A case that considered the obvious error provision in relation to the submission of a claim to the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) is that of Peter Strawson Limited (the Claimant) v The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (the Defendant) [2010] EWHC 3286 (Admin).

The RPA withheld the 2007 SPS payment and applied a penalty. The Claimant judicially reviewed the decision further to exhausting the appeals procedure.

Article 19 of the European Commission Regulation 796/2004 sets out the provision for the adjustments of obvious errors.

In accordance with EC Working Document AGR 49533/2002 an obvious error must be capable of detection from the application form submitted and depends on the overall facts and circumstances of each individual case. An example given in the guidance includes those arising from checking of databases.

Facts of Case

The case relates to the SPS claimed for the 2007 scheme and an error in terms of the date inserted for new fields purchased by the Claimant on the application form.

The 10 month rule applied in 2007 in that a farmer had to have land which had been at his disposal for at least 10 months beginning on any date between 1 October and 1 April of the following year.

The Claimant included nine new fields that he had purchased in his 2007 application and took the start date as 1 October. This was an error as the new fields had not been at his disposal from 1 October that year.

The RPA spotted the error as the nine fields had been declared by the previous owner as part of his 2006 claim and so there was an overlap.

Successful Grounds of Challenge by Claimant

1.  That he had made an obvious error and amendment should be allowed at any time under Article 19 of Regulation 796/2004.

Paragraph 35 of the Judgment states:
“It is difficult to think of an error more obvious than the selection of a date which would, to the knowledge of anyone familiar with the area, invalidate a claim and generate penalties when numerous available alternative dates or the choice of no date would not”.

2.  That he had a legitimate expectation that the amended date of 1 December 2006 would be accepted.

The RPA had told the Claimant that if he wrote to correct the mistake of the wrong start date (which he had done) then the mistake in the original application would be rectified.

Decision

The Judge decided that the mistake did fall within the “obvious error” concept within Article 19 and that the mistake in relation to the date inserted for the purposes of the 10 month rule could be rectified.

In Summary

Whilst this case demonstrates the usefulness of the concept of obvious error to correct mistakes on SPS Application Form, it is best to try to avoid having to use this fall back provision by ensuring that the Application Form is completed accurately to avoid any mistakes.

For more information please contact Rory Hutchings - Head of the Rural Practice team on 01792 525402 email rory.hutchings@jcpsolicitors.co.uk or visit www.jcp-rural-practice.co.uk