Home Office

4. Mr O complains about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme and its decision not to award any compensation on his close family member claim. He says the decision is incorrect, unjust and unfair and it has not thoroughly considered the claim. He says this is because it has not fully considered what he said about his family’s living conditions and not being offered housing. This is in relation to the categories of Impact on Life and Living Costs. He says in a telephone call on 22 April 2022 he was told that he had a very good chance of being accepted but WCS has failed to address or acknowledge this telephone call.

5. Mr O says it has been emotionally traumatic and bewildering to have to go through his experiences and this has caused him to feel mentally depleted.

6. As an outcome to his complaint Mr O would like WCS to reconsider his claim with a view to offering him compensation.

7. Mr O was born in Jamaica in 1954. In 1958 his mother came to the UK.

8. In 1962 Jamaica gained independence and ceased to be part of the UK and Colonies, Mr O joined his mother in the UK in the same year.

9. In 1987 Mr O applied for British citizenship which was granted in 1988. WCS has not been able to establish an entire immigration history for Mr O’s mother but accepted based on the evidence that it was able to obtain that she was a commonwealth citizen, settled in the UK prior to 1973 and was continually resident in the UK until her death in 2021. WCS could not find any evidence of an application for British citizenship for Mr O’s mother.

10. Mr O initially applied to WCS as a primary claimant (which is not part of this complaint). During a call with the Home Office on 22 April 2022, he was advised to make a close family member application which was received by WCS on 10 June 2022.

11. Mr O claimed under the Impact to Life category. He described the conditions his mother was forced to live in when she arrived in the UK as suitable housing was not provided for her. He said she tried to get social housing but was refused several times and this meant that he and his family had to live in a small room. He said his mother lived in fear of travelling abroad and so did not attend her mother’s funeral in Jamaica. He said that he was separated from his mother as she did not have enough space to keep him and this had a traumatic impact on his life. He said the poor living conditions meant he had to take on extra responsibilities, and the complete lack of privacy caused friction between family members. He said this caused him many years of distress and anxiety. He said the separation from his family and the poor living conditions resulted in him suffering with headaches and stomach problems which he still suffers from.

12. In October 2022 WCS wrote to Mr O to advise him of a new category for close family member claims which was to reimburse living costs and invited him to submit a claim under this category. He submitted his claim the same month and explained how he helped his mother from 1962 to 2021. He said this was because of the circumstances she found herself in when she arrived in the UK and the problems she encountered financially after that. He said as a boy he gave his mother £2 each week and as a man he gave her hundreds and thousands each year. He explained that as a boy he would walk to school and go without lunches to give his mother his pocket money to help them survive. He said he could not stay on at school and had to go to work and give his earnings to his mother. When his father died in 1983, he looked after his mother until she died in 2021.

13. WCS sent its initial decision letter to Mr O in May 2023, it did not offer any compensation. Under Impact on Life, it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the criteria had been met as, although it accepted he had faced significant impacts, it could not link these directly to his mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.

14. Under the Living Costs category, it said it was not satisfied that the additional living costs Mr O had incurred were a direct result of his mother being unable to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.

15. Mr O requested a review of WCS’ decision. He said he could not understand why he had been denied compensation, he reiterated his experiences since coming to the UK and questioned why the onus was on him to prove what happened. He said he did not know that he would need to provide proof of the living costs he had incurred on behalf of his mother - he said he had taken out loans to pay for a replacement boiler and said generally money was not paid to his mother, it was paid directly to the company carrying out the work.

16. WCS sent its tier 1 review to Mr O in May 2024 and upheld its original decision. It outlined the information Mr O had provided under each category. For Impact on Life it said to award under this category it must be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities he experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of his mother being unable to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. It said that there was insufficient information to demonstrate that the criteria had been met. It said the same for the Living Costs category.

17. Mr O requested a tier 2 review in May 2024. He explained how unhappy he was with the tier 1 decision and said that the only reason he applied was because he was advised to do so by a WCS staff member and asked whether the call had been listened to. He questioned how he was expected to know he needed to keep evidence from such a long time ago.

18. In July 2024 the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) sent its tier 2 review decision. It did not recommend WCS to review its decision. It said ‘Due to the limited available information provided in support of your claim to show that your mother experienced an inability to demonstrate her lawful status, it is reasonable for the Home Office to conclude that the difficulties and hardships your family experienced did not occur due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status’. The AO acknowledged that he and his family clearly experienced difficulties after arriving in the UK but said it is unclear whether this was because of being unable to demonstrate lawful status or due to racism and discrimination.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

19. The compensation scheme was created to compensate those who have suffered loss as a direct result of not being able to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. It cannot compensate those affected by societal issues such as racism and discrimination.

20. When considering claims, the scheme operates on the balance of probabilities. This means that WCS needs to be more satisfied than not that what has been claimed for has occurred. It does not expect claimants to provide detailed documentary evidence to support their claim.

Claim consideration

23. 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.

24. Mr O complains about WCS’ decision to not award him any compensation under the categories of Impact to Life and Living Costs. He told us he followed the instructions on the application forms and provided a broad outline of what happened to him and his family because of the lack of council housing and when new immigration laws were introduced in the eighties requiring them to pay for citizenship when they were already British citizens. He says that just because he does not have proof of his family’s experiences does not mean that they did not happen.

