Debt-hit potato farmer could lose home after devastating floods

Roger Gough had farmed 530-acre Hilltop Farm, at Rochford, Tenbury Wells, for many years before flooding struck in 2007 and 2008.

Each inundation was “said at the time to be a 100-year event” and had a drastic impact on the farm’s finances, the High Court heard.

Mr Gough, who lives with his wife Michelle and two sons in an eight-bedroom house on the farm, has been battling ever-mounting debts ever since.

But now his campaign to keep his home has hit the buffers after a judge rejected his bid to escape crushing debts.

Clydesdale Bank had done nothing wrong in demanding repayment of significant debts from the farmer, ruled Judge Lance Ashworth QC.

The ruling means the bank is entitled to take possession of Hilltop Farm and a rental property unless an asset sale can be arranged to reduce the massive debt.

The judge said Mr Gough had banked with Barclays for years before shifting his business to the Clydesdale in 2012. The bank had “courted” his business and initially lent him £4.25 million, plus an overdraft facility of £650,000.

The Clydesdale loaned Mr Gough “ever increasing” amounts of money, but the farm’s creditors continued to apply pressure.

He had to ask the bank to provide urgent funds and matters got so bad that, at one point, “Mr Gough could not afford to put diesel into his tractor”.

The judge added: “The bank eventually had had enough of supporting Mr Gough, whose business required more and more cash.”

In November 2014, it demanded repayment of all outstanding loans from the farmer and appointed receivers. It also sought to enforce his wife’s personal guarantee.

Mr Gough argued that the bank’s attempt to take his home was “unconscionable” and that it had gone back on a promise that, before appointing receivers, it would give him the opportunity to reduce the debts by selling assets.

But the judge said the Clydesdale had in fact given him such an opportunity and had never made “a clear and unequivocal promise” that it would not insist upon its strict legal rights.

He ruled: “There is no evidence of any impropriety on the part of the bank in deciding to make demand and appoint receivers when they did so. The bank held off for a long time and continued to increase the funds available to Mr Gough. It is clear from the documents I have referred to that Mr and Mrs Gough were stalling the bank.”

There was no basis for any allegation of “bad faith” against the couple, but the judge added: “The bank was owed very significant sums of money, which Mr Gough was showing no ability or willingness to pay off.”

The judge said he was “minded” to make a possession order, subject to the possibility of Mr Gough selling off parts of the farm to reduce the debt.