STRAIGHTS prices are edging up as feed compounders buy protein and grain supplies to cover winter needs, say traders.
Millions of £ forfeited in unclaimed wayleave cash
By Mike Stones
UK FARMERS are forfeiting millions of £ in unclaimed wayleave payments, claims Herefordshire farmer David Hall.
Mr Hall, who last year pocketed a cheque for nearly £18,000 after renegotiating wayleave payments on his 60ha (150 acre) farm, is now offering to win similar benefits for farmers throughout the UK.
"I was astounded that such large sums of money are being neglected. Extra cash could make all the difference between survival and bankruptcy," he says.
His windfall began with an accident. After sub-soiling ripped up British Telecom cables on his Upper Horton Farm, Bromyard, Mr Hall received a letter from the company claiming damages. His request for information about the location of cables on his land was greeted by silence. Only then did it emerge that British Telecom was paying him only one third of his annual entitlement. "My payments had not been increased to reflect new cable installations," he explains.
On just four fields the increase in payments, backdated for six years, totalled £1786/year. Mr Hall opted to receive a one-off payment of 15 times the annual wayleave; a sum of £17,800.
Its not just telecom cables that are failing to attract full payments, he says. Electric, gas and water pipelines could all be underpaying too.
After securing a one-off wayleave payment of £800 on 1.2ha (3 acres) for a neighbour, Mr Hall realised that he may have stumbled on a novel form of diversification. His Upper Horton Farm Company now offers to verify which utility companies have cables or pipes crossing property, to check correct payments are being made and, if not, to negotiate for the best possible contract.
"We make no charge unless we succeed in increasing revenue. Then, we charge a fee of 15% of any increase obtained, plus VAT," says Mr Hall.
He is quick to acknowledge farmers could contact utility services directly, but claims his investigative technique and the time-saving involved offer value for money.
Once notified about any shortfall in payments, utilities are more than happy to pay, says Mr Hall. "But no one will make an effort to tell you that they owe you money."
David Hall can be contacted by phone or fax on 01885-488049. *
Receivership case
FORMER pig farmer John Nicholson is suing former Unilever company BOCM and Midland Bank for "several million £s" for unnecessarily putting his business into receivership in Feb 1988 and making matters worse during that receivership.
"I am alleging that the bank did not come in to protect themselves but to look after BOCM – part of Unilever at the time. My farm and assets committed to the bank were worth about three times what they were owed.
"I reckon my pigs were eating about 10% of feed sales from the Selby mill. I believe they wanted control of my pigs to keep that outlet for feed." The pre-trial hearing is today (Friday).
Mr Nicholson claims that the receivers manipulated his business to manoeuvre him into a voluntary arrangement whereby he passed a pig farm with development potential to BOCM. By then (autumn 1988) receivers costs and ongoing losses under their management totalled nearly £500,000, he claims.
An earlier request to sell one of two pig herds to enable him to pay BOCM and the bank was refused, he adds.
Mr Nicholson is optimistic about the forthcoming hearing, not least because of the recent Appeal Court ruling (Medforth v Blake 1999) which confirmed that receivers owe a duty of care to run a business with due diligence and, if possible, profitably.
The farmer claimed receivers had been negligent managers partly because they did not seek quantity discounts on feed bills. The decision on that point has yet to be announced.
BOCM Pauls and Midland Bank both declined to comment on the case. *
STRAIGHTS prices are edging up as feed compounders buy protein and grain supplies to cover winter needs, say traders.
"There is a firmer feel to the market, all the way round," says Ian Tremain, of Mole Valley Farmers.
Although major commodities remain relatively cheap, forward prices are creeping up. Brazilian soya is worth £120/t ex-port for Nov-Apr, £8 above last years lowest, while maize gluten meal is £74/t for Oct-Apr, an increase of £5. Rapeseed meal is a notable exception, says Mr Tremain, trading £6/t lower than last years levels at £74/t for the winter.
In contrast to the trade, farmers are proving reluctant buyers, hoping for lower prices. Many milk producers have also held back because of fears that buyers could suddenly insist on non-GMO feed ingredients.
"The GMO issue now seems unlikely to come to a head on soya or gluten this winter," says Mr Tremain, though he advises farmers to check with their buyer.
"Prices may fall back a little, depending on the weather and predicted crop production, but there is a definite floor to the market," says Cargills Martin Douglas.
"Soya simply will not stand a fall of more than £15/t from the current position, though it is perfectly capable of rising by over £70/t."
He predicts that values of six weeks ago will not be seen again through the winter. "Soya is already £8-£9/t higher than a month ago. We are very definitely seeing a movement northwards."
Prices will not ease once buyers have filled their order books, he adds. Once volume business is done, shippers will be able to sit on the balance of their stocks and wait for the spot market to pick up. *
STRAIGHTS prices are edging up as feed compounders buy protein and grain supplies to cover winter needs, say traders.
"There is a firmer feel to the market, all the way round," says Ian Tremain, of Mole Valley Farmers.
Although major commodities remain relatively cheap, forward prices are creeping up. Brazilian soya is worth £120/t ex-port for Nov-Apr, £8 above last years lowest, while maize gluten meal is £74/t for Oct-Apr, an increase of £5. Rapeseed meal is a notable exception, says Mr Tremain, trading £6/t lower than last years levels at £74/t for the winter.
In contrast to the trade, farmers are proving reluctant buyers, hoping for lower prices. Many milk producers have also held back because of fears that buyers could suddenly insist on non-GMO feed ingredients.
"The GMO issue now seems unlikely to come to a head on soya or gluten this winter," says Mr Tremain, though he advises farmers to check with their buyer.
"Prices may fall back a little, depending on the weather and predicted crop production, but there is a definite floor to the market," says Cargills Martin Douglas.
"Soya simply will not stand a fall of more than £15/t from the current position, though it is perfectly capable of rising by over £70/t."
He predicts that values of six weeks ago will not be seen again through the winter. "Soya is already £8-£9/t higher than a month ago. We are very definitely seeing a movement northwards."
Prices will not ease once buyers have filled their order books, he adds. Once volume business is done, shippers will be able to sit on the balance of their stocks and wait for the spot market to pick up. *
Entitlement rip-off
Many farmers and landowners are collecting out-of-date wayleave payments, but they do not need an agent to check their entitlement, says Oliver Harwood of the Country Landowners Association.
"The situation is being exploited by some agents who are offering to resolve wayleave underpayments for landowners and charge large commission payments on successful resolution."
Farmers simply have to phone the wayleave officer for the company concerned who will tell them what payments they are entitled to. "The idea that people have to pay a third party to establish their wayleave entitlement is ridiculous."
He also warns against rushing to accept one-off payments. "Never accept a capitalisation value, in place of an annual payment without seeking professional advice."
But the NFU believes agents could help establish full wayleave entitlements. "There is no problem with reputable agents, some people just do not know how much they could claim," says NFU rural surveyor Toby Simmonds.
A spokesman for British Telecom denied that millions of £ went unclaimed. "It could probably be counted in hundreds rather than thousands of £," he says.