Victory for farmer landed with £50,000 bill for form-filling slip

Peter Strawson, of East Ravendale near Grimsby, was handed a fine of £36,300 by the RPA and had his payment of £14,193 held back after he inadvertently wrote an incorrect start date on his Single Farm Payment application form.

The RPA had initially told Mr Strawson that he could simply correct the mistake and receive his subsidy as normal but then changed its mind and imposed the fine, as well as denying him his payment.

Subsequent attempts by Mr Strawson to appeal through the RPA’s official channels failed and he was forced to seek a judicial review in the High Court.

Judge Mackie QC ruled that the RPA was wrong both to withhold the payment and to impose the fine and ordered the agency to pay costs.

The judgment could have serious ramifications for other farmers handed large-scale fines for administrative errors and a spokeswoman for the RPA said it was now “carefully considering the judgment”.

Mr Strawson, who runs an arable farm, said following the verdict: “I’m pleased to say that common sense has eventually triumphed over bureaucracy.”

Bridge McFarland which brought the case on his behalf, said the result would be welcomed by all farmers concerned that a small clerical error could land them with a penalty out of all proportion to the mistake.

Patrick Taylor, partner with Bridge McFarland, said that the mistake made no difference to the amount of Mr Strawson’s claim or to his total entitlement and he had nothing whatsoever to gain by inserting the incorrect date.

The RPA’s appeals panel noted that there was no question of fraud and that the penalty appeared out of all proportion to the error but still refused to rescind the fine. A Defra Minister also expressed concern about the level of penalty but felt he could not legally intervene.

Mr Taylor said: “The legal arguments were quite complex but the case was won on two points. We were able to show that Mr Strawson’s mistake should have been spotted by the RPA and that he should therefore have been allowed to correct it in line with the RPA’s procedures for dealing with obvious errors.

“In addition, the judge found that, because the RPA initially told Mr Strawson that he could correct the mistake to allow the claim to proceed, he had a legitimate expectation that that should happen. Interestingly, the RPA denied having such a conversation but Mr Strawson was able to produce phone records to back up his evidence.

“It is also worth noting that, if the RPA had not initially given this misleading advice, Mr Strawson could have withdrawn his application, losing the £14,000 payment but avoiding the extra £36,000 penalty.

“We are absolutely delighted with the result of the case because it is hard to see how any fair person could think that a simple administrative error should result in a penalty of £50,000 for a family business.

“We understand fully the need to protect against fraud but all parties accepted that there was no question of fraud in this case and, indeed, Mr Strawson had absolutely nothing to gain by inserting the incorrect date because it did not in any way affect the amount of the claim or the money to which he was entitled.

“We hope the outcome will encourage the RPA to deal with these cases in a more flexible and understanding manner in future.”