contained an error, the RPA could not reasonably have assumed this at the time. For that reason, we have seen no indication of maladministration in the RPA’s decision-making process.

24. That is not to say nothing went wrong. There appears to be no dispute that a mistake was made when mapping Mr I’s land. However, we have seen nothing to suggest the RPA was at fault for this. Any error here lies with the organisation responsible for providing the data in the first place.

25. We can understand Mr I’s frustration that the RPA did not correct the error, but, as we have indicated, it was not the RPA’s error to correct. It had received information from an expected source and, other than Mr I’s contention, had no real reason to question that information. Ultimately, if Mr I believed an error had been made, it would always have been his responsibility to bring this to the attention of the relevant organisation (which, as we say, was not the RPA). In addition, as the RPA’s guidance makes clear, it had been Mr I’s responsibility to ensure his land details were up to date and correct before making his application.

26. We accept that the RPA could have acted more helpfully when Mr I first contacted it (by advising him, as it later did, to contact Historic England). Under our Principles of Good Administration – being customer focussed – where organisations are unable to help a customer, we expect them to refer that customer to other sources who may be able to provide that help. Although the RPA eventually did that, we are satisfied it could and should have done so earlier.

27. We cannot say this would have made a difference to what happened. Even if the RPA had advised Mr I to contact Historic England earlier, this would not have changed the fact that his initial application would always have been rejected. We accept that, if he had acted earlier, he may have been able to submit a new application based on correct information but, as he did not do so, we cannot say whether this would or should have been successful.

28. We must also recognise that Mr I withdrew his application, in part, because he decided to apply for a different scheme. We cannot say with enough certainty he would have acted differently if the RPA had provided him with more timely advice.

29. Having said this, we accept that the RPA’s failure to provide Mr I with advice earlier would have caused him frustration. We have carefully considered whether the RPA has done enough to put things right.

30. Our Principles of Good Administration ‘Putting things right’, say that when organisations make mistakes, they should provide a clear explanation, a sincere apology, and proportionate redress. We have found the RPA met this standard by acknowledging its error, apologising to Mr I, and offering a financial remedy. This is consistent with the RPA’s and PHSO’s guidance for redress in cases involving administrative error and delay without clear evidence of financial loss directly caused by that error.

31. We appreciate that this is not the outcome Mr I was hoping for when he brought his complaint to us. We would like to thank him for the time and persistence he has shown in trying to resolve these issues and for the opportunity to consider his concerns.

1. We have carefully considered Mr I’s complaint about the RPA. We have decided the RPA has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr I.

2. We understand Mr I’s complaint concerns misleading advice he was given by the RPA when he was trying to claim for farming subsidies. We recognise the significant stress, time and financial impact this situation has had on Mr I, and we do not underestimate the frustration caused by the time and effort he spent trying to put things right.