Home Office

5. Mrs U says the HO wrongly refused compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) saying it was not applicable to her when she was refused a visa for entry to Spain from the UK in 1987. She is also concerned that she was issued with a Jamaican passport and not a British one in 1979.

6. The lack of recognition has left Mrs U feeling overlooked and undervalued. The distress caused by this oversight has been compounded by the already challenging circumstances she faces. Mrs U’s health and her daughter’s mental health has been severely impacted for 40 years and her daughter has developed bipolar. It also affected Mrs U’s husband’s health.

7. Mrs U is seeking £5000 - £10,000 compensation.

Mrs U’s complaint

8. Mrs U says she was not able to board her plane from the UK to Spain and her mother and 13-year-old daughter travelled to Spain without her in 1987. She believes the situation was caused because she was wrongly issued with a Jamaican passport to replace her Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) passport in 1979. She says she was caused undue anxiety, distress and humiliation by what happened.

9. Mrs U said that in the HO’s letter of 15 February 2024, it explained that she was refused entry to Spain due to Spanish Immigration Law and this was not covered by the WCS. Mrs U had to return home and then went to London to process her visa, this meant additional costs were spent on travel and hotels. Mrs U was not sure how much this came to.

10. Mrs U believes she should have been issued with a British passport in 1979, and if she had, she would have been admitted to board the plane and enter Spain, rather than having her mother and 13-year-old daughter board the plane without her. Her husband was also unable to board the plane.

11. Mrs U says she appreciates the WCS focuses on major impacts of life, such as loss of employment, housing, and financial instability, but feels insufficient consideration was given to the emotional and psychological toll the experience had on her. This incident also led to unnecessary additional costs, which further compounded her hardship. Mrs U says these experiences, though not as quantifiable as financial loss or loss of employment, have had a lasting impact on her well-being.

HO responses

12. The HO sent its initial response to Mrs U on 24 April 2023, which said it would not offer her any compensation under the WCS.

13. The HO said it had considered Mrs U’s claim under the Immigration & Legal Fees, Discretionary and Impact on Life categories of the scheme. The HO said no compensation could be awarded, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the difficulties Mrs U experienced were due to an inability to prove her lawful status in the UK.

14. The HO said Mrs U arrived in the UK in 1961 on a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) passport, and was later issued a Jamaican passport in 1979.

15. In 1987, Mrs U was denied boarding for a holiday to Spain due to lacking a visa, leading to financial and emotional distress. The HO acknowledged Mrs U incurred expenses including travel to London for visas, lost holiday days, and later costs related to obtaining a British Citizen registration certificate. The HO concluded these were unrelated to a failure to demonstrate lawful UK status and advised her of the appeals process if she remained unhappy.

16. On 18 May 2023, Mrs U requested a Tier 1 review of the decision regarding the "Impact on Life" category of the WCS. The HO review was sent on 15 February 2024 and the original decision was upheld.

17. The HO understood that Mrs U’s claim related to being issued a Jamaican passport instead of a British passport in 1979, which she believed was an error by the HO. Mrs U described the incident in 1987 where she was unable to board a flight to Spain due to visa issues, caused her stress, humiliation, and financial impacts.

18. The HO review considered additional evidence, including passport copies, which showed Mrs U was granted a Spanish visa in April 1987. The HO said the issue was linked to Spanish immigration law, not an inability to demonstrate lawful UK status. Mrs U’s Jamaican passport also contained an Indefinite Leave to Enter (ILE) stamp, indicating she could demonstrate lawful status in the UK at the time.

19. The review explained that under the WCS (paragraph H1(a)), compensation is only awarded for impacts directly caused by an inability to prove lawful UK status. As Mrs U held ILE and was later granted British citizenship on October 22, 1987, there was insufficient evidence to link the described impacts to issues with her lawful status.

20. While empathising with Mrs U’s situation, the HO concluded that the original decision aligned with the scheme's rules and guidance. The HO said if Mrs U disagreed with this outcome, she could request a Tier 2 review.

21. A Tier 2 (the Adjudicator) letter was sent to Mrs U on 10 May 2024. The Adjudicator provided an explanation of the review process, findings, and reasons for not recommending a reconsideration of the HO decision.

