Campaign urges claims against bungling MAFF
Campaign urges claims against bungling MAFF
By Jeremy Hunt
FARMERS whose livestock has been slaughtered during the foot-and-mouth crisis are being urged to support a co-ordinated legal campaign to recoup consequential losses from MAFF.
The campaign is being organised by north of England property consultants Clark Scott-Harden in conjunction with Bristol-based solicitors Burges Salmon who describe MAFFs handling of the crisis as "bungling, bureaucratic incompetence".
They believe farmers have a strong case for pursuing claims for consequential loss through the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
"MAFFs handling of this crisis has been incompetent if not negligent. In the absence of compensation for any consequential losses many of our farmer clients have been asking if legal action can be taken against MAFF," says CSH director Miles MacInnes, who is based at Penrith, Cumbria.
The two companies are now making a nationwide appeal to all farmers affected by F&M.
"Our problem is that we can only base the mail-shot on the names of farms on the MAFF web-site. We are very keen to hear from the thousands of farmers who have lost stock as contiguous culls, dangerous contacts and through the 3km cull," says Mr MacInnes.
The campaign will be based on farmers initially registering their complaints against MAFF with Clark Scott-Harden by June 4 either by phone (0845-7419490) or via the internet at www.csh.co.uk
CSH intends to use the information supplied by farmers to assess the full extent of MAFFs failings. The weight of individual complaints will, hopefully, lead to a public inquiry into the crisis.
"But time is of the essence. Legislation requires that any complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman must be made within six months."
The NFU has been pushing all farmers who believe they have suffered consequential losses to come forward, says Martin Haworth, director of policy. "If this is another route by which they can do so then that is fine.
"But some of the farmers who have been worst affected are not those who have lost animals – at least they have got compensation. Farmers who are in restricted zones have not been able to move anything, some for up to 100 days, and their stock is getting over-fat. They are getting no income, and no compensation, and have lost more than anyone."
The NFU will push their case hard when a government is returned after the election, says Mr Haworth. "But I do not believe there is any legal requirement for government to cover consequential losses, unless there is a clear case of maladministration," he adds. *