20. The WCS was established in April 2019. It is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom.
‘Loss of employment’ compensation
21. When it comes to compensation for ‘Loss of access to employment’, the WCS’ criteria is set out in Annex D of the WCS rules.
22. An actual earnings award for loss of access to employment may be made to a primary claimant if they were: • in employment, which was terminated, and they can demonstrate what their earnings had been, • not in employment, but had accepted an offer of employment which was rescinded and can demonstrate what their earnings would have been, and, • if the reason for termination of employment/rescinding of an offer for the primary claimant was due to their inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
‘Impact on life’ compensation
23. When it comes to compensation for ‘Impact on life’, the WCS’ criteria are set out in Annex H.
24. ‘Detrimental impact’ is defined as the non-financial impacts that fit the following descriptions: a) inconvenience b) injury to feelings (e.g. anxiety, distress, reputations damage) c) family separation d) immigration difficulties when trying to return to the UK e) inability to attend significant family occasions f) impacts relating to a deterioration in physical or mental health
Compensation award decision
25. Mr A believes the WCS overlooked his evidence that the Jamaican embassy did not stamp his Jamaican passport with an ILR stamp. He says this error prevented him from touring around Europe and his band lost the opportunity to be successful.
26. He believes this evidence gives him a strong case for claiming compensation under the ‘Loss of employment’ and ‘Impact on life’ criteria.
27. Under PHSO’s principle of good administration, ‘Getting it right’, we expect public bodies to have regard to the relevant standards and evidence when making a decision. They should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.
28. The WCS’ phone call record for 18 September 2023 is evidence that it did consider Mr A’s passport evidence. According to the record, while it had not seen his original Jamaican passport, it did not need this as it was not material to his claim. WCS explained to Mr A that he would have held the equivalent of ILR status (which did not come into force until January 1973) following Jamaica’s independence on 6 August 1962, and later as a commonwealth citizen following the Immigration Act 1971 which came into force on 1 January 1973.
29. Prior to 1 January 1973, there was no such thing as an ‘ILR’ stamp for passports. This stamp was introduced following the Immigration Act taking effect on 1 January 1973. This means Mr A’s passport would not have had an ILR stamp in 1971. He was nevertheless free to enter and leave the UK at that time. It is likely he was not free to enter and leave other European countries on a Jamaican passport at that time.
30. The WCS also said that ‘right to work’ checks were introduced in 1996, meaning access to employment was not limited or linked to lawful status until then. Mr A believes it was, as his employer in the music industry told him he needed a ‘10-year passport’, but this unfortunately is an issue with the employer rather than the HO.
31. As there is no evidence that the HO put Mr A into a situation where he could not prove his legal status in the UK in 1971, the WCS were right to tell him he did not meet the WCS rules for compensation. He did not meet the criteria detailed in Annex D or H of the WCS rules (access to employment and impact to life), as there is insufficient evidence he was negatively impacted due to an inability to prove his legal status in the UK.
WCS’ communication and support with the application process
32. Mr A complains the WCS call handler he spoke to used unclear language when they asked him questions about the impact he experienced as a result of his legal status in the UK. He also says the questions they asked him were confusing, and they did not support him while he used its service.
33. Mr A believes WCS’ miscommunication has prevented it from considering his evidence properly to reach the right decision on this claim.
34. The WCS is of the view that its staff followed the correct processes.
35. Under PHSO’s principles of good administration, ‘Being customer focused’, we expect public bodies to communicate clearly to the public, so they receive the information they need. They should also ensure their service is easily accessible for service users.
36. WCS does have a support team available should applicants require it. The email address for the WCS’ support team is on the front page of the claim form. This team may refer applicants to the Claimant Assistance Service, who aid applicants who are trying to complete the claim form.
37. By sharing the details of the support team with Mr A, WCS acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, under the principle of ‘Being customer focused’. Under this principle, we expect public bodies, like WCS, to provide services that are easily accessible to their customers, to make their processes clear and understandable, as well as making entitlements clear. They should be helpful when engaging with the public. So, the WCS’ signpost to a support team was good practice.
38. We asked Mr A if he utilised this service and he told us he did not. Instead, he and his partner completed the initial claim form together. This was a lost opportunity for Mr A if he found the process difficult as the support team may have been able to help him through the application process.
39. Mr A refers to the following instances of poor support and communication: • He spoke to WCS over the phone on 24 September 2021. While he understood it was asking him questions about his legal status and how he was affected by being unable to demonstrate his lawful status, he did not understand what it meant when it asked him questions about the ‘detrimental impact’.
• He told me on 2 April 2025 that WCS was under the false impression his passport had an ILR stamp. He felt it was denying everything he had said.
40. Let us first consider the telephone call on 24 September 2021.
41. The WCS’ record for this call states Mr A told the call handler he was never told he could not get a job due to not being able to demonstrate his lawful status. The examples he provided were all to do with his employer acting with prejudice towards him due to his skin colour. It is recorded he went on to say he never had issues due to not being able to demonstrate his lawful status, and the issues he faced were all to do with the colour of his skin.
42. The way the staff member has recorded the call, there is no suggestion Mr A was confused by the language they used. That is not to say Mr A’s version of events are false, rather it is difficult to establish what happened during this call due to the two clashing versions of events.
43. Having reviewed the correspondence records following the call on 24 September 2021, it seems a lot of the confusion was caused around Mr A’s understanding of ILR status. He was receiving support from an advocate, but Mr A, and his advocate, communicated information that was confusing, as the facts of his claim changed between 2021 and 2024. This supports his claim that he was unclear about the process, or what information he needed to provide.
44. We can see Mr A spoke to WCS over the phone on 18 September 2023, and during this call he explained to the call handler his passport had never received an ILR stamp. This was the first time he, or his advocate, had raised this, and prior to 18 September 2023 he had told WCS the issue was that he could not get a British passport. The WCS call handler said there was no evidence his Jamaican passport never received an ILR stamp as there was no record of the information his passport held. Irrespective of this, they told him he would have had the equivalent of ILR status because he was a commonwealth citizen. They also made reference to the fact that he would have had actual ILR following the Immigration Act 1971 which came into force on 1 January 1973.
45. However, WCS should have identified Mr A had misunderstood what ILR was, when it was introduced, and why his passport was not stamped. It could have explained better to Mr A that ILR did not exist during 1971. It should have also explained the Jamaican embassy would not have given him this stamp. Mr A is concerned the contents of his passport prevented him from working abroad and caused him to lose his job, but WCS did not identify this was his concern and did not fully explain the situation.
46. We shared this observation with WCS on 28 April 2025. We highlighted that it should be conscious of its communications about complex subjects like ‘ILR’ and how it explains these concepts to service users like Mr A.
47. We consider this matter to be remedied now, as our office has explained WCS’ position in more detail in this report. Also, this would not be grounds for the WCS to revisit Mr A’s case, as it does not suggest it mishandled his evidence and there is no indication that it misunderstood his claim. As such, we will not be taking further action to request it revisit his case.
48. Overall, we accept Mr A’s position that there is evidence WCS could have been clearer in its communication during the call on 18 September 2023, but there is not enough evidence to reach a view of the language used on 24 September 2021.
49. With respect to the support WCS offered, its communication for the most part was good, and it shared the details of the support team which Mr A could have used. As such, there is no indication the WCS failed to provide Mr A with support, and it has acted in line with the relevant standards.
50. We have decided we will not take further action on Mr A’s complaint. This is because we have not identified WCS has made an error or caused an unremedied injustice.
51. We appreciate Mr A has experienced a lifetime of injustice relating to racism because of his skin colour, and our report does not intend to take away from this. We are sorry to learn about the experiences he has had.
52. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr A was looking for when he approached us. We hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it. We would like to thank him for bringing this issue to our attention.