Rural Payments Agency

5. Miss O complains on behalf of Mr A that the RPA unfairly refused to progress his Countryside Stewardship Capital Grant application, due to a technicality involving an expired option (RP16 Rainwater Goods) from a previous Mid-Tier agreement.

6. Although the claim period for this option had ended in March 2023, and no works or purchases had been made, the RPA delayed removing it from his agreement despite being asked to do so before the Capital Grants window closed in November 2024. By the time the amendment was confirmed in December, the grant portal had already closed, and Mr A’s application was excluded from reinstatement, leaving him unable to proceed.

7. This has caused Mr A significant financial and operational impact. He has lost access to around £150,000 of funding that was essential for infrastructure improvements required to maintain environmental sustainability and comply with Environment Agency regulations.

8. Without the grant, these works are unaffordable, threatening the viability of his dairy business and its environmental compliance. He also feels that the RPA’s handling of the issue, including the last-minute grant closure with only 30 minutes’ notice, was procedurally unfair and has caused considerable stress and uncertainty.

9. Miss O and Mr A would like the RPA to reconsider its decision, taking into account that Mr A had acted in good faith and was awaiting their response at the time of closure. They also want assurance that in future, grant or subsidy application windows will not be closed without reasonable notice.

10. Miss O told us that in an ongoing effort to maintain environmental sustainability and comply with current and proposed requirements for slurry storage, Mr A spent much of 2024 liaising with the Environment Agency and Catchment Sensitive Farming (part of Natural England), who both gave him their support for his Countryside Stewardship Stand Alone Capital Grant proposals.

11. To this end, he put in an application for Capital Funding in October 2024, which was to help pay for roofing over open areas of concrete at his dairy unit, including over a silage clamp, and milking parlour collection and dispersal yards. This is required to keep rainfall separate from the slurry and hence reduce the amount of slurry that has to be stored and spread.

12. Following the initial submission, he was made aware that there was a 100-metre length of the RP16 Rainwater Goods option, included within an existing Mid-Tier agreement, that was delaying the application’s progression.

13. The claim period for the RP16, had already elapsed (ending 31 March 2023), meaning that even if he had wanted to, he’d be unable to claim for this item. Because of this fact, when it came to putting the Capital Grant together, it was not anticipated that this would cause any issues.

14. As requested, it was confirmed to the RPA that the business had not purchased any materials, or begun any work for the RP16 option, and that Mr A would be very grateful if the RPA could remove the 100-metre stretch from the agreement, so he could continue with the Capital Grant Application.

15. At the point that the Capital Grants were then unexpectedly paused in November 2024, Mr A was yet to receive confirmation of the options removal. When the confirmation needed was finally received, on the 3 December 2024, the Capital Grant portal had already closed, leaving Mr A with nowhere to turn.

16. When it was announced that some 4,040 applications would be reinstated, subsequent contact with the RPA was made, where the RPA confirmed that Mr A’ application was not one of the 4,040.

17. Further contact was made with the RPA and after a lengthy discussion with a Countryside Stewardship team member it was suggested that Mr A raise a complaint regarding the issue. This form was issued to the RPA on the 3 April 2025, and a response was received on 9 April.

18. The resolution concluded that Mr A should have ensured that the RP16 length was removed prior to the submission of the application, despite the fact that the option’s claim window had elapsed by some 20 months. The response did not acknowledge the fact that the request was put in before the Capital Grants were closed, and that Mr A was awaiting the amendment confirmation at the point of closure.

19. Miss O told us that since Mr A was liaising with the RPA so closely regarding this matter and the RPA was aware of his intentions for the scheme, it feels particularly unfair that Mr A has been unable to continue with the application due to a technicality.

20. Miss O says no consideration was taken for the fact that Mr A was awaiting their response, at the point that the Capital Grants were paused. There were no live Capital items on the parcels concerned at the time of submission, only a 100-metre length of an option that was never claimed and whose claim by period had elapsed by more than a year and a half.

21. By refusing the application on a technicality, Mr A has missed out on c. £148,049.35 worth of capital items that are essential to updating the farm’s infrastructure, to be compliant with Environment Agency standards.

22. Without the grant funding, the necessary farm improvements are not affordable. Due to the lack of SSAFO compliance that this results in, (which the capital project set out to achieve), the sustainability of Mr A’s business will be in question.

25. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

26. Mr A submitted a Stand Alone Capital Grant application in October 2024 for RP28 Roofing works intended to reduce rainwater entering slurry stores and support environmental compliance. The RPA informed him that a 100-metre length of the RP16 Rainwater Goods option remained within his existing Mid-Tier agreement and was preventing the application from moving forward.

27. The claim window for the RP16 option had expired in March 2023 and no works had been undertaken. Mr A had been liaising with the RPA during the preparation of the application and, from his perspective, had acted in good faith and met the criteria for the grant. He had, understandably, not anticipated that an option which was unclaimed and past its claim-by date would prevent submission of the new application.

28. RP16 was a capital option under Mr A’s existing Countryside Stewardship Mid-Tier agreement. Although the deadline for claims had passed, it remained recorded as a live capital item within that agreement.

29. The Applicant’s Guide: Capital Grants 2024, section 3.4.2 (Countryside Stewardship – CS Mid-Tier and CS Higher Tier), states that land parcels in an existing Mid-Tier or Higher-Tier agreement may only enter a Capital Grants agreement if all capital works on that parcel in the existing agreement have been fully completed and paid for. The guidance does not distinguish between capital items that are active and those whose claim window has expired. The relevant consideration is whether the parcel remains subject to a capital item within an existing agreement.

