Home Office

6. Mrs X complains the Home Office was wrong to decide she did not meet the eligibility criteria to apply for the Windrush Compensation Scheme (as a close family member), and it should not have disregarded her application. She says this does not make sense as they accepted her mother’s claim.

7. Mrs X also says the Home Office disregarded information she told it (that she lived in an area without a postal service) and her request for her mother to act as her representative, and to send correspondence to her by email or to her mother’s address, and it sent letters to Mrs X’s postal address.

8. Because the Home Office disregarded Mrs X’s request to send letters to her mother’s address, she says she did not receive the letters it sent or the outcome decision letters. This meant she did not know the Home Office’s decision on her application, and she was not able to challenge the Home Office’s decision or see information about how to request a review. She says this delayed her being able to request a review.

9. Mrs X says as a result of the Home Office not accepting that she was eligible for the Windrush Compensation Scheme, it did not consider her claim for compensation. She says the Home Office has not provided compensation for the distressing impact she experienced as a result of the British Embassy denying her mother the ability to return to the UK, which means she was not given the opportunity to be born in the UK. As a result of being born in a West African Country and not being able to move to the UK with the rest of her family, she has lived separately from her family. She has experienced extreme poverty, hardship, lack of access to education. Mrs X says she experienced significant physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of the families who were acting as her guardian.

10. Mrs X says the Home Office’s treatment of her led her to feel discriminated against, and she felt as if she had been treated unfairly and as less than human.

11. Mrs X would like the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme to reconsider her case.

12. In April 2018 the Home Secretary announced the Windrush Compensation Scheme would be set up. Its purpose was 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’. The scheme is also open to close family members who have experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by a primary claimant’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. The scheme is intended to put right the injustice caused by the unintended consequences of successive governments’ policies on tackling illegal migration.

13. Mrs X was born in a West African country in 1982.

14. Before Mrs X was born, her mother travelled to West Africa (her country of birth) in 1977 intending to stay for a short time to care for her stepmother. Mrs X says her mother tried to return to the UK on several occasions between 1978 and 1989. She says the British Embassy did not acknowledge her mother’s Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

15. As Mrs X’s mother had remained outside the UK for more than two years, her ILR lapsed from 1979.

16. Mrs X’s mother finally returned to the UK in 1989 and was later followed by Mrs X’s elder siblings who had been born in the UK.

17. Mrs X says she has been applying to come to the UK to join her family for a long time but has been turned down many times.

18. The Home Office internal papers say Mrs X has been unable to return to the UK, as unlike her siblings, she is not a British Citizen and has not been granted permission to come to the UK. She has, therefore, been separated from her family members and continues to live in West Africa.

19. We are saddened to hear about the experiences Mrs X told us about. Mrs X says she has been separated from her family for thirty-five years. Her care was entrusted to guardians, and she experienced extreme neglect and poverty at their hands. She says her guardians misused the money her mother sent them to care. She told us she has also experienced homelessness and was passed between different families. Mrs X told us she was a victim of child slavery, and physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of the families her care was entrusted to.

Issue 1 - the Home Office decided Mrs X did not meet the eligibility criteria to apply for the Windrush Compensation Scheme

22. 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 because the Home Office followed its guidance when it made the decision that Mrs X did not meet the eligibility criteria.

23. Mrs X made a Close Family Member claim for the WCS under the impact on life category. The Home Office rejected the claim because it said she did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the WCS Rules.

24. The WCS rules say it can only consider claims from close family members if eligibility criteria are met and if at the material time (when the impact or loss occurred or was triggered) the claimant was lawfully in the United Kingdom; and had necessary lawful status which is defined as either: • indefinite leave to remain • an entitlement to the Right of Abode • limited leave to remain but on a route to settlement.

25. The Home Office found Mrs X was not eligible for compensation under the scheme because she has never entered the UK and did not have the necessary lawful status at the time the impact, loss or detriment that she has claimed for.

26. We recognise Mrs X will be disappointed by this decision. We have not found indications the Home Office got anything wrong, but this does not undermine the distressing impact Mrs X has told us she has experienced.

Issue 2 - the Home Office sent correspondence to Mrs X’s postal address

27. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right.

28. We have seen indications the Home Office sent letters to Mrs X’s address, and this caused a delay in Mrs X receiving the outcome of the Home Office’s Tier 1 decision. We wrote to the Home Office about this matter, and it told us it agreed with our findings and agreed to give Mrs X a consolatory payment of £350 accompanied by an apology. We have decided that following this the Home Office has done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mrs X. We hope Mrs X is reassured the Home Office has taken action on this issue.

29. We thank Mrs X for all the information she gave us to help us complete this primary investigation. We recognise Mrs X is likely to be disappointed with our decision to not look at her complaint further. We hope Mrs X understands the reasons for our decision to close the case at the primary investigation stage and has found our explanations helpful.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs X’s complaint about the Home Office Windrush Compensation Scheme.

2. We have seen no indication the Home Office got anything wrong when it decided Mrs X was not eligible for the Windrush compensation Scheme.

3. We do not wish to underestimate the deeply upsetting and traumatic circumstances Mrs X has told us she has experienced. Mrs X says as a result of being born in a West African Country and not being able to move to the UK with the rest of her family, she has lived separately from her family. She has experienced extreme poverty, hardship and lack of access to education. Mrs X says she experienced significant physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of the families who were acting as her guardian. The reason we are unable to look at these impacts is because we consider the Home Office followed the correct processes and guidance when it decided Mrs X was not eligible for the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

4. Mrs X also complained about the Home Office sending letters to her postal address despite her telling it she lived in a region in a West African Country that was not supported by a postal system. We have seen indications the Home Office sent letters to Mrs X’s address, and this caused a delay in Mrs X receiving the outcome of the Home Office’s Tier 1 decision. We wrote to the Home Office about this matter, and it told us it agreed with our findings and agreed to give Mrs X a consolatory payment of £350 accompanied by an apology. We have decided that following this the Home Office has done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mrs X.

5. We have set out more detailed explanations below and hope Mrs X will find the information in this statement helpful.