4. Mr A considers the WCS awarded him insufficient compensation of £10,000, as it fails to capture the true impact on life and cost of living.
5. Mr A says he has not received fair compensation, as it is insufficient for the pain and suffering he experienced as well as the extreme physical and mental anguish caused.
6. As an outcome he wants the WCS to award him £20,000.
7. In April 1961 Mr A’s mother (Mrs A) came to the United Kingdom (UK) as a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) from Jamaica. In August 1962 following Jamaican Independence Mrs A lost her CUKC status and became a Citizen of Jamaica and the Commonwealth.
8. Following the creation of The Immigration Act 1971, Mrs A gained indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Prior to the introduction of The British Nationality Act 1981, there was government advice for former CUKC’s in the UK to register for British Citizenship.
9. On 4 July 1981 Mrs A made a British naturalisation application. On 2 December 1982 Mrs A’s application was successful, and she obtained her naturalisation enabling her to demonstrate her lawful status from this date.
10. On 11 September 2023 Mr A registered a claim under the WCS as a close family member under the impact on life and living costs categories. On 7 January 2024 the WCS completed its consideration of Mr A’s claim, awarding £10,000 compensation under the impact on life category and £0 under the living costs category. This award was maintained in subsequent Tier 1 and Tier 2 reviews by the WCS and the Adjudicator’s Office (the AO).
13. 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.
Impact on life 14. Mr A says the WCS’s £10,000 award under this category does not fully capture the impact to him. Mr A’s claim in the impact on life category relates to the overall cost to his mother for her British naturalisation application and for the accompanying legal fees she incurred because of this. He explains how much of an impact this had on him as a young man growing up, causing significant distress and upset which continues to impact him today.
15. Annex H of the WCS Rules deals with impact on life awards. It says close family members may be due an award if they experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by that primary claimant’s (Mrs A) inability to demonstrate her lawful status. It says the impacts within this category are non-financial impacts of the following type and description: inconvenience, injury to feelings, distress and reputational damage, family separation, immigration difficulties, inability to attend significant family occasions, and any impacts relating to deterioration in physical or mental health.
16. Similarly, the WCS caseworker guidance says WCS caseworkers should consider whether the claimant has experienced a loss or a disturbance in their everyday life because of their own or of a close family member’s inability to show their lawful status when considering an award under impact on life.
17. As noted above, this category of the WCS Rules outlines any award is to recognise the non-financial impact. The WCS’s decision and the subsequent reviews said it would not make any compensation award for the period following Mrs A’s successful application for British Citizenship, which was granted on 2 December 1982. It considered at this point Mrs A would be able to demonstrate her lawful status and therefore it did not consider any issues experienced by Mr A after this period would be a direct consequence of his mother being unable to demonstrate her lawful status.
18. It appears the WCS Rules and WCS caseworker guidance have been appropriately interpreted and by the WCS applied here, as after 2 December 1982, Mrs A was able to demonstrate her lawful status. The WCS has also correctly applied the WCS Rules by not considering any non-financial losses after this period. This is in line with Annex H of the WCS Rules. We have seen no indications of a failing in respect of this.
19. We have also considered the WCS’s award amount of £10,000 under this category.
20. The WCS caseworker guidance says WCS will determine whether to make an award under this Annex based on the evidence available, it will then determine the level of award payable based on the levels outlined below. Taking into consideration all circumstances, the number, severity and duration of the impact. It will reach a decision on the balance of probabilities.
21. Annex H of the WCS Rules explain the HO will determine the amount of award payable by reference to a table with five levels. These levels allow for awards of £10,000, £20,000, £40,000, £70,000 and £100,000 (with scope to award more than £100,000 if appropriate). When deciding on the appropriate level, the HO had to ‘take into account all the circumstances, the number, severity and duration of detrimental impacts and all available evidence’.
22. Mr A considers the distress and upset he experienced as a child were due to the pressures his mother felt to apply for British Citizenship and the subsequent cost of this. He explains how his overall family life and much of his childhood were impacted by the cost of this, as his mother had to take up several low-paid jobs which took away from the support she was able to offer him as a child. He explains the impact this had on him mentally as well as the impact of seeing his parents in constant conflict over their finances, and the low-quality accommodation he lived in growing up.
23. We are sorry to hear of the difficulties Mr A has described as being attributable to his mother’s financial difficulties. Clearly this was a stressful period for him, and the impact long-lasting.
24. The WCS decided the impact of Mr A’s experiences fell within level one. The description for this level is:
• ‘an impact where there has been a 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).’
25. The complaint standards outline how we expect organisations to give a fair and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. Giving reference to relevant legislation, standards, policies, procedures or guidance, based on objective criteria.
26. We can see in the assessment of his claim, the WCS has identified it is likely, on balance, Mrs A was detrimentally impacted through the need to actualise her status, and the subsequent stress, worry and fear of consequences should her application for citizenship be unsuccessful. The WCS explains it is likely on balance Mr A would also adopt these worries, causing fear, stress and anxiety.
27. Within the evidence provided, we can see in the claim assessment the WCS caseworker carefully considered Mr A’s claim in line with the guidance set out by Annex H of the WCS Rules. It appears the WCS applied the correct policy to consider the claim.
