Issue 1 – WCS were not consistent in their decision-making. Mrs E had to go through hardship and struggled to pay the fees for a citizenship application she should not have needed to make.
13. Before we decide if we should conduct 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 any indications that something has gone wrong.
14. Mrs E and her representative are concerned that her case has not been fairly considered. They believe she should have been compensated for having to make an application to become a British Citizen and the financial hardship this entailed. They have said that in other similar cases the scheme has awarded compensation in these circumstances and therefore it should do so in Mrs E’s case. They believe she never should have needed to make this application in the first place.
15. WCS should have considered Mrs E’s claim in line with the scheme rules and guidance. They should have taken everything relevant into account in line with our Principles of Good Administration.
16. The reason WCS did not award Mrs E compensation was because they could not see any evidence, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs E had experienced difficulties due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. This is a key requirement of the scheme rules which say it is designed ‘to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom’.
17. In Mrs E’s case, the evidence provided indicated she had experienced hardship and racism when she came to the UK. This was not linked to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status. In terms of her application for British citizenship – this was a necessary process to enable her to become a British Citizen. Mrs E had indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a result of the Immigration Act 1971. She needed to apply to become a British Citizen, and her application was successful.
18. WCS explained they could not offer to reimburse fees for successful citizenship applications. This is in line with the rules which say at Annex B that they can only award compensation in certain circumstances, including if ‘the application to which the fee relates was unsuccessful and the fee payer has not already received reimbursement of such fee.’
19. WCS also considered Mrs E’s claim under the ‘Impact on Life Category’. The rules (Annex H) say an award can only be made under this category where the claimant ‘experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the United Kingdom’.
20. WCS said they had insufficient evidence that Mrs E had suffered any detrimental impacts because of an inability to demonstrate her lawful status. We have not seen that any evidence was provided to suggest the difficult experiences and hostility Mrs E described experiencing after arriving in the UK were related to difficulties demonstrating her status.
21. Mrs E’s representative provided WCS with a letter from Priti Patel dated 23 March 2021 in relation to another person’s case (their name and details were redacted). This said: ‘your compensation award acknowledges the stress and anxiety you experienced when you had to apply for British Citizenship in 1984, although you had been living and working lawfully in the UK’. We do not have any further details on this claim. Every claim to the scheme would need to be considered on its own facts and merits, but we can see that the compensation Scheme did consider this point and sought advice on it. They noted compensation could only be awarded where there were genuine detriments experienced as a result of inability to evidence status.
22. From what we have seen, WCS considered all the information provided in relation to Mrs E’s claim in line with the WCS rules and our Principles, the latter of which say decision-making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.