6. Miss A complained the WCS was wrong to not offer her compensation for the injustices she suffered after coming to the UK from Jamaica in the 1960s.
7. Miss A said that being repeatedly turned down for compensation was stressful and caused her upset. She wants the WCS to award her compensation.
8. Miss A arrived in the UK in January 1961 from Jamaica as a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. Miss A became a Jamaican citizen when it gained independence from the UK in August 1962.
9. During the 1960s, Miss A suffered racial discrimination when seeking employment. When she applied for a job advertised in the shop window, the sign was removed. Miss A described another occasion when she asked white people for directions to a potential employer. The people sent her down the wrong roads.
10. Also during the 1960s, Miss A encountered problems finding suitable accommodation for herself and her two young children. Miss A said she was forced to live in a shared room with her first child. Miss A described another occasion when a landlord of a room she rented told her there was not enough room for Miss A and her children. Miss A sent her second child to live with her mother in Jamaica.
11. Miss A visited her ill mother in Jamaica in 1970. She wanted to stay longer to care for her mother who was going blind. Miss A said she was compelled to leave her mother to return to the UK because the Prime Minister had made it mandatory for people to have documentation to be in the UK.
12. In December 1970, Miss A paid to register as a Citizen of the UK and Colonies again. Miss A’s asked the Windrush Compensation Scheme to make an award for this immigration fee.
13. Certain people (like Commonwealth citizens) settled in the UK before 1 January 1973 obtained the lawful right to stay in the UK from Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971. This lawful status came from that Act without the need for any documentation.
14. Miss A became a British citizen in 1983 when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force.
15. In April 2018 the Home Secretary announced the WCS 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 intended to put right the injustice caused by the unintended consequences of successive government’s policies on tackling illegal migration.
Issue 1 - WCS’s decision – no indications of maladministration
18. 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 something has gone wrong.
19. PHSO’s Principles of Good Administration says organisations should follow their own guidance and take relevant evidence into account when making decisions. The Home Office published the WCS Rules. This document sets out the criteria for making awards.
20. The WCS Rules allow for compensation awards for different types of injustice. Those injustices must be a consequence of the person being unable to show they held lawful status to be in the UK.
21. Miss A claimed in the immigration fees category for the £60 costs she paid in 1970 to person to help with her application to register as a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. The WCS’s August 2024 Tier 1 review said it could not compensate Miss A. It explained the WCS Rules only allow compensation for certain unsuccessful immigration applications where the person was unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. This did not apply in Miss A’s case.
22. Annex B to the WCS Rules said compensation will only be paid where an immigration application was unsuccessful solely because the applicant could not provide sufficient evidence of their lawful status. For this reason, we cannot see indications that the WCS made a mistake on this aspect of Miss A’s claim.
23. On loss of access to employment, Miss A’s compensation claim described occasions when she suffered racial discrimination when seeking employment. The WCS decided that it could not make an award in this category because Miss A had not described any circumstances when she was denied access to employment due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status.
24. Annex D to the WCS Rules says that awards in the loss of access to employment category can only be made where the reason for not getting employment was the person’s inability to demonstrate their lawful status. For this reason, we cannot see indications that the WCS made a mistake on this aspect of Miss A’s claim.
25. Miss A’s claim for compensation in the homelessness category was for events in the 1960s. This included time in the 1960s sofa surfing and living with a family who she did not want to live with.
26. The WCS noted the date of those events. It said immigration controls on housing services were introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and extended by the Immigration Act 2014. The WCS decided not to offer Miss A an award in this category because her experiences predated those immigration controls and, as such, her problems cannot be attributed to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status.
27. Annex G to the WCS Rules says that an award in the homelessness category can only be made if the reason for the homelessness was because of the person’s inability to demonstrate their lawful status. For this reason, we cannot see indications that the WCS made a mistake on this aspect of Miss A’s claim.
28. In the impact on life category, Miss A described the fear and pressure she felt in 1970 to apply for citizenship. Miss A was visiting her sick mother in Jamaica and was so worried that she cut short her trip to return to the UK and get her citizenship documentation. The WCS decided not to offer Miss A an award in this category because it was unable to link her experiences to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.
29. Annex H to the WCS Rules say that an award in the impact on life category can only be made where a person suffered detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the UK. For this reason, we cannot see indications that the WCS made a mistake on this aspect of Miss A’s claim.
30. The Windrush Compensation Scheme considered Miss A’s reasons for making her claim and the evidence included within her account. The Scheme appears to have correctly applied Miss A’s claim and evidence to the WCS Rules. Making an evidence-based decision in line with relevant guidance is in keeping with our Principle of taking relevant evidence into account when making decisions. As such, we have seen no indications the Windrush Compensation Scheme did anything wrong.
31. We recognise the worry about her status and racial prejudice that Miss A suffered in the 1960s and 1970s would have been deeply upsetting and traumatic. We hope, for the reasons set out above, she can understand why we are unable to help further with this matter.
1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (the WCS). We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.
2. The WCS decided Miss A did not meet the criteria for a compensation payment in any of the categories claimed for.
3. We have seen that the WCS’s decision appears to have been in line with the WCS Rules. As such, we have seen no indication this decision was wrong.
4. We recognise the worry about her status and racial prejudice that Miss A suffered in the 1960s and 1970s would have been deeply upsetting and traumatic. The reason we are unable to help is we have seen no reason to question the WCS’s view.
5. We have set out more detailed explanations below and trust Miss A will find the information in this statement helpful.