Tom Julian fought the Department of Agriculture and won. Twice. First as part of the milk quota action group and then personally when he fell foul of a ruling on leaving REPS a year early when he sold his Offaly farm in 2000. He believed he had fulfilled all the requirements. It was permissible to exit REPS1 after three years. He had completed four years and undertaken all the works agreed to in the five-year plan.

The Department said it never received the paperwork involved, although Teagasc had logged it as sent from its offices.

The Department billed Tom for the entire £20,135 (it was so long ago that we were still using punts). Tom fought it, and was vindicated in 2012 when Judge Heneghan ruled that too much time had passed – the Department had missed the six-year statute of limitations to pursue him. He was also awarded costs. The Department appealed to the High court and Tom won again. That was in March 2013 and seemed to end the matter.

Unbelievably, this month Tom received a fresh demand for full payment of the money – over €25,000. On ringing the relevant Department office, he was told that on reading his file, it was accepted that he had no case to answer. Tom requested written confirmation that his case was closed, which he awaits.

How many other farmers have similarly thought matters closed, but received demands out of the blue? All it takes is for a change of personnel and a dusting down and trawl through dormant files. Tom had the capacity to confront the issue head-on, but how many farmers get similar letters and are badly affected by them? As he said himself: “I didn’t sleep the night I got the letter.”

Tom has always stressed what he felt was the unequal nature of any battle between a farmer and the Department. He effectively had to put his farm on the line to fight his case, whereas the Department wasn’t even spending from within its own budget – the Department of Justice picked up the tab. When that’s over, it should be over.

The Department of Agriculture must rigorously collect money due to the Exchequer, but should always remember it is dealing with people – often older and vulnerable people – and not corporations.