28. During the assessment the WCS caseworker considered whether there was sufficient evidence to say the subsequent issues Mr A describes in respect of employment, conflict between his parents and low-quality accommodation are related to his mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. Focusing its consideration on Mr A’s claimed emotional impact. This appears reasonable and is in line with the WCS Rules which say impact on life is for non-financial impact. The WCS felt the impact under impact on life claimed by Mr A was in line with a level one award.
29. We can see the WCS also considered whether there was any justification for increasing this to a level two award, given the long duration of the impact claimed by Mr A (between 1979 and 1982). The WCS caseworker approached Mr A throughout the investigation to enable him to provide the relevant evidence he felt supported his claim. We can see during the claim assessment the WCS has considered each piece of evidence fairly, taking a balanced and proportionate approach to determine if there was any evidence to suggest an increased award was necessary. This is in line with the WCS caseworker rules.
30. Ultimately it said the issues Mr A experienced in respect of his problems with peers during his schooling, the poor living conditions he lived in and the necessity for his mother to take several, low-paid jobs were likely to have occurred due to societal attitudes at the time, and therefore outside the scope of the WCS. They felt there was no evidence this could be linked to his mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. The assessment details the impact cannot be directly linked, even on balance, to his mother’s inability to demonstrate her legal status for a prolonged period.
31. Taking this into consideration it appears the award made by the WCS under the impact on life category was reasonable, and in line with the £10,000 award recommended for level one impact set out by the WCS caseworker guidance and the WCS Rules.
32. The evidence indicates the WCS has fairly balanced the evidence in respect of Mr A’s impact when reaching a decision on the award. It appears to have followed the WCS Rules and acted in line with the Complaint Standards by fairly balancing the evidence and referencing the relevant policy in place at the time. Therefore, there are no indications anything has gone seriously wrong here.
Living costs 33. Mr A is unhappy with the decision not to make any award under the living costs category. He explains he had to provide continued financial support to his family from 1979 until the present day, due to the costs his mother incurred as part of her British naturalisation application.
34. Annex J, section 1 of the WCS Rules deals with living costs awards. It says: • The close family member incurred significant additional living costs paid to, or on behalf of, the primary claimant, as a direct result of the primary claimant being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
• The additional living costs incurred were a result of the primary claimant losing access to employment/benefits due to an inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
35. The WCS caseworker guidance says an award will only be made, if WCS is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the close family member meets the conditions outlined above.
36. The complaint standards say how we expect organisations to give a fair and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. Giving reference to relevant legislation, standards, policies, procedures or guidance, based on objective criteria.
37. In its response the WCS did not make an award to Mr A under living costs.
38. Mr A said his mother had to undertake several low-paid jobs between 1979 until present day. In its investigation the WCS felt there was no evidence to suggest his mother lost access to unemployment during this time due to her being unable to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. Mr A has also said due to the time that has elapsed, there is no longer any evidence available such as any receipts to confirm any of the costs he says he incurred.
39. The evidence shows the WCS applied the correct section of the WCS Rules when considering this element of the claim. We can see the WCS caseworker considered Mr A’s recollection of the events and the contributions he made to the household, and also Mrs A’s signed statement confirming the subsequent impact this had on her son. There was no evidence available to demonstrate the actual costs incurred. The WCS caseworker acknowledged within the assessment the financial support Mr A provided to his family from a young age but was not satisfied the additional costs his mother experienced were directly attributable to either her losing access to employment or benefits due to her being unable to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.
40. We can see the WCS fairly considered the evidence provided which showed Mrs A was employed during the period covered for his compensation claim. Therefore, it did not consider the criteria outlined under section J1 were met to enable the WCS to make an award under living costs. This is in line with the WCS caseworker guidance on reaching a decision based on the evidence available.
41. We have seen no indication the WCS reached an incorrect decision here in respect of Mr A’s claim under living costs. Under the rules of the scheme, it is only when claimants had difficulties because of the close family member’s inability to demonstrate their lawful status that compensation can be awarded.
42. We acknowledge the difficulties Mr A has encountered during his life and it is clear from speaking with him how much of an impact this subsequently continues to have on him. We are truly sorry to hear of the hardships he has experienced.
43. The evidence indicates the WCS has fairly balanced the evidence in respect of Mr A’s impact when reaching a decision on not to make an award under living costs. It has followed the WCS Rules and acted in line with the Complaint Standards by fairly balancing the evidence and referencing the relevant policy in place at the time. Therefore, there are no indications anything has gone seriously wrong here.
44. Mr A came to us because he believed the WCS had made mistakes when calculating his award. We have carefully considered the matter and hope Mr A has found the information and explanations we have provided helpful as to why we think the award appears reasonable.
1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the HO’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong in respect of the WCS’s compensation award offered to Mr A.
2. Mr A has clearly suffered hardship during his life, we are sorry to hear of the long-lasting distress this continues to cause him.
3. Mr A came to us because he believed the WCS had made mistakes when calculating his award as a close family member. We have carefully considered his concerns and hope Mr A finds the information and explanations we have provided helpful to understand why we think the award appeared appropriate in the circumstances.