A farmer successfully appealed a decision by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to an exclusion of payment in full under the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme (TAMS II) in 2020.
The case was one of the 158 cases closed by the Office of Agricultural Appeals last year, as noted in the “2020 Annual Report of the Agricultural Appeals Office”, which was published last month.
One case, given as examples of agricultural appeals cases decided by appeals officers during 2020, is as follows.
A farmer made an online application for grant aid under TAMS II Dairy Equipment Scheme. Approval was issued and a claim was submitted for payment, the Office of Agricultural Appeals noted.
On the online payment claim form, the box for investment for a ‘meal bin on a new base’ was not ticked as completed and no payment was received by the farmer for this investment. A review was sought from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the refusal of payment was upheld.
The farmer appealed the decision on the grounds that the basis for rejecting the payment was incorrect and likely to be based on an administrative check on the file where the reviewer was not fully aware of all of the facts of the case and information arising from the pre-populated drop down menu.
The check indicated that the meal bin was not claimed; “this was incorrect as there is a selection tick on the screen beside meal bin under the completed investment screen”, the office found.
There was no tick for ‘completed’ under the category ‘Meal Bin on a New Base’; however, the ‘Meal Bin on existing Base’ was ticked ‘completed’.
The grounds included that the department had sent the farmer a query letter regarding a meal bin with ‘no receipt’. The farmer had responded by uploading a meal bin receipt on the department claim system.
However, the receipt was uploaded under the wrong category, but the department should have spotted this, the office said. Also, this receipt document was verified by the department under the incorrect subject category and “this disadvantaged the farmer’s claim”, the office added.
Noting that the department was aware that the meal bin was claimed but didn’t associate it with the correct item, the appeals office added:
“There were approximately 20 documents uploaded on the system for this claim and this was the only document uploaded incorrectly.
“The farmer felt an allowance should have been made for this obvious error.”
The Appeals Officer reviewed the facts and contentions of this case as presented by the farmer and the department.
The officer took into account the terms and conditions of the TAMS scheme and relevant European regulations.
Making a decision, the Appeals Officer found that the farmer acted in good faith, and found that “the incorrect claim for the meal bin should be recognised as an obvious error in the circumstances of this case and the item should be paid for in full”.
The appeal was allowed, the office concluded.