8
The Department claimed that the scheme was unprecedented, but that it had spoken to ombudsmen...
Conclusion
The Department claimed that the scheme was unprecedented, but that it had spoken to ombudsmen across government in its efforts to design an effective scheme.23 Following the session, the Department wrote to us and described how it drew on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy guidance, the National Audit Office’s briefing Administration of time-limited compensation schemes and unspecified ‘good practice from the Home Office and other government departments’.24 The Department acknowledged the design was complex but claimed it attempted to find a balance between a scheme that was comprehensive and one that was easy to understand and apply to.25 The Department told us it did not always achieve this balance, especially at the beginning of the scheme. It also stated that it could have explained some aspects of the scheme better to applicants and that it would consider changes to the guidance it sent them.26 It told us that it was still working to improve that balance through its planned changes to the scheme.27
Source
Committee
Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry
Home Office recall: Spring 2021
Report
Fourteenth Report - Windrush Compensation Scheme
27 Jul 2021
HC 174
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
4.8 yrs
Report published
27 Jul 2021