A farmer who appealed a fine imposed by the Department of Agriculture because he breached the Nitrates Regulations has had his appeal rejected.
The farmer complained to the office of the Ombudsman that the fine imposed on him under the Nitrates Regulations was unfair.
He claimed he had notified the Department of Agriculture about additional land he was renting for grazing purposes.
If the additional land had been included in the Department’s calculations, the man would not have been fined.
Department of Agriculture officials said they had not received the required notification from the farmer.
If the additional land had been included, the man would not have been fined.
They also provided the Ombudsman with comprehensive details on how the Department deals with post, its filing system and all the measures it undertakes to search for post reported as missing.
Rejected
The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Department’s procedures for receiving and recording correspondence were satisfactory.
It noted that the farmer did not provide any evidence of posting, such as a receipt for express postage or registered post.
The Ombudsman concluded that the farmer had no basis to challenge the Department’s position that it did not receive the notification of the additional land.
Department warns farmers on nitrates as N&P statements are now available
Farm roadway overhaul in new nitrates red tape plan
Rules governing temporary grazing agreements
A farmer who appealed a fine imposed by the Department of Agriculture because he breached the Nitrates Regulations has had his appeal rejected.
The farmer complained to the office of the Ombudsman that the fine imposed on him under the Nitrates Regulations was unfair.
He claimed he had notified the Department of Agriculture about additional land he was renting for grazing purposes.
If the additional land had been included in the Department’s calculations, the man would not have been fined.
Department of Agriculture officials said they had not received the required notification from the farmer.
If the additional land had been included, the man would not have been fined.
They also provided the Ombudsman with comprehensive details on how the Department deals with post, its filing system and all the measures it undertakes to search for post reported as missing.
Rejected
The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Department’s procedures for receiving and recording correspondence were satisfactory.
It noted that the farmer did not provide any evidence of posting, such as a receipt for express postage or registered post.
The Ombudsman concluded that the farmer had no basis to challenge the Department’s position that it did not receive the notification of the additional land.
Department warns farmers on nitrates as N&P statements are now available
Farm roadway overhaul in new nitrates red tape plan
Rules governing temporary grazing agreements
SHARING OPTIONS: