Home Office

5. Mr C thinks the Home Office was wrong to not award him compensation under its Windrush Compensation Scheme.

6. Mr C thinks the Adjudicator was wrong to not uphold its review of the Home Office’s decision.

7. Mr C says the Home Office and the Adjudicator have not acknowledged the distress and hurt he experienced when being treated differently because of his race. Mr C says the impact of the racial prejudice has not gone away. He feels he has been denied the compensation he deserves.

8. Mr C wants the Home Office to pay him the compensation he deserves from the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

9. In April 2018 the Home Secretary announced the Windrush Compensation Scheme would be set up. Its purpose is to compensate people who ‘suffered loss or damage because of their inability to evidence their right to be in the UK and to access services’.

10. The Windrush Compensation Scheme refused Mr C’s claim in November 2021. It upheld that decision at the tier one review (the first stage of the complaints process) in January 2022, saying ‘the issue you describe appear to be linked to societal attitudes at the time and not an inability to demonstrate your lawful status in the UK’.

11. In June 2022 the Adjudicator found, ‘There is no evidence to demonstrate that the impacts and challenges you faced were due to you not being able to demonstrate your lawful status. I acknowledge that you faced challenges and that some of these were because of racial prejudice, but I consider the issues you faced are outside the scope of the scheme.’

Home Office decision

14. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.

15. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say organisations should follow their own guidance and take relevant evidence into account when making decisions. The Home Office published the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules. This document explains the criteria for making awards. Rules D2(b) and D9(b) allow for an ‘actual earnings’ or ‘general’ award for loss of access to employment where:

‘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.’

16. The Rules allow for awards where there has been an impact on daily life and discretionary payments for losses that do not fall within one of the defined categories. Again, the reason for making an award must be that the person suffered because of the inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.

17. Mr C claimed compensation for loss of access to employment, impact on life and a discretionary payment. His claims related to:

• losing his job in 1962 because of racial prejudice • not getting a job in the 1970s because of racial prejudice.

18. Mr C’s claim was for the injustice caused by racial prejudice. It was not because of an inability to prove his lawful status. Mr C does not dispute this fact. This means his claim does not meet the criteria set out in the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules.

The Windrush Compensation Scheme considered Mr C’s claim and correctly applied his evidence to the Rules. This is in keeping with our Principles of taking relevant evidence into account when making decisions. We have seen no sign that the Home Office did anything wrong.

The Adjudicator’s review

19. The Adjudicator had to carry out its role as defined by the service level agreement with the Home Office. This says the Adjudicator will:

‘Consider whether the Home Office has provided a fair and consistent application of the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules, standards, guidance and codes of practice, alongside the factual evidence of the review.’

20. We have seen the Adjudicator wrote to Mr C on 13 June 2022 with the outcome of its tier two review (the second and final stage of the complaints process). The Adjudicator’s letter includes an accurate description of its role and the evidence it considered to review Mr C’s case. We can see no signs the Adjudicator did anything wrong in deciding to not uphold Mr C’s complaint. It acted in line with our Principles by following its guidance and using the relevant evidence when making a decision.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr C’s complaint about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme and the Adjudicator’s Office (the Adjudicator). We have seen no signs that the organisations did anything seriously wrong.

2. The Windrush Compensation Scheme decided Mr C did not meet the criteria for a compensation payment. This was because the injustice he experienced was caused by the racial prejudice of two employers. It was not caused by Mr C being unable to prove his right to live and work in the UK. That decision is in line with the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules. We have seen no sign this decision was wrong.

3. The Adjudicator reviews Windrush Compensation Scheme decisions. Its role includes considering whether the Home Office has applied the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules fairly and consistently. We have not seen anything wrong with how the Adjudicator reviewed the decision.

4. We understand the racial prejudice that Mr C describes would have been deeply upsetting and traumatic. The reason we are unable to help is we have seen no reason to question the decision that the injustice was not caused by the Home Office’s historic failings and it does not fall within the Windrush Compensation Scheme. Below is a more detailed explanation that we hope Mr C will find helpful.