10th February 2015
This issue is one that many of us will have experienced from time to time, and for some it is a process they have had to endure for many years. In order to fully understand the situation at the RPA and how and why some farmers are going through a long drawn out procedure that, rather than looking to resolve a situation, seems only to prolong the process, one must first look at the steps a complaint and subsequent appeal must take before the RPA will come to a formal conclusion.
1. On receipt of an initial complaint the Whole Case Worker will review it and respond in writing.
2. If unresolved the second phase is the ‘Complaints Resolution’ phase. This involves consideration by a dedicated complaints team.
3. If the complaint is still unresolved it moves to phase three, the ‘Complaints Review’, which involves a further complaints team who have not previously dealt with the case. Here a decision should be made independently of previous decisions.
4. The fourth stage is the ‘Appeal’. This officially should take no more than five working days and be considered by the Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel (IAAP), consisting of 28 members of the farming community. The Panel take account of RPA policy however they are unable to rule on the correct interpretation of legislation.
5. The IAAP decision can be challenged through a Judicial Review, which must be applied for within three months of the stage four decision.
Overall this may seem a relatively straightforward process as one would expect, however in practice it is anything but. Time can be a major issue when considering complicated cases, as one will often need to employ a surveyor or solicitor to write up appeal statements and continually chase the RPA for responses, not least because of the litigious nature of complex disputes, which can entail historical entitlement correction between multiple parties. This increases costs and can be a reason why claims are often not seen through to the end.
Another concern is the fact that initially cases are looked at by the Whole Case Worker who is unlikely to have any legal training, and as a result will be unable to recognise situations where legally one has a legitimate claim against the RPA. The ability to recognise such situations at an early stage should be vital and would save both time and money on both sides of any dispute. An example of this is a case concerning the entitlement correction of just under four entitlements, whereby stage one was instigated over fourteen months ago and the RPA are yet to accept the implications of the error they have fully admitted, and the damages due to the claimant.
Although damages relating to unpaid subsidies or other such matters are paid from the EU ‘pot’, the claimant’s costs including professional fees are passed on to the UK taxpayer. If one considers that these costs can be far in excess of any compensation due for incorrect SPS claims, it seems a wholly unacceptable burden that the UK taxpayer has to bear simply because of a lack of an efficient dispute management process and any legal advice to those case workers lower down the management structure.