30. Although no works had been undertaken in relation to the RP16 option, it remained a live capital item on Mr A’s existing Mid-Tier agreement. In those circumstances, the RPA was entitled under the published guidance to require formal removal of that option before allowing a new Capital Grant application to proceed.

31. On 19 November 2024, when Mr A attempted to submit his application, the outstanding RP16 option was identified as a block. On 21 November 2024, his agent confirmed to the RPA that no works had been undertaken and requested that the option be removed. The scheme was paused unexpectedly on 25 November 2024. The RPA says the amendment was actioned and confirmed on 25 November 2024. Confirmation of the amendment was received on 3 December 2024.

32. We have considered whether the time taken to process the amendment amounted to unreasonable delay, as suggested in the complaint. The issue was identified on 19 November 2024 and removal was requested on 21 November 2024. On the information available, this represents only a small number of working days between the request being made and the amendment being confirmed. We have seen no evidence of an earlier unresolved request to remove the RP16 option. In these circumstances, we are not persuaded that the RPA failed to act within a reasonable timeframe.

33. As a result of this sequence of events, Mr A was not in a position to submit a compliant application before the scheme closed. Although the RP16 option was subsequently removed from his agreement, by that stage the application window had ended.

34. From Mr A’s perspective, the application window closed unexpectedly. The timing was clearly unfortunate, particularly as he was awaiting confirmation that the RP16 option had been removed and believed he had taken the necessary steps to allow his application to proceed. We understand why this felt abrupt and unfair.

35. However, the Applicant’s Guide: Capital Grants 2024, section 2, states that applications “will remain open until the funding is allocated.” The scheme therefore did not operate to a guaranteed fixed end date, but remained open only while funding was available. Closure was linked to budget allocation rather than to a pre-determined calendar deadline.

36. Taken together, these provisions show that the RPA was required to ensure parcels were free of live capital items before allowing a new agreement to proceed, and that the scheme was entitled to close once funding had been allocated.

37. While the timing was unfortunate for Mr A, we have not seen evidence that the RPA departed from the published guidance in applying these rules, or that there was an unreasonable delay between the issue being identified and the RPA taking the requested steps to remove the RP16 option.

38. We recognise that this has had a significant impact on Mr A. The grant represents a substantial sum of money and we understand the consequences of not securing this funding. However, our role is not to determine whether Mr A ought, in principle, to have received funding, but whether the RPA applied the scheme guidance correctly and consistently.

39. Capital Grants operate within defined eligibility conditions and funding limits, and the RPA is required to administer public funds in accordance with those published rules. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration, which says

40. The scheme operated within a finite budget and closed once funding had been allocated. We note that Miss O and Mr A have referred to the fact that some applications were reinstated after the temporary closure of the scheme.

41. Government information published following the closure stated that sufficient funding had been secured to process the 4,040 completed Capital Grants applications that had been placed on hold. It confirmed that applicants who had submitted an application before 5pm on Tuesday 26 November 2024, and whose application had been put on hold, did not need to take any further action and that those applications would be processed.

42. The same information also made clear that applicants who had not completed their application before the temporary closure would need to re-apply when the scheme re-opened. In Mr A’s case, his application had not been successfully completed and submitted before 5pm on 26 November 2024 because it remained blocked pending removal of the RP16 option. He therefore did not fall within the cohort of completed applications that were placed on hold and later progressed. While we appreciate these circumstances were largely out of Mr A’s control, we have not seen evidence that the RPA treated him differently from other applicants in a comparable position.

43. We have also considered the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration. Under the principle of Getting It Right, public bodies are required to act in accordance with the law, follow their own published guidance and exercise their statutory powers properly.

44. We are also mindful that the RPA is responsible for administering public money. In line with the Ombudsman’s Principles, it must do so with propriety and apply the rules fairly and consistently to all applicants. Having reviewed the evidence, we have seen no indication that the RPA failed to follow the guidance that governs its work.

45. In this case, the Capital Grants guidance required that parcels be free of incomplete capital works before entering a new agreement and made clear that applications would remain open only until funding was allocated. On the evidence available, the RPA applied those published rules to Mr A’s application and processed the requested amendment.

46. We appreciate that this outcome will be deeply disappointing for Mr A, particularly given the scale of the proposed works and the importance of the funding to his business. We do not underestimate the effort he invested in preparing the application or the consequences of not securing the grant. However, our role is to assess whether the RPA acted in accordance with the rules and standards that govern the scheme.

47. We have not seen indications that the RPA failed to apply the relevant guidance correctly or caused delay that would amount to maladministration. For these reasons, it is not appropriate for us to take further action in this complaint.

1. Miss O complains on behalf of Mr A about the Rural Payments Agency (the RPA). We have carefully considered Miss O’s complaint and strongly sympathise with Mr A’s experience.

2. It is clear he invested significant time and effort into developing his Stand Alone Capital Grant application, including liaising with the Environment Agency, Catchment Sensitive Farming and other professionals to ensure the proposed works would support environmental compliance and the long-term sustainability of his dairy business.

3. We understand how frustrating it must have been to have the application halted at a late stage, particularly when he had acted in good faith and addressed the issues raised and met the criteria for the grant.

4. This has understandably caused stress and uncertainty, particularly given the scale of the proposed investment and the implications for the farm’s future. We do not underestimate the impact this has had. However, after carefully reviewing the evidence and the relevant Capital Grants guidance, we have seen no indication that the RPA failed to administer the scheme in line with the rules and funding conditions that govern it.