Know the pitfalls beforethe inspector calls
In the Single Payment Scheme, common mistakes include failure to declare all land parcels; to submit amendments in time; to manage setaside; to remove forestry from the forage area, when land is planted; and to apply for at least 50% of the eligible area declared during the three reference years (if the farmer has consolidated the SPS payment).
In the Disadvantaged Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme, not living within a 70 miles daily commuting distance, or not maintaining the required stocking density, are usual problems.
On-farm investment schemes land farmers in trouble if they proceed with work before the department has given written approval; or fail to get planning permission before reaching the age of 35 (thus failing to qualify for a 15% top-up).
Late applications, or not obtaining educational qualifications within two years of application, are frequent Installation Aid pitfalls.
Even retired farmers can run into trouble, if Early Retirement Scheme leases are not finalised, or lease obligations not fulfilled. Failure by the transferee to farm all the pension and enlarged lands was a frequent snag in the ERS1 scheme.
lBut over-zealous officials will find problems on nearly every farm, if they look hard enough.
It took the Agriculture Appeals Office to extricate one farm family from a serous Rural Environment Protection Scheme row with the Department. In 1979, they purchased land, some of which was in a separate Land Registry folio, unknown to them.
When the farmer joined REPS 1, he had to make Beneficial Occupation claim, furnishing a sworn affidavit that he had been in undisputed occupation and possession of the land, and in receipt of any rents and profits, for at least the previous five years.
The land was accepted for REPS 1 funding, on the basis of the sworn affidavit.
To complicate matters, the farmer passed away during the lifetime of his REPS 1 plan, and his spouse continued the plan.
The Department subsequently disallowed the land for REPS funding and imposed penalties, because the farmer had no familial connection to the original owner of the land, and was thus not entitled to be deemed a Beneficial Occupier. The Department also sought to recoup REPS payments (€158 per hectare ) made in respect of the land.
In an appeal of this decision, it was pointed out that the intention of the original 1979 land sale contract was to transfer all the land to the applicant, and it was by accident rather than intent that title to all the land didn’t transfer. The Appeals Officer found that the applicant had been the de facto owner of the land when he joined REPS 1, and was entitled to enter it for REPS 1 funding without recourse to Beneficial Occupation.
That left the score at Farmers 1, Department 0.
But the case was only one of 790 non-single payment appeals by farmers in 2005 against Department decisions, and the final score was “Allowed, Partially Allowed or Revised” 36% and “Disallowed” 49%.
A separate appeals committee considered the cases of 4,943 farmers dissatisfied with the Department’s decisions on their Single Payment entitlements in 2005. Only 509 appeals were upheld, 4,287 were shot down, 44 deemed invalid, and 103 had not been finalised.
Applicants in 64 cases not upheld complained to the Ombudsman, and the Department has changed decisions in eight of these cases.
