Bear in mind that the "contract" is totally one sided and NE appear to be able to adjust their side at will. Even if you win a case against them they have a wonderful fall back (at the moment at least!) and say they had no choice and they were only acting under European rules and if you want to take things further, you have to go to the European Court.
At least Dick Turpin wore a mask!!!
Sounds like if you get an inspection, year 1 is optimum.The contract is completely different to ELS- I wish I had known.
I’m currently getting back fined without any evidence what so ever- and they can do it if they please.
It’s absolutely shocking how the CSS has been done. Beware anyone who goes into it.
Also beware of the inspector. Ours claimed he was only there to report what he sees. It turns out they are the people who end up trying to fine you.
Then when you phone up the RPA you can’t get anything done as the poor person at the end of phone has to pass any appeals onto the inspector and wait for their judgement.
It took two and half days out of last week to do and I’m guessing the same this week.
It is sad, because I very much believed in the principles of the scheme, however it very much appears that rather than work with you, they do their best to recoup as much money as possible. Even some of their staff say that they are unscrupulous. I have had 2 major cases against them and have had 2 letters of apology (and they are not given out easily).Sounds like if you get an inspection, year 1 is optimum.
What sort of discrepancies are they fining you for?
Hopefully any new applicants read these accounts and proceed with caution, most likely in the opposite direction from CSS, which is sad and the real looser is the environment and wildlife.