Re: 2006 SFP forms (england).

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:48:45 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Tim Jones" <wildenfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:443d6991.78256000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:15:12 +0100, "Jim Webster"
<Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Personally I still have a nagging feeling that my problems lie not
with the RPA but with the agent acting on behalf of someone we rent
grazing off who somehow managed to get his client (and therefore
presumably himself) authorised to act on our SBI number. First thing
I knew about it was when found I found feilds appearing on our field
maps as fast as I could get them deleted ;( I'm still waiting to
find out if the incompetant *&^$ has managed to establish any
entitlements at all for his poor confused client.

I checked this. (not in your individual case obviously)

So far the biggest problem in the area of agents has been that it has been
too difficult for agents to do their job for people because the RPA set far
too many hurdles and made things too strict.

An SP9 looks pretty simple to me, what other actions are required to
act as an agent for someone?

It isn't impossible you are a victim of an agent making unauthorised actions
but it is perhaps less likely that the normal malfunctions of a chronically
unworkable system.

I had to laugh at the following quote on FWI

"Consultant John Howard who completes 60 SP5 forms for farmer clients,
said just six had received their
packs by 12 April and they appeared to include mistakes.
"The first form I attempted had a huge error.
The client had bought a large number of extra acres.
But they simply do not appear on the pre-populated forms," said Mr
Howard.
"All the helpline could suggest was that they printed out another set
of forms in the hope that the computer
would miraculously find the information and put it on," he said.
The other option, he was told, was to start from scratch with the
bought-in fields.
"That means checking, measuring and plotting split fields.
That adds up to a day's work for this farm - and that is just one out
of the 60 forms to be completed."
An RPA spokesman said the agency would shortly publish some guidance
for the 2006 scheme year on its
website.
He said farmers who had insufficient Field Data Sheets should contact
the CSC."

Either the client bought the fields in the last 12 months in which
case you either get a copy of the RPA maps from the seller or accept
the need to do a bit of work or the fields were on last years
application in which case any competent consulktant/agent would surely
have kept a copy and have no need to remeasure etc. In the main I
suspect that the consultants/agents are rubbing their hands in glee at
all the extra work and income this generates for them.

Another laughable quote in the same article was

"Mr Wordsworth said the union was also concerned that some farmers
would not have enough time to fill in their 2006 forms because some
were not due to arrive until 20 April."

FFS isn't 25 days enough time to fill outa few simple forms out,
just how long do we need? We seem to be portraying ourselves as a
bunch of money grubbing illiterates!

It seems to me that there are too many people out there making
mountains out of molehills for the sake of a "decent" whinge. I was
somewhat encouraged to read Oliver Walstons talking point in March
31st FW, where he highlighted the glaringly obvious. If farmers can't
be bothered to fill out the forms no-one is forcing them to take the
money. Why oh why do we kick up such a fuss over such a highly
lucrative bit of form filling?

Regards

Tim Jones
.

Loading