Home Office

4. Mr E complains about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). He complains that WCS has not taken his claim as seriously as it should have done. He says not enough was done to look at the impact on life category, particularly as he was left in Jamaica for a period of time and he had issues with housing and benefits. He says he does not feel that the payment he has received reflects the deep sense of injury he has suffered.

5. Mr E says he has been caused stress and his mental health has also been affected.

6. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr E is seeking an increase in the level of financial compensation awarded to him.

7. The WCS was established in April 2019 to compensate individuals who have suffered loss because they were unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom.

8. Mr E was born in Jamaica in 1957 and arrived in the UK in 1967. In early 2007 Mr E visited family in Jamaica but was prevented from returning to the UK as he says he was told at the airport that he did not have the correct documents to fly. He remained in Jamaica whilst he made a returning resident application. This was granted in early February 2007 and he was granted indefinite leave to enter on returning to the UK from Jamaica a few days later.

9. In April 2015 his No Time Limit application was granted and he was naturalised as a British Citizen under the Windrush Scheme in October 2018.

10. In October 2019 Mr E made his WCS claim for compensation. In June 2021 WCS wrote to Mr E with its decision on his claim. It awarded him £10,000 under the impact to life category only, which is a level 1 award. In August 2021 Mr E requested a review of the decision. In September 2021 WCS wrote to Mr E following its tier 1 review and maintained its original decision. It said Mr E’s passport showed that he landed in Jamaica on 11 January 2007 and returned to the UK on 10 February 2007. It said the award recognised that his inability to demonstrate his lawful status prompted the visa application while in Jamaica. It said that though it appreciated he may have feared travelling before he received his BRP in 2015 following his experience in 2007, it could not attribute this to his inability to demonstrate his lawful status. It said this was because on his return to the UK in 2007 he received indefinite leave to enter status and this was endorsed in his passport which was sufficient to evidence his legal status.

11. Mr E requested a tier 2 review and the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) issued its decision in August 2022, it did not recommend WCS reconsider its decision. As Mr E was unhappy with the amount awarded, in its decision the AO considered whether level 2 was appliable to his circumstances. It considered the supporting information as outlined in WCS’ tier 1 review. It said on the basis that WCS were unable to conclude that Mr E had experienced cumulative impacts over a short period, or moderately severe impacts over a longer period due to an inability to demonstrate his lawful status, it could not conclude that WCS had not followed the rules when deciding not to award beyond level 1. He subsequently brought his complaint to us for consideration.

Impact on Life

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. Mr E says that he does not believe his claim was taken as seriously as it should have been. He says he had to stay in Jamaica for another four or five weeks and had to get a biometric stamp to enable him to leave and enter the UK. He says the payment he has received does not reflect the deep sense of injury that was caused to him.

16. In its first decision letter dated 25 May 2021 WCS considered Mr E’s inability to return to the UK from Jamaica in 2007. It awarded him level 1 compensation and said ‘we have determined that the steps you had to undertake whilst in Jamaica to enable you to return to the UK will have caused you inconvenience, annoyance, frustration, and worry’.

17. This decision was maintained at its tier 1 review. In its decision letter dated 1 October 2021 WCS explained it had considered what Mr E had told it about having to stay in Jamaica for an extended period of time before he received the returning resident visa in 2007. It also considered what he had told it about having to wait until his passport expired to access a No Time Limit endorsement and how he found it difficult and felt like he was taking a risk when travelling to visit his mother due to his previous experience in 2007. The letter says:

‘The level 1 award offered recognised that an inability to demonstrate lawful status prompted the visa application you made whilst in Jamaica. We understand the uncertainty surrounding your lawful status and the steps you took to regularise this will have caused you inconvenience and emotional stress.

Whilst we appreciate you may have feared travelling before you received your BRP after the delay caused to your return in 2007, unfortunately we are unable to attribute this to an inability to demonstrate lawful status. This is because the ILE endorsement place in passport [numbered] would have been accepted as sufficient evidence of lawful status for travel purposes, even once the passport had expired as long as you travelled with both the expired and a current passport’.

18. Annex H of the WCS rules outlines the eligibility criteria for the Impact to Life category as well as descriptors for the different levels of award within this category. H3 says:

‘Based on the available evidence provided, the Home Office will determine whether to make an award under this Annex. If an award is made, the Home Office will determine the amount of award payable by reference to the amounts set out in the table below, taking into account all the circumstances, the number, severity and duration of detrimental impacts and all available evidence.’

19. The descriptor for level 1 says:

‘Marked detriment such as inconvenience, annoyance, frustration and worry, where the effect on the claimant was fairly short-lived (lasting up to a few weeks). Family events may have been missed.’

20. The descriptor for level 2 says:

‘Moderately severe impact on some aspects of the claimant’s life over an extended period of time (weeks or months) or where multiple cumulative impacts were suffered for a relatively short period of time. Claimants may have been unable to engage in activities with which they were previously familiar, although should still have been able to live a relatively normal life for much of the time. There may have been an inability to attend one or more significant family events; or there may have been family separation.’

21. We can see from the evidence that Mr E was in Jamaica from 11 January 2007 to 10 February 2007 and that his returning resident visa application was made and granted on 5 February 2007. This means he was in Jamaica for a little over four weeks. Upon his return to the UK he was granted indefinite leave to enter, as such from this point onwards he had evidence of his legal status in the UK. It is for these reasons that WCS says it has only considered the short time he remained in Jamaica while waiting for his returning resident visa and it is not able to take into account his fear of travelling following his return.

22. We can see from WCS’ tier 1 review that it has considered everything that Mr E told it about his experiences and how this affected him. We can also see that it considered this against the level 2 descriptor. It ultimately concluded that as Mr E received indefinite leave to enter in February 2007 when he returned from Jamaica, this was sufficient evidence of his lawful status for travelling purposes. As such it said that on balance the descriptor for level 2 had not been met as it could not establish that Mr E had not been able to partake in activities with which he was previously familiar.

23. Our principles of good administration under ‘getting it right’ says 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.

24. We are satisfied that WCS has acted in line with our principles when considering the evidence presented to it by Mr E. This is because it has considered everything he has said against its own scheme rules and reached a reasonable decision. As such we cannot say that it has not done enough to consider the impact to life category.

Housing and benefits

25. Mr E complains that he had issues with housing and benefits. He says that when he goes to sign on for jobseekers allowance he has to take his passport with him every time.

26. Having looked at the evidence we cannot see that Mr E claimed under these categories when he made his WCS claim. Whilst this is not strictly necessary as WCS can and have considered categories he has not specifically claimed under, it does this based on the information provided. We have not seen any evidence that issues with housing and benefits have been outlined in his evidence or that Mr E brought these issues to WCS’ attention. We have also looked at his tier 1 and tier 2 review requests and he has not complained that this has not been considered. As such we cannot be critical of WCS not considering these categories.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about the Home Office. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong and have decided not to consider his complaint further.

2. We have not seen any indications that WCS has not taken Mr E’s complaint as seriously as it should have done. It has fully considered the information Mr E provided against the scheme rules when reaching a decision on the level of financial remedy to award him. We also cannot be critical of WCS having not considered the categories of housing and benefits as there is no evidence that Mr E claimed under these categories.

3. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr E and we will explain our decision in more detail below. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance about how carefully we have considered his complaint.