search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FINAL SAY Fen Tiger


Landlord vs tenant I


Farming agreements – which were once simple – have become much more complicated, says Fen Tiger.


’m not sure I fit the bill to be a farm- er any more. Semi-retirement is in full flow, my brain frequently goes into autopilot mode and little things often slip by. When I say “little things” I mean my attention to detail has slowed down. Maybe it is called de-stressing after years of running a business. When a friend recently asked me to look over or comment on his land agreement, I couldn’t make head nor tail of it. Like me, he has decided to take a


backward step and let a near neigh- bour farm his land. There is nothing unusual about that you might think. But I cannot work out whether it is share farming, contracting, renting or a combination of all three.


Next generation


I understood share farming when it was all about a newer entrant to agriculture learning on the job while the older farm- er eased himself into retirement. It’s a great way of passing knowledge down the line to the next generation. It is also mutually beneficial agree- ment for two parties to come togeth- er while remaining two separate busi- nesses. They both contribute their individual expertise to the mutual benefit of both parties. Unlike contract farming, share farming agreements make no guar- anteed payments. This means that


both parties can benefit in the good times and share the burden of loss in the lean times. Contract farming is different. It usually involves a pre-agreed amount allocated between the landlord and the contract farmer – with any subsequent surplus divided between the two. Share farming agreements and con- tract farming agreements both have their good points – and have served farmers and their landlords well over the years. But my friend had been trou- bled by recent events.


Active farmer His farm accountant advised him against the simple idea of renting out the farm because he would lose certain allowances. There was also the ongo- ing requirement to be seen as an ac- tive farm business. But my friend wants a quieter life and there is little doubt that the easi- est solution is to take the rent and let the contractor take care of the finance and day-to-day running of the farm. That said, it turns out that the agreed facts and figures were not what they seemed. After an initial agree- ment about cropping, it appears that the contractor – or tenant depending upon your viewpoint – had sublet the land to somebody else. This meant a big chunk of the farm was growing sugar beet, maize and


“ 74 ANGLIA FARMER • JUNE 2021


vegetables. It also explained why the contractor was paying a third party to drill the beet. The drillman showed him a substantial map of all rented land – on his farm and elsewhere too. The same appeared to be happen- ing with other land let for root crops. So from being a straightforward agree- ment with costs agreed, a third party had become involved – and somewhat heavily as well.


Changing hands On tackling the contractor – or tenant – it appeared that money was changing hands without my friend’s knowledge. In hindsight, my friend could have tak- en the rent-only option – cutting out the third party.


The whole situation raises a big


My friend had been troubled by recent events


question: with three parties involved, who is responsible for the cross com- pliance? One of the growers was under the impression that he was claiming the basic payment while the landlord was responsible. Clearly though, that does not work. And it appears that the agent involved had been acting for all concerned too. It is a shady way to operate. It appears that the trick was to gain control of the land and then go back and renegotiate the finer details. With fewer family farms able to survive – especially as the basic pay- ment is phased out – I expect we will see more cases like this. Agreements are often no longer what they seem and agents should be closely inspect- ed before pen is put to paper.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76