• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1994)

Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1994)

Press Release - Agriculture Case Summaries (Annual Report 1994)

Agriculture - Notes

• Reduced grant paid for farm improvements

A farmer complained that he had not been paid the level of grant he expected to receive for works he carried out under the Farm Improvement Programme. The Programme is operated jointly by Teagasc and the Farm Development Service (FDS) of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. He was informed verbally by the FDS that he would receive a grant of approximately �19,000, but was actually paid �15,302 leaving a shortfall of �3,698. The Ombudsman's examination of the case showed that the Department had originally calculated the grant payable at �19,000, but when this was later checked, it was discovered that an error had been made. The Department accepted that the farmer had been given the original figure. Taking this and other evidence supplied by the farmer into account, the Ombudsman asked the Department to review their decision. The Department agreed to pay half of the shortfall and the farmer received a cheque for �1,850.

• Refusal to pay Ewe Premium

A woman complained that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry had refused to pay grants under the Ewe Premium Scheme because the application had not been received by the closing date. The application was late because the Department had not sent her an application form as they had done in other years. The Department said that the application form did not issue automatically because the complainant had requested that she be the sole payee for the purposes of the grant, despite the fact that the herd had been registered as being owned jointly with her brother and sister. Because this request, which disrupted the automatic issue of the application form, had been made by the complainant, the Department would not accept responsibility for the loss of the grants. The Ombudsman was not satisfied with this explanation and initiated an investigation of the complaint. In the course of the investigation, it emerged that the suggestion that the complainant become the sole payee had been made by the Department itself. The Department accepted that it rather than the complainant was at fault and the premiums were paid.