22. The Adjudicator recognised Mrs U lawfully resided in the UK since her arrival in 1961 but became a Jamaican citizen when Jamaica gained independence in 1962. Despite this change, her lawful immigration status in the UK was unaffected. This meant Mrs U had lawful status in the UK as evidenced by the ILE stamp in her Jamaican passport, but she also needed to make a naturalisation application to become a British Citizen.

23. The Adjudicator letter acknowledged the challenges Mrs U faced during her attempt to travel to Spain in 1987 but clarified that these were due to Spanish immigration laws, not an inability to prove her lawful UK status. As such, these difficulties fell outside the scope of the WCS.

24. The Adjudicator determined that the HO acted reasonably and in accordance with the WCS rules, which required evidence that an individual faced detriment directly caused by an inability to demonstrate lawful status in the UK. Since this criteria was not met, there was no justification to ask the HO to reconsider its decision.

25. Mrs U was given the option to raise her complaint with our office if she remained dissatisfied. We received her complaint on 23 May 2024.

Were there any indications of maladministration when the HO did not award Mrs U compensation under the WCS?

28. 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.

29. Mrs U’s claim under the WCS was rejected when the HO said that she did not meet the requirements for compensation. We have found that the HO assessed her claim under the Immigration & Legal Fees, Discretionary and Impact on Life categories.

30. We have found that Mrs U was eligible for consideration under the Windrush Compensation Scheme: full rules (accessible version) - GOV.UK, as she was a Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973.

2.1. The following persons are claimants who may claim compensation under the Scheme and they will be referred to in the Scheme as primary claimants:

(a) a Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973 and has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom since their arrival (or who satisfied this provision and is now a British citizen)

31. Mrs U entered the UK in 1961 on a CUKC passport and was later issued with a Jamaican passport in 1979 which had an ILE stamp. We have seen documentation from the HO that this passport had an ILE stamp and it matches with what was written in its responses.

32. As such, we have seen Mrs U was able to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK at the time she was due to go on holiday in 1987 so was not entitled to compensation under the Impact on Life section of the WCS rules:

Annex H: Impact on life

H1. An award under this Annex may be made to a primary claimant, an estate or a close family member if the following conditions are met.

• In respect of a primary claimant or an estate, the primary claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the United Kingdom.

33. Overall we have found the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, getting it right Getting it right | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). We expect public bodies to follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal. We have seen that the HO correctly followed its published guidance for the WCS rules in its consideration of Mrs U’s claim.

34. Mrs U was also concerned that she had been wrongly issued with a Jamaican passport in 1979, after previously holding a CUKC passport. In the post war years, as countries increasingly become independent of the British Empire, they enacted their own citizenship laws. This process had an effect on the citizenship status of those people who held CUKC status. When Jamaica become independent in August 1962, this meant Mrs U was a Jamaican citizen. She was therefore correctly issued with a Jamaican passport, and this was endorsed with her status in the UK (ILE). Mrs U had to apply for naturalisation as a British Citizen - which we have seen she did in 1987 - before she could apply for a British passport.

35. We fully understand the distress, both and financial and emotional, when Mrs U was separated from her family and the additional costs she incurred from having to obtain a visa to rejoin her family in Spain.

36. We recognise this is likely not the outcome Mrs U was hoping for. We hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision and that our investigation has been helpful.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs U’s complaint regarding the HO’s decision in her claim for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). She is also concerned that she was issued with a Jamaican passport and not a British one in 1979.

2. We have not seen an indication that the HO made a mistake when making its decision on Mrs U’s claim. To be eligible for compensation under the WCS claimants need to show they have suffered impacts as a result of not being able to prove their lawful status in the UK. Mrs U was able to prove she had lawful status in the UK because her passport was stamped with Indefinite Leave to Enter (ILE).

3. We also note that, following Jamaican independence in 1962, Mrs U was a Jamaican citizen and was correctly issued with a Jamaican passport. To apply for a British passport, she needed to naturalise as a British citizen, which she successfully did in 1987.

4. We understand that Mrs U was not able to board a flight to Spain with her family in 1987 and she was asked to get a visa to travel. We recognise the distressing impact this had on her financially and emotionally.