Loss of access to employment 14. Miss D complains that although she was awarded £43,097.27 under the ‘Loss of Employment’ category, the calculation did not fully consider the length of time she worked at the Holiday Inn. She states that if her immigration status had not become an issue, she would have progressed in her career as a chef.
15. We carefully reviewed this concern alongside the available evidence. We can see that WCS conducted searches with her employers to verify her length of service and job role at the time of employment.
16. According to the records provided by the Holiday Inn, Miss D was employed from 25 October 2005 to 7 February 2006. The WCS calculates loss of employment from the date employment ended until lawful status was re-established. In Miss D’s case, this period spanned from 7 February 2006 to 8 January 2009 (when No Time Limit status was granted), totalling 36 months, with an additional three months added according to WCS policy, which says:
"The period of loss ends on whichever of these comes first: three months from the date on which a decision was made by the Home Office confirming the primary claimant or the deceased’s lawful status in the UK."
17. The WCS provides two types of awards under ‘Loss of Employment’: actual earnings or a general award if actual earnings cannot be verified. The Holiday Inn indicated that Miss D would have been earning minimum wage at the time, which was £4.85 per hour, but it could not provide formal confirmation. As a result, the WCS applied the maximum general award of £1,147 per month to determine Miss D’s compensation.
18. We can see that Miss D had other employment after the Holiday Inn, which she had to leave due to not being able to show her lawful status. In this job, she had earned £1635.73, which was deducted from her award as the WCS, in line with its guidance, which says,
“ If the claimant obtained employment on lower earnings during the period of loss for this category, you should deduct their net earnings from these commenced employments from the overall award for this category.”
19. Although Miss D says the WCS did not consider the progression of her career, we cannot see that the WCS considers this under the ‘loss of access to employment category. This category covers “Claimants who lost access to employment will include those who may have been dismissed because of difficulties demonstrating their lawful status, and those who had job offers withdrawn or were unable to progress job applications due to difficulties in demonstrating their lawful status.” We will look at whether this was considered under the ‘Impact of life’ category later in this statement.
20. Based on the available evidence, we find that WCS has appropriately considered the evidence available and calculated Miss D’s award in line with its guidance and the information provided by her former employer.
Pension 21. Miss D says the WCS has not considered her pension, as she has missed out on accumulating contributions due to her inability to continue working. We have considered this carefully, as pension loss is an area WCS is currently reviewing.
22. Miss D says she signed up for an occupational pension while working at the Holiday Inn but did not receive any further documentation. However, we cannot see that Miss D provided any evidence in relation to an occupational pension for WCS to consider. Therefore, we cannot assess whether WCS considered it appropriately.
23. We can however consider State Pension entitlement. According to the current WCS guidance, once an award has been made for loss of employment, a referral is made to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to assess whether there are any gaps in National Insurance (NI) contributions that could affect the claimant’s state pension.
24. Miss D has shared that she received a letter from WCS confirming DWP is currently reviewing any gaps in NI contributions and taking steps to rectify any impact on her state pension entitlement. As such, we can see that WCS is actively addressing this issue and will notify Miss D of any further action regarding her state pension.
Impact on Life 25. Miss D was awarded £70,000 under the ‘impact on life’ category but feels this does not fully reflect the extent of harm caused by her inability to demonstrate her lawful status. We acknowledge and empathise with the fear Miss D describes and her reluctance to engage in further employment and health services due to fear of deportation, which led to anxiety and stress.
26. Miss D shared that she experienced homelessness in 2010, resorting to sofa surfing, and that her mental health declined, culminating in a heart attack and undiagnosed Type 1 diabetes due to her fear of seeking medical treatment. Additionally, she was unable to visit her sister in Barbados before she passed away, as the Home Office did not respond to her request to replace her NTL Vignette, preventing her from travelling. She also described the impact on her daughter, who initially could not obtain a passport due to Miss D’s status.
27. Miss D was awarded £70,000 under the 'Impact on Life' category, recognising significant, prolonged disruptions to living a relatively normal life. This includes ongoing medical treatment, regular care visits, or therapeutic interventions requiring substantial recovery. Level 5, reserved for profound, irreversible impacts typically involving continuous medical or therapeutic care, was not considered applicable as the evidence available did not indicate such ongoing intervention or irreversibility.
28. Miss D requested the WCS review her award as it does not reflect the loss of earnings, which includes her progression in career as a commis chef with the Holiday Inn. We can see that the WCS received details from the Holiday Inn which confirms her job title as a porter. However, we cannot see that Miss D provided any evidence in relation to her role as a commis chef for WCS to consider.
29. We can see that the WCS assessed Miss D’s request for review against the guidance for a ‘level 5’ award. WCS provided Miss D an explanation in its letter dated 28 April 2021, explaining that she did not meet the criteria for a level 5 award.
30. This is in line with Our Principle of Good Administration, which says. ‘Public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements.’
31. WCS guidance says, “Impacts that have a greater effect on a claimant might be accompanied by directly relevant supporting information. A claim for impacts on mental or physical health can be supported by medical evidence of the detriment suffered and an opinion that this was caused by, or exacerbated by, uncertainty over lawful status."
32. It further explains “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."
33. We understand that Miss D avoided seeking medical help out of fear, which impacted her ability to provide formal evidence of her deteriorating health. The guidance acknowledges this and says, “You should not expect medical evidence to be provided in all claims. You should consider whether you can make an award on the balance of probabilities without the need for further medical evidence."
34. WCS have considered evidence from Miss D’s GP which outlines the anxiety and stress affecting her mental health. WCS has accepted that she suffered mental health issues as a direct effect of her status issues as the dates from the GP coincide with the issues Miss D explains. Miss D has also mentioned that she suffered with a heart attack in approximately 2010/2011 because she was suffering from undiagnosed diabetes, however, WCS have said they have seen the medical records dating back to 06 July 2000 and there is no evidence that she was denied access to healthcare because of status issues. While we acknowledge Miss D's distress and serious health consequences, the evidence presented does not demonstrate that her condition as a result of her status issues, in this case her mental health, is irreversible or that she requires ongoing care or intervention, which would be required for a Level 5 award.
35. We can see that the WCS considered Miss D’s impact on life, including her health issues. We understand that homelessness is addressed under the ‘Homelessness’ category, but this part of Miss D’s application was not successful. The WCS guidance explains what evidence it can assess under the homeless category. It says it should, “ assess a claim on the balance of probabilities. Claimants may provide documentary evidence which could include, but is not limited to: • copies of a homelessness application made to a local authority for help and support and decisions • any relevant correspondence • any assessments by the local authority • anecdotal evidence including witness statements and correspondence from the claimant or the estate media articles • contact and / or support from a charitable organisation and / or from a legal representative”
36. WCS contacted the local authority and confirmed Miss D initially applied for housing in 2013. WCS concluded that Miss D had not been denied housing services due to her immigration status. Although WCS considered the reported period of homelessness in 2011 under 'Impact on Life', it decided this could not be attributed to issues around lawful status, as Miss D had already been granted NTL status on 8 January 2009.
37. We acknowledge the cumulative and severe impacts Miss D experienced as a result of her difficulties proving her lawful status. However, Miss D has not provided additional evidence that would support awarding her a Level 5 impact. We consider that the WCS appropriately followed 'Our Principles of Good Administration,' which state, "Decision-making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.”
38. As such, we will not consider this complaint further. We believe WCS acted in line with its published guidance and made a reasonable decision based on the available evidence. We appreciate Miss D taking the time to raise her concerns with us, and we hope our explanation has helped to clarify how her compensation was assessed.