I had an inspection in 2016 on my farm to check my HLS and ELS Agreement areas. I had the usual 24hr notice, and then met the guy the first day of his Inspection and then again had a (non farming) chat with him after a weekend when he came back to complete his work.
This was the last we heard until late last year when I received an incomprehensible spreadsheet from the RPA/NE with the outcome. They suggested that there were issues and that ! would hear again from them.
Yesterday, I received a letter detailing the main area that they have a problem with. That is, that my HF13 fallow area was measured at 2.83 ha instead of the 4.0ha in the Agreement. In addition, the Inspector found a small discrepancy of .05ha in a wild bird plot.
Result, £6.5k Clawback and fine!
My issue is that the the HF13 areas will almost certainly have been accurate and in fact, over the required area. The idea that the area was shy by 30% is almost laughable, other than it has the potential to be very costly to my small business!
The Inspector failed to follow the procedures as laid out in the document here!
Here
He failed to speak or contact me at any time following teh Inspection to discuss his findings or to check any aspect of them with me. This I believe is a total breach of the above stated procedure, and prevented my checking and confirming, or not, how he had arrived at his calculations at that time. It is impossible for me to do so now, as the Option is a rotational one, and was gone come Autumn.
I am unsure if the RPA has/had used satellite imaging to check any areas as well, but from personal experience, this is dreadfully inacccurate, as is does not allow proper identification of different cropping areas in Stewardship or when under trees, hedges etc.
I will challenge the letter and findings, but I would be extremely grateful for any pointers on best practice before I start the process.
Is the NFU Call Direct service of any use? Any other person I should speak with? Any GOOD Agent with a track record of challenging the RPA Inspector?
Thanks.
This was the last we heard until late last year when I received an incomprehensible spreadsheet from the RPA/NE with the outcome. They suggested that there were issues and that ! would hear again from them.
Yesterday, I received a letter detailing the main area that they have a problem with. That is, that my HF13 fallow area was measured at 2.83 ha instead of the 4.0ha in the Agreement. In addition, the Inspector found a small discrepancy of .05ha in a wild bird plot.
Result, £6.5k Clawback and fine!
My issue is that the the HF13 areas will almost certainly have been accurate and in fact, over the required area. The idea that the area was shy by 30% is almost laughable, other than it has the potential to be very costly to my small business!
The Inspector failed to follow the procedures as laid out in the document here!
Here
He failed to speak or contact me at any time following teh Inspection to discuss his findings or to check any aspect of them with me. This I believe is a total breach of the above stated procedure, and prevented my checking and confirming, or not, how he had arrived at his calculations at that time. It is impossible for me to do so now, as the Option is a rotational one, and was gone come Autumn.
I am unsure if the RPA has/had used satellite imaging to check any areas as well, but from personal experience, this is dreadfully inacccurate, as is does not allow proper identification of different cropping areas in Stewardship or when under trees, hedges etc.
I will challenge the letter and findings, but I would be extremely grateful for any pointers on best practice before I start the process.
Is the NFU Call Direct service of any use? Any other person I should speak with? Any GOOD Agent with a track record of challenging the RPA Inspector?
Thanks.