Home Office

4. Miss H complains the Windrush Compensation Scheme wrongly refused her claim for compensation. She believes, based on what Theresa May said when she was Prime Minister, the scheme should be available not just to the Windrush generation, but to everyone who was not English, and had been denied the right to work despite having the correct immigration documents. She says this would apply to her and she should be entitled to compensation because in 2008/9 she was told by a care home manager that they could not employ her because she was not English.

5. Miss H says that as a result of what happened, she suffered emotional, physical, and financial stress. From 2010 to 2017 she was only able to find work as a cleaner on a much lower salary than when she worked for a care home. As a result, she did not have enough money to travel home to South Africa for important family events. The WCS decision means she has not been compensated for this.

6. Miss H is seeking financial compensation.

7. Miss H is a South African national who came to the UK in 2001 as a work permit holder. She was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK in April 2007. She worked for a care home for several years before being told the home was going to be shut down, but she could apply for jobs in other homes. Miss H applied for work in other care homes in 2008/9. She said when she followed up her application with one of the homes, she was told they could not offer her a job as the government had said they could only employ English people. Miss H says she lost the job as a result of this and was forced to work as a cleaner on a much-reduced salary.

8. Miss H applied to the WCS, but her claim was rejected in August 2020 because she was ineligible for the scheme. Miss H asked for this decision to be reviewed and the review came to the same conclusion that she did not fall into any of the eligible groups.

11. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this, and we have not found any indications something has gone wrong.

12. The WCS should have considered Miss H’s application to the compensation scheme in line with the scheme rules and guidance. Its decision should have taken into account all relevant considerations, in line with our Principles of Good Administration.

13. The WCS explained to Miss H, in both their decision letters, that she did not fit into any of the categories of people eligible under the scheme. The categories of people who are eligible to apply to the scheme as primary claimants are set out on page 6 of the Windrush Compensation Scheme rules. Broadly, they cover people who came to the UK from a Commonwealth country before 1973, people whose parents or grandparents came to the UK from a Commonwealth country before 1973, and people who came to the UK from any country before 31 December 1988 and are now settled here. We have looked at these categories and there is no indication the WCS’ decision-making was wrong. Miss H does not fit into any of the categories of people described in the guidance because she arrived in the UK in 2001 when she was over 18.

14. Miss H accepts she is not part of the Windrush generation but says she should be entitled to compensation because she believes Theresa May said compensation would be available to everyone who was not English and had been wrongly denied the right to work. Miss H says this would include her.

15. Miss H did not provide the WCS with any specific evidence of what she believes Theresa May said. She is right that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is not just open to people who are part of the Windrush Generation. The scheme is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK and is not limited to those who arrived on the Empire Windrush ship, or who have a connection to the Caribbean. However, as we have seen above, only specific categories of people are eligible to apply, and Miss H does not fit into these.

16. While we understand Miss H believes she heard Theresa May say the compensation scheme would apply to people in her position, we have not seen any evidence of this or anything else to suggest what she experienced means she should be entitled to government compensation. It appears the WCS took all relevant considerations into account in their decision-making. They reasonably could not comment on Miss H’s account of facing discrimination when she sought employment, but did explain why she did not fall into the categories eligible for the scheme.

17. We understand from Miss H she has suffered significant distress as a result of what she was told by an employer when seeking work, and therefore appreciate our decision will be disappointing for her.

1. We have carefully considered Miss H’s complaint about the Home Office. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

2. Miss H believed she should be entitled to government compensation because she was told by a prospective employer in 2008/9 that they could not employ her because she was not English. Miss H made an application to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). She felt she was eligible for compensation because, although not part of the Windrush generation, she believed Theresa May had said people in her circumstances should also apply to the scheme. WCS decided Miss H was not eligible for the scheme as she did not fit into any of the categories of eligible claimants. We have not seen any indication that this decision was wrong or that there was any evidence to suggest Miss H should have been entitled to compensation.

3. We appreciate this decision will be very disappointing to Miss H. We recognise the events she describes have seriously affected her emotionally and financially.