Most respondents to our survey reported feeling the scheme they had experience of felt unfair, and 76% of people said the claim process was distressing or retraumatising. Over the first year of the Windrush compensation scheme, the Home Office received far fewer claims than 4 C&AG’s Report, para 5 5 C&AG’s Report, para 16 6 C&AG’s Report, para 7 7 C&AG’s Report, paras 10 and 16 8 C&AG’s Report, paras 8, 14 and 17 9 C&AG’s Report, para 12 13 expected, partly due to a lack of trust amongst victims. Some victims feared that engagement with the Home Office, as administrator of the scheme, may lead to immigration enforcement action. Many victims suffered harm due to the Home Office’s ‘hostile environment’ policies, which required them to demonstrate their lawful immigration status to access public services, housing and jobs.10 The Ministry of Defence (MoD), likewise, identified a low level of trust amongst victims of its discriminatory ban on LGBT service personnel, which has made it hard to engage with those veterans who may be eligible for financial recognition.11 The Windrush Commissioner, Reverend Clive Foster MBE, told us that having the department that caused the original harm as the administrator of a compensation scheme does not help build victim trust in a scheme, and that a level of independence is essential to build trust.12 Similarly, written evidence we received from Age UK, University of Leicester’s Legal Advice Clinic and Hackney Council all noted that compensation schemes should be independently administered rather than be administered by the bodies responsible for the original harm caused to victims.13