Impact to Life

25. Annex H of the scheme rules explains the conditions to be met in order to make an award under the Impact to Life category. It says:

‘H1. An award under this Annex may be made to a primary claimant, an estate or a close family member if the following conditions are met.

(a) In respect of a primary claimant or an estate, the primary claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the United Kingdom.

(b) In respect of a close family member of a primary claimant or the deceased, the close family member experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by that primary claimant’s (or deceased’s) inability to demonstrate lawful status.’

26. We understand that Mr O and his mother believed they were British citizens as when they came to the UK Jamaica was part of the commonwealth and they held Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) passports. This gave them rights to live and work in the UK, however, this did not mean they were British citizens. In 1962 Jamaica became independent, a consequence of the Jamaica Independent Act 1962 was that most Jamaicans became Jamaican citizens, whether they were inside or outside of the country. This meant that Mr O and his mother were Jamaican citizens even though they were in the UK at the time of Jamaica’s independence. In order for Mr O and his mother to become British citizens, they needed to apply for naturalisation which Mr O did in 1987 and was granted in 1988. We understand from the evidence and Mr O that his mother did not make an application.

27. In its consideration of Mr O’s claim WCS has considered everything he told it about his mother’s experience since arriving in the UK in 1958, the lack of housing and poor living conditions they endured, his separation from his family, the additional responsibilities he had to take on and the effect this all had on him. It noted that ‘lawful status’ did not exist prior to the Immigration Act 1971 coming into effect on 1 January 1973 and therefore any difficulties prior to this could not be as a result of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the UK. It says there was insufficient information provided to show that any issues Mr O’s mother had after 1 January 1973 were because of her inability to demonstrate her legal status. As such it says that the requirements set out in H1(b) of the scheme rules had not been met and therefore it could not make an award under this category.

28. Our Principles of Good Administration under ‘getting it right’ says we expect public bodies to act according to their statutory powers and any other rules governing the service they provide and that they should follow their own policy and procedural guidance. It also says that decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence.

29. We have looked at all the available evidence and have seen no indications that WCS has not considered all the information Mr O provided under the category of Impact to Life. It has considered the evidence against the criteria for this category and reached a decision in line with the scheme rules. Ultimately, it decided that there is not enough evidence to show the difficulties they experienced we because Mr O’s mother was unable to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. We are satisfied that it has acted in line our principles in reaching its decision.

Living costs

30. Annex J of the scheme rules explains the conditions to be met in order for an award to be made under the Living costs category. It says:

‘J1. An award under this Annex may be made to a close family member if the following conditions are met.

(a) 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 United Kingdom.

(b) 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 United Kingdom.’

31. In its consideration of Mr O’s claim, WCS considered the costs he said he paid on behalf of or to his mother between 1962 and 2021 which was a result of the circumstances they were living in or financial problems. Mr O told WCS that he estimated he had paid around £15,000 in total. It considered what he told it about having to leave school and go to work and provide his earnings to his mother and how he looked after her following his father’s death in 1983 until her death in 2021, and how a substantial amount of his earnings went into the upkeep of the house and also for his mother’s care. It noted again that some of the experiences Mr O described occurred before the term ‘legal status’ existed as explained above. As such it said there was insufficient information for it to say that the living costs Mr O incurred were as a direct result of his mother been unable to demonstrate her legal status after 1 January 1973. As such it says the requirements set out in J1 of the scheme rules had not been met.

32. We have looked at all the available evidence and have seen no indications that WCS has not fully considered all the information Mr O provided in relation to the Living costs category. It has acknowledged Mr O’s experiences since arriving in the UK and how this affected him. It ultimately concluded that there was not enough evidence to show that Mr O’s experiences were as a direct result of his mother’s inability to prove her legal status in the UK. Looking at the evidence, we cannot see that Mr O has provided information that shows his mother had difficulties demonstrating her lawful status. Therefore, even on the balance of probabilities, it would be difficult for WCS to conclude that the criteria had been met for either of the categories.

33. We are satisfied that WCS has acted in line with our principles when considering the evidence provided by Mr O. This is because it has considered everything he said against its own scheme rules and reached a reasonable decision. As such we cannot say its decision is incorrect or has not been thoroughly considered.

Call April 2022

34. Mr O also told us of a call he had with WCS in April 2022 which was in relation to his primary claimant application. He says during this call he was encouraged to make a close family member application and told that he had a good chance of being accepted. He says WCS has not taken this call into consideration.

35. We have listened to this call. WCS called Mr O to discuss his primary claimant application and it was discussed with him whether he had any issues himself demonstrating his lawful status prior to him applying for and being granted British citizenship. He said that he did not and he was asked whether he had thought about making a close family member claim as much of the impact he had outlined in his primary claim form was as a result of issues his parents had. WCS explained that as a primary claimant the impact must stem from his own issues demonstrating his legal status. WCS said the strength lies with his parents’ difficulties and how this affected him and so he was advised to make a close family member application. It was made clear to Mr O that the person calling him was collating information only and would not be making any decisions.

36. During the call WCS did not tell Mr O that he had a very good chance of a close family member claim being accepted. As such we do not consider there to be any reason to take this call into consideration, as even if it did, it would not have made any difference to its overall decision.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about WCS. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong.

2. We have not seen any indications that WCS’s decision is incorrect or that it has not thoroughly considered Mr O’s claim. It considered everything Mr O said against the scheme rules when reaching its decision. We also could not see evidence that Mr O was told his application had a very good chance of being accepted.

3. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr O 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.