With now only four weeks left before the SP5 deadline of the 15th May, it is probably now for some the first time they pick up the new 124 page 2013 Single Payment Scheme Handbook. However this of course is not the only publication a claimant for the SPS needs to understand and comply with. If one looks at other publications covering Cross Compliance, Soil Protection Review etc. there are a total of 457 pages that need to be understood to safely claim the Single Payment. This is the amount of knowledge that is needed before you even start farming land, for which of course there is even more “red tape”.
Every year we attract more and more clients asking us to do their SP5 claim forms. Unlike many other land agents or consultants, we consider this one of the most important services we provide, not as a necessary task we have to carry out just for retained clients. Because of my involvement for over 25 years in farm quota agency, together with my team’s involvement with this nationally, we can provide a service that’s we believe cannot be matched, as we also take a forensic surveying approach to this type of work. Indeed it is work we would like to do more of, and not less. Of course it is challenging, as any mistake can be very costly, but so far we have a track record of 100% success. This may sound an easy statement to make, but the reason we can is because of the approach we take combined with our special understanding and experience of how the Single Payment Scheme has developed out of IACS and previous quota schemes before that.
Unfortunately the widespread misunderstanding that we hear still so often is “surely the RPA plans and their details must be correct, as we have claimed on these for many years without any problem”. What is important to understand is that the RPA will not accept as an excuse that their plans were incorrect. One must remember that these plans have been built up over 21 years, starting at the beginning of the IACS scheme, when claimants were asked to amend and correct plans, and populate these with the information requested. Whilst there have been various mapping updates, the RPA never have updated some of this information, and although a percentage is correct in respect to Ordnance Survey data now added to by the RPA mapping software and satellite system, the other data provided can be totally erroneous, based on a previous claimant’s misunderstanding of the rules over 21 years. Also old boundaries still can be incorrect, and of course if using Ordnance Survey data, this can be up to 2 metres out anyway. More recent boundaries of course, again, can rely on information given to the RPA. It is for this reason that, when buying a farm, there is usually a distinct caveat that the seller advises the buyer to make their own inspection and carry out their own survey of the farm before making their claims for subsidy, and that they should not rely on the information previously declared by the Seller as being accurate, including the information recorded on the RPA plans.
When instructed to provide our full service for which we provide a 100% guarantee, we have not yet surveyed a farm without picking up a number of long running errors. The further misunderstanding with these types of errors is that they could be relatively small individually, but if they come to light the RPA have an obligation, sometimes, to go back to 2005 to adjust each year’s claim payment. We have a case at the moment with the RPA and the sum threatened to be recovered amounts to a considerable sum of money. Unfortunately because of the costs involved in carrying out the initial farm survey needed, without having done this at the beginning of IACS, farmers may unwittingly have a number of “skeletons in the cupboard” without knowing it. We have had cases of farmers claiming for years on land they do not own, under agreements they do not have the ability to use to claim on, and most commonly misunderstanding the rules and claiming more eligible area than they actually have. With the £90 million fine recently imposed on the UK by the EU auditors, the RPA now will be concentrating very intently on avoiding these types of penalties in the future. In 2003 the definition of intentionally over claiming on your farm has become an even more serious threat, with additional guidance whereby the payment for the whole farm can be reclaimed. We all know how financially important the Single Payment is.
We offer our clients different levels of service but the “full service” includes a farm inspection, where we check the following:
1. The title deed boundaries for ownership and also tenancy and other agreement plans to ensure that the boundaries of the enclosures are correct.
2. On site we check the boundaries against these plans, and also with the plans registered with the Land Registry at the RPA.
3. We will take a photographic record of every enclosure, which is stored for future reference so that we do not need to visit the farm again if there is a rule change and we have to consider the effect of that rule change on the current claim.
4. Using GPS software we will measure onsite any area or boundary that is not correctly shown on the RPA plans.
5. We will prepare a set of animated Google Earth photographs at A3 size of every enclosure recording the data we have collected and the relevant areas that are claimed or not claimed on. Measurements and calculations are also shown so that if, in subsequent years, there are any rule changes or changes on the ground, it is relatively straight forward to update these accurately without visiting the farm again.
6. We are able to advise about naked acres and entitlement implications, easily providing additional entitlements and advising on managing excess entitlements.
7. We will make the online application and, if needed, advise on rule changes and requirements in respect to other compliance issues, including Cross Compliance, as required.
As with any other agents we also provide a “desktop service” as well. What is always difficult to explain to clients using this service is that it actually relies on them understanding the Scheme and all the rules. Whilst we might try and prompt with appropriate questions, ultimately we are relying on the claimant knowing what is going on on the land, and what he/she should mention or not. Obviously we have Google Earth images to talk through with our clients, but these can be out of date and will not show us issues that need to be queried as we would if we had surveyed the farm. Therefore a desktop service without inspecting the farm is only as good as the claimant’s knowledge of the scheme. It is also problematic to check on whether the RPA plans are correct. This of course is why even the “cheap and cheerful” service provided by many requires the claimant to sign a total disclaimer on all aspects with the consultant or surveyor merely submitting the claim form on their behalf.
The edifice of regulations created by the UK and no other member state, is tragic, as with the average age of claimants now being over 60, it is a lot of ask to expect the Scheme to be fully understood. Of course this is why the UK have been penalised by the auditors. The irony is that having eradicated the element of education and support which was provided under MAFF, no proper help is now given by the RPA, and it is not surprising that the majority of claimants have little clue of what is involved, and this is why the audit by the EU found the UK to be so lacking in ensuring that their farmers are complying with this unnecessarily complicated interpretation of the EU Single Payment Scheme. If England rolls over the current entitlements into the new scheme, it is likely that any unintentional “skeletons in the cupboard” could become imbedded in the annual claim and will be an increasing financial threat, with a further five year scheme.