4. Ms G says the WCS gave her the wrong amount of compensation for the loss of access to employment and the impact on her life. She says the WCS did not tell her she could ask it to review the final payment.
5. Ms G says she has not had fair compensation and this caused her to become withdrawn and nervous. Ms G wanted an extra £15,000 to £25,000 in compensation.
6. Ms G came to the UK in 1976. The Home Office gave Ms G indefinite leave to remain to join her mother who was already living in the UK. This meant Ms G was able to live and work in the UK for as long as she lived here.
7. In January 2016 Ms G was refused work because she could not show her lawful right to live and work in the UK. In March she got documents from the Home Office proving her status and started work again in July.
8. Ms G sent her claim to the WCS in November 2019. The WCS sent Ms G its final award offer in October 2021. Ms G accepted the award of £4,329.21 for loss of access to employment and £20,000 for the impact on her life.
9. In December 2021 Ms G complained to the WCS that the final payment was not enough. The WCS said it could not look at the matter further because Ms G had accepted the payment as a full and final settlement of her claim.
Loss of access to employment award
12. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of 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 have not found that anything went wrong.
13. Ms G says the WCS’s payment to her for loss of access to employment was wrong. We discussed this with her and Ms G explained the WCS had not properly considered her evidence of lost employment.
14. The WCS looked at Ms G’s claim against the criteria set out in Annex D of the WCS Rules. This says the WCS can make an ‘actual earnings award’ where the earnings were known, or a ‘general award’ set at £1,147 per month (pro rata). The WCS Rules says a general award should be made if it is more generous than an actual earnings award.
15. The WCS’s records show it properly considered all of Ms G’s evidence for loss of access to employment. It calculated the actual earnings award in line with the WCS Rules using the evidence of start and end dates provided by Ms G. The WCS recorded:
‘The period of loss begins on 07 January 2016 and ends on 09 June 2016. Part months are treated as full months. Therefore, the period of loss is 5 months and 3 days. As part months are treated as full months, this equates to 6 months.’
16. The WCS also calculated the loss using the general award criteria in the WCS’s Rules and the £1,147 per month (pro rata) rate. This gave Ms G more money. The WCS followed the WCS’s Rules and made a general award.
17. We hope this information reassures Ms G that she had the right payment for her loss of access to employment and the WCS followed its rules.
Impact on life award
18. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the complainant has suffered an injustice. We have done this and we do not think Ms G should have received more money.
19. After accepting the WCS’s £20,000 award for impact on life, Ms G said she was told the award should have been £40,000. Ms G says she contacted us because she did not know if she got the right amount of compensation in the impact on life category.
The WCS Rules say the WCS should decide the claim ‘based on the available evidence provided’ and ‘determine the amount of award payable by reference to the amounts set out in [the tariff table in Annex H of the guidance], taking into account all the circumstances, the number, severity and duration of detrimental impacts and all available evidence’.
20. The WCS Caseworker Guidance says:
• ‘impacts on mental or physical health should be supported by medical evidence of the detriment suffered and an opinion that this was caused by, or exacerbated by, uncertainty over lawful status’ • ‘where it is claimed that a pre-existing condition has been made worse, you should consider the degree of exacerbation, acceleration and nature of contributing causes when determining the level of tariff to award’.
21. The WCS looked at Ms G’s claim for compensation due to the decline in her health. Her supporting evidence was a GP letter to the WCS listing 14 issues that Ms G experienced in 2016. The WCS noted the GP’s view that Ms G ‘is someone that suffers from significant stress and anxiety and many of her symptoms from 2016 and currently are attributable to this. Much of her stress and anxiety is due to the Windrush situation and her circumstances related to it’. The WCS said:
‘It would be fair to accept that the issues [Ms G] suffered in regards to her employment and her [foreign] passport suddenly not being accepted will have impacted her mental health, which in turn will have had a detrimental impact on her physical health.’
22. The WCS noted this affected Ms G from January 2016 and while her status was resolved in March 2016 ‘her impacts were felt for a longer period’. The WCS mentioned Ms G’s November 2016 health issues which the GP said were due to the Windrush situation. The WCS did not state how long it thought Ms G’s health was affected by the Windrush situation.
23. Ms G says her evidence of the effect on her health should have got her a higher compensation award. Ms G says the WCS had all the evidence she wanted it to look at in her GP’s letter.
24. Her GP’s letter says some of Ms G’s health problems were linked to the stress and anxiety caused by Windrush issues Unfortunately, the GP’s letter is not specific about which of the 14 problems were linked to Windrush issues, how serious the problems were or how long they lasted.
25. The WCS says level one awards are made where the negative impact is ‘fairly short-lived’. It says Ms G’s evidence showed her impacts lasted longer and met the level two impact on life award. It said an award at this level was ‘fair’.
26. The WCS has accepted the evidence in the GP’s letter. It could have asked Ms G or her GP to explain the issues and their impact but the WCS Rules said it did not need to do this.
27. We discussed the health problems with Ms G to understand which ones her GP wrote about, were linked to having her status questioned. Ms G confirmed she had a moderate effect from two health problems and a minor, short-term complication of poor diabetes control. Ms G did not have evidence to show her ability to live a relatively normal life was greatly affected, or more than one area of her life was affected. Ms G did not have evidence to show that WCS’s decision that she met level two was wrong.
28. We have not seen evidence to say Ms G’s situation met a level three award. That means it was open to the WCS to decide that only level two had been met. With no further evidence from Ms G, the WCS’s decision cannot be criticised.
29. We know that Ms G was concerned she did not get the right payment for impact on life. We hope we have explained why we do not think WCS got anything wrong.
Right of appeal
30. Ms G said the WCS did not tell her she could appeal its final payment offer. If it had, Ms G says she would have done this.
31. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say organisations should be customer focused. This includes that ‘public bodies should communicate effectively, using clear language that people can understand and that is appropriate to them and their circumstances’.
32. The WCS’s letter dated 12 October 2021 has the final payment offer. It included a clear explanation saying the offer was being made as a ‘full and final settlement’ and how to ask for a review. The letter said:
‘This award is in full and final settlement of your claim. This means that once you have agreed to accept this final award, you will not be able to seek a review under the compensation scheme for any additional compensation for your claim.’
33. The letter said, if you were considering asking for a review, it recommended reading the WCS Rules. It included a link to these. We can see the WCS clearly explained to Ms G that she could ask for a review if she did not want to accept the final award offer. There are no signs that WCS did anything seriously wrong with this issue.
34. Ms G came to us because she was not sure the WCS had handled her claim properly and awarded her the right amount of compensation. We have carefully considered the matter and hope Ms G finds the information and explanations we have provided helpful.
1. We have carefully considered Ms G’s complaint about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (the WCS is a scheme to claim money for loss if someone could not show they had a right to live and work in the UK (loss of UK status)). We have not found that WCS did anything seriously wrong or that it should have awarded a higher amount of compensation.
2. Ms G lost her job in 2016 and had health problems because she was not able to show her right to live and work in the UK.. This would have been a difficult time for Ms G and she deserves to receive the right amount of compensation from the WCS.
3. The evidence shows the WCS’s payment to Ms G was correct. The WCS also properly explained the process to her about how she could ask for a review of its payment. We hope Ms G finds the information we have given her helpful and she can now understand why WCS made the payment it did.