Wednesday 21 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision Report 201609429

  • Case ref:
    201609429
  • Date:
    January 2018
  • Body:
    Scottish Government
  • Sector:
    Scottish Government and Devolved Administration
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    payment schemes

Summary

Mr C's complaint concerns an application he made to the government's Rural Payments and Inspections Division for payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (a European Union farming subsidy scheme). Mr C told us that he had inadvertently failed to apply for a top up he was entitled to because he found the government's guidance on applications to be misleading. He had attempted to appeal this decision but the government refused to consider his appeal, as they did not consider they had made a relevant decision under The Rural Payments (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. In response to Mr C's complaint, the government accepted that the section of the guidance Mr C had referred to was insufficiently detailed, as it did not mention the top ups in question, but they did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading.

On reviewing the guidance in place at the time Mr C made his application, we agreed with the government's position. The statement in question failed to mention the top ups, as Mr C had explained. However, this was only part of the introduction to what was extensive guidance on a complex system. When read in full, we considered the guidance clearly explained the top ups and how to apply for these.

We also considered the government's position on Mr C's appeal to be reasonable, although stressed that we could not definitively conclude that it was correct in law, as this was something that could only be confirmed by the courts. For this reason, we did not uphold these complaints.

Updated: March 13, 2018