Miss L’s complaint
22. Miss L complains about WCS’ consideration of her claim. Miss L complains WCS did not consider all the evidence available when it considered her Impact on Life claim, or contact the relevant medical professionals. Mrs L says WCS did not undertake the relevant enquiries with the relevant professionals.
WCS’ Initial consideration
23. WCS should have considered Miss L’s claim in line with the scheme rules and the guidance for caseworkers making decisions on claims.
24. WCS has considered Miss L’s claim for Impact on Life twice. Initially, WCS awarded Miss L a level two award under Impact on Life. They acknowledged she had experienced stress and worry for an extended period until her lawful status was confirmed. This was increased to a level 3 award, £40,000, under the ‘impact of life’ category but Miss L feels this does not fully reflect the extent of harm caused by her inability to demonstrate her lawful status.
25. Miss L says WCS did not make enquiries with her professional and character references, nor did it consider or follow up on information from health professionals in relation to the impact on her mental health.
26. Miss L says had WCS taken these steps, it would have seen that she has experienced anxiety and depression because of her inability to demonstrate her lawful status since 2002. She believes this means WCS would have awarded her a higher sum under the ‘impact of life’ category.
27. Miss L said the impact on her life of being unable to prove her status over a long period included serious mental health issues, being unable to travel (for holidays and for significant life events such as her Aunt’s funeral and the scattering of her partner’s ashes), being detained for 24 hours by the police in 2016 and difficulties with her children’s status. She said all these things had significantly affected her mental health.
28. Miss L provided letters from friends explaining the impact on her life of not being able to evidence her status, as well as a letter from the charity where she was a volunteer. She also provided a letter from her Community Mental Health Nurse (CMHN). This explained Miss L had been diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and panic disorder and had attempted suicide in April 2018.
29. The CMNH said Miss L’s history of childhood trauma was the biggest contributor to her current anxiety and panic. They also said her citizenship status was something she panicked about and affected her anxious mood.
Our original consideration
30. We originally closed Miss L’s complaint after WCS agreed to reconsider it. We said it was unclear when WCS accepted Miss L started having problems with her status or that it properly considered the degree to which her mental health issues might have been exacerbated by her fears around her uncertain status and deportation.
31. We also saw in Miss L’s previous consideration that given the seriousness of Miss L’s mental health issues, it would have been reasonable for WCS to more fully consider the extent her mental health was affected by concerns around her status.
32. During its initial consideration of Miss L’s claim, WCS accepted Miss L could have been taken into police custody for 24 hours in 2016 and asked about her status – as it would be routine for the police to ask for status information. Because there was no evidence that Miss L had been held under the specific immigration powers referenced in the WCS rules, it did not consider this under the detention, removal or deportation category, but did take it into account under Impact on Life. However, again it is unclear how this impacted their decision-making, and they did not seek further information for example by contacting the police.
33. In its further review, WCS accepted that Miss L lost her ability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK on 19 July 2011, when she reported having lost her passport.
34. WCS noted that whilst Miss L had lost her passport on 19 July 2011, there is insufficient evidence to suggest she was aware she had lost her inability to demonstrate her lawful status at this point.
35. WCS say Miss L waited seven years to contact the HO to resolve her status and it appears this was on the back of a letter from a firm of Solicitors which suggested her children had difficulty demonstrating their status through their mother.
36. WCS said the relevant period was from 10 August 2017 (letter from solicitors) to 14 June 2018.
37. The ‘relevant period’ is the period starting on the relevant date and ending on the date when the primary claimant received a document from the HO proving their lawful status. The ‘relevant date’ means the date in which the primary claimant was notified or became aware, whether through contact with the HO or otherwise that they could not demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
38. During our investigation, Miss L provided us with evidence which she believes supports her claim that the ‘relevant date’ is earlier than WCS stated. Miss L explained the evidence shows in 2007 there was no record of her, or her children, on the HO’s system.
39. We shared this information with the HO who agreed to consider this evidence to see whether it needs to reconsider Miss L’s Impact on Life claim.
Detention
40. WCS said the impact Miss L has claimed in relation to being arrested, detained by the police and asked to produce documentation of her status in 2016 has not been supported by evidence. WCS said there is no record of the police contacting the HO in respect of Miss L’s immigration status. WCS said this suggests that Miss L was able to demonstrate her status in some way.
41. We enquired with WCS whether it made contact with the police to ascertain whether it questioned Miss L about her status. WCS explained there was no record Miss L was arrested under immigration provisions therefore, there would be no benefit to contacting the police for further information.
42. WCS’ guidance for caseworkers sets out that a claimant who has been detained, deported, removed or returned may claim for a payment under the scheme, if the detention was under the provision of a number of acts.
43. We understand from WCS that there was no record on any of its systems that Miss L had been detained or questions under immigration laws. As such, we think it is reasonable that WCS did not make further enquiries with the Police when they did not have the necessary evidence that would suggest Miss L had been detained on this basis.
Mental health consideration
44. Miss L also claimed that her mental health deteriorated as a result of her inability to prove her status. Miss L sent HO the CMHN’s letter which documented her struggles with her mental health. The letter concluded that Miss L’s childhood trauma of physical, emotional and sexual abuse has been the biggest contribution to her current anxiety, panic feeling and stress due to flashbacks. These symptoms had caused her to feel like life is not worth living.
45. The letter also states Miss L had been in an anxious mood about her everyday living - such as financial situation, her citizenship status and relationship with her children.
46. In its reconsideration, the HO recognised that while the impact on Miss L’s mental health was significant, her status related issues were one of many smaller contributing factors to the impact. The review was unable to qualify the impacts in respect of her status as significant (requirement for Level four Impact on Life) and maintained that they were substantial.
47. WCS’ casework guidance says, ‘where 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’.
48. It is unclear from the information provided by the HO how it considered the extent to which Miss L’s mental health was affected by her inability to prove her status. We enquired with the HO as to whether it considered seeking further medical information and if not, the reasons for not doing so.
49. In response to our enquiries, HO confirmed that it did not make any further enquiries with any professionals involved in Miss L’s mental health care to consider the degree of exacerbation, as it did not consider it necessary.
50. We have carefully considered the evidence available. We think HO’s explanation to Miss L as to how it considered her mental health was not in line with our Principles of Good Administration. Our Principles state organisations should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions.
51. We understand Miss L remains unclear as to how HO considered how her mental health was exacerbated by her inability to prove her status and why it did not contact her mental health nurse. When we met with the HO it recognised it could have been clearer in its response to Miss L about its consideration and decision not to obtain further information.
52. Our Principles for Remedy say, ‘Where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise’.
53. Our Principles state an appropriate remedy can include remedial action, such a reviewing a decision.
54. WCS has agreed to provide a further explanation to Miss L, setting out why it did not consider it necessary to request further input from medical professionals involved in her care.
55. We have referred our Service Model and Policy Guidance – which says we can consider if the action WCS has agreed to take to put things right appears to resolve the complaint. We consider the further work WCS has agreed to do has the potential to resolve Miss L’s complaint about WCS’s consideration of her Impact on Life claim at this stage. They have agreed to consider the new evidence she has provided and to provide a further explanation in relation to their consideration of the impact on her mental health. Although we don’t know what the outcome of WCS’s review will be, Miss L will be able to come back to us if she has further concerns in the future.