14. 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.
15. Ms A believes WCS has not fully considered all the information her and her father provided in which they outlined her father experiences. She feels that the information contained within WCS’ decision letters were from someone else’s application as it did not reflect the information they provided.
16. In his initial claim form, Mr A provided a statement titled ‘My life in the United Kingdom’. In this statement he explained how when he arrived in the UK he could not get a job, but his brother who had come to the UK before him was able to get him a job at a foundry. He says he believed he was British as he came to the UK with a British passport. When he tried to renew his passport, he was told he needed to pay for British citizenship. He says he found it hard to save the money for the citizenship application and had to borrow the money. He says he experienced a lot of racism and hardship. He says he worked for a galvanizing company and retired at the age of 65. When Ms A requested a review of WCS initial decision, she provided a further statement with information under the headings of each of the categories WCS had considered. Ms A explained in more detail her father’s experiences after arriving in the UK. She did this again when requesting a Tier 2 review.
17. WCS decided that Mr A was not entitled to compensation because:
• his application for naturalisation was successful and the scheme can only refund fees for applications which were not successful.
• he started work at a foundry in 1962 and worked for four different companies and worked for a galvanising company for 25 years until his retirement. He did not have his employment terminated, a job offer rescinded or was unable to access employment because he was not able to demonstrate his lawful status • the issues he faced in gaining housing when he first arrived in the UK were related to discrimination and not to his inability to demonstrate his lawful status • the discrimination and hardship he experienced were not as a result of his inability to demonstrate his lawful status
Immigration fees and legal costs
18. Mr A came to the UK in 1961 on his CUKC passport. This conferred rights to live and work in the UK, however, he was not a British citizen. In 1962 Jamica became independent, a consequence of the Jamaica Independence Act 1962 was that most Jamaicans became Jamaican citizens, whether they were inside or outside of the country. This meant that Mr A was a Jamaican citizen even though he was in the UK at the time of Jamaica’s independence. In order for Mr A to become a British citizen he would always have needed to apply for naturalisation. He did not do this until 31 August 2000.
19. Annex B of the WCS rules outlines the types of applications that are covered under the scheme and can be considered for reimbursement. A naturalisation application is one that is covered. Annex B1f of the rules says that WCS can only reimburse the fees of unsuccessful applications. Mr A’s application was successful and therefore WCS cannot make an award under this category. We have not seen any indications that WCS has done anything wrong in its consideration of the information provided under this category.
Loss of access to employment
20. Section 1.1 of the WCS rules says ‘This compensation scheme is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom’. The rules under each category link back to this.
21. Annex D outlines the rules for loss of access to employment. D2b and D9b of the rules says ‘the reason for the termination of employment, rescinding of an offer of employment, or for the primary claimant or the deceased’s inability to access employment or progress an application for employment was the inability of the primary claimant or the deceased to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom’.
22. In Mr A’s initial statement and subsequent information provided by Ms A, they have outlined the difficulties he had in gaining employment after arriving in the UK. He said he was unemployed for the first 12 months, and then his brother helped him get a job. He says he worked for a number of companies until his retirement in 2006. In the Tier 2 review request, Ms A added that for one of the jobs he had he was asked to provide a more secure document than his expired passport. Ms A says her father lost this job due to not being able to provide documentation showing his lawful status, she did not provide any further information about this.
23. We recognise how difficult and upsetting these experiences would have been for Mr A. Throughout WCS’ consideration of Mr A’s claim at each stage for this category, it has concluded that the criteria for an award has not been met. This is because the aim of the WCS is to provide compensation for those who were unable to demonstrate their right to live and work in the UK, not for discrimination suffered since arriving in the UK. The WCS said there was insufficient supporting evidence to show that any issues with employment were as a direct result of an inability to demonstrate lawful status. In its decision letters, it has outlined the information it has relied on from Mr A and Ms A which matches the information we have seen.
24. We have seen no indications that WCS has not considered everything that Mr A and Ms A told it under this category. On each occasion it has explained its decision and provided an explanation for it.
Denial of access to housing
25. Annex F of the WCS rules outlines the rules for loss of access to services. F3 of this annex is relevant to housing. It outlines the types of housing services covered by the scheme and says ‘the reason the primary claimant or the deceased was denied access to housing services was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status’.
26. Ms A and her father told WCS that when he arrived in the UK he had no accommodation and was not provided any help with his living, housing situation or financially to pay rent. Due to difficulties finding work in light of prejudice and racism he suffered, he says he spent many days and nights on the streets, on park benches and in shop doorways where he feared for his safety. He then went to stay with his brothers before being offered a council property in 1970.
27. We are sympathetic to the difficulties and prejudice Mr A faced. In its Tier 1 review letter dated 29 March 2023 WCS has explained that Mr A did not meet the criteria in this category because he could not find housing due to discrimination rather than his inability to prove his lawful status.
28. We can see that the information Mr A provided is reflected in the decision WCS made. He has not provided any examples of where the issues he faced with his housing when he came to the UK was as a result of him not being able to demonstrate his legal status. As such there are no indications that WCS’s decision is not line with the scheme rules.
Impact on life
29. Annex H of the WCS rules outlines the types of circumstances the scheme rules cover. H1(a) says ‘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 Kingdon’.
30. Mr A told WCS of the hardship, abuse and racial discrimination he faced when he came to the UK all of which he says had an impact on his search for jobs, a home, medical attention and financial help. He says this also caused the family to break up and his six children were taken into care. He says all of this was very traumatic for him and it still affects him today. Ms A says if her father had received documentation to prove his legal status, his life experiences would have been different.
31. In its Tier 1 review letter WCS says ‘We acknowledge that you may have faced racism and discrimination due to societal attitudes. However, the Windrush Compensation Scheme is to compensate for any losses due to being unable to demonstrate their lawful status. Unfortunately based on the information available, we are unable to establish on a balance of probabilities that an inability to demonstrate lawful status contributed to the lived experiences you have described’.
32. The Adjudicator’s report dated 25 August 2023 says ‘For the purposes of the scheme rules, there is a distinction between racism and being unable to demonstrate lawful status. Therefore, while we acknowledge that being discriminated against would have had a significant impact on your father’s life, these matters fall outside of the scope of the scheme’.
33. We can see that WCS has taken into consideration everything Ms A and Mr A said about his experience since coming to the UK when reaching its decision. The decision it made is in line with the WCS rules as Mr A has not provided any specific instances where not being able to prove his legal status has had an impact.
34. We are sorry to hear of the racial discrimination and hardship Mr A has described experiencing since arriving in the UK. We are in no doubt of the distress this has caused to him and his family and continues to cause him.
35. We understand Ms A’s concern that WCS has not fully considered her father’s documents and his experience when reaching its decision. When we have looked at the information Ms A said she provided and WCS’ consideration of it, we cannot see any indications that WCS has failed to take account of everything they said. Its decision is inline with the WCS rules and our Principles of Good Administration which says ‘Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately’.
36. We understand our decision will be disappointing, particularly in light of the discrimination Mr A experienced. We hope that our decision explains the reasons why WCS could not offer him compensation and provides some reassurance of independent consideration of his concerns.