Home Office

6. Mrs A complains about the Home Office’s decision that she is not entitled to compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. She says she was declined compensation despite meeting some of the criteria for the scheme. She also complains that she was cold called by a staff member from the Home Office which did not allow her to answer the questions sufficiently.

7. Mrs A says the Windrush Compensation Scheme is unfair, biased and has failed her. She says she has been traumatised by this experience, and it has caused her to relive the past. She explains the stress of the application process and rejection decision has caused her distress, worry and anxiety.

8. As an outcome of her complaint Mrs A would like the Home Office to reconsider her claim for compensation and provide an apology for the prolonged wait she experienced because of the Home Office’s decision not to award her compensation in September 2022.

9. 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 intended to put right the injustice caused by the unintended consequences of successive governments’ policies on tackling illegal migration.

10. Mrs A arrived in the UK, from Jamaica, in the autumn of 1960. She had a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) passport valid until the end of the summer of 1965. Under the British Nationality Act 1949 she had the right to work and live in the UK, as a member of the Commonwealth.

11. On 6 August 1962 Jamaica gained independence from the UK. As a result, Mrs A became a citizen of Jamaica on this date and lost her CUKC citizenship.

12. Mrs A has described her circumstances of moving to the UK. She described the difficulties finding landlords who would accept her due to racist discrimination and how she had no option but to live in poor housing conditions.

13. Mrs A has described difficulties finding, and keeping, employment because potential employers refused to speak to her and insulted her with derogatory racist slurs. She said one job was taken off her and given to a white man.

14. She told us she left another job because she sustained a work related back injury. She said she was not allowed to take time off for treatment and her employers told her she would be fired if she told anyone about her injury.

15. She said she worked as an auxiliary nurse in the late 1970s. She says she was let go after she reported her back injury. She says after that she never worked again as her injury left her disabled.

16. Mrs A describes how threatening she found living in the UK towards the end of the 1960s because of the rise of the National Front. She described how she experienced racist abuse and slurs, and how nationalists would target black people on the streets and in their homes and how frightened she was to walk on the streets at night.

17. Towards the end of 1979 Mrs A applied for registration as a citizen of the UK and colonies prior to the introduction of the British Nationality Act 1981. She paid a fee of £37.50. Mrs A told us about the anxiety and worry she experienced when she wasn’t sure if she would have her legal status recognised. She said her family cut back on essential spending for the family to ensure they had enough money for the citizenship paperwork.

18. In the Summer of 1981 Mrs A’s application for registration as a citizen of the UK and colonies was approved.

19. In the Autumn of 1983 Mrs A was registered as a British Citizen.

20. Mrs A said when she heard the Home Office was deporting black people because their records proving they had a right to stay in the UK had been destroyed, she became frightened.

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 indication that something has gone wrong because we consider the Home Office applied its criteria and rules correctly. We have explained our decision below.

Issue 1 - Mrs A complains she was declined compensation despite meeting some of the criteria for the scheme

24. We consider the Home Office applied its criteria and rules correctly when it decided Mrs A did not meet the criteria to be awarded compensation. The Adjudicator set out a very clear explanation about how the Home Office reached its view and why Mrs A did not meet the criteria, in its letter to Mrs A. We have referred to the explanations given in that letter.

25. The Windrush Compensation Scheme is designed to compensate individuals for impacts they experienced as a result of being unable to demonstrate they held lawful status to live in the UK. ‘Being unable to demonstrate lawful status’ means a person who has the legal right to live and work in the UK but does not have the means to prove this to an individual or organisation, such as an employer or government department.

26. The Home Office published the Windrush Compensation Scheme Rules. This document sets out the criteria for making awards. The rules allow for compensation to be offered:

• for loss of access to employment where the reason for a primary claimant’s inability to access employment was due to their inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.

• for homelessness (including where a primary claimant did not have access to accommodation in which it was reasonable for them to reside) if the reason the primary claimant became or continued to be homeless was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status.

• where a person has suffered an impact on their impact on daily life because of their inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.

27. The Adjudicator found that Mrs A had documentary proof of her lawful status between the autumn of 1960 to summer of 1962 and then from the autumn of 1983 onwards. Between the summer of 1962 and autumn of 1983 Mrs A may not have had documentary evidence of her lawful status.

28. We accept Mrs A experienced loss of opportunities for employment, and difficult living conditions. We consider the Home Office was acting in line with its rules when it said these impacts were not a result of her inability to demonstrate her lawful status. This is because, between 1962 and 1983, Landlord and employer checks did not exist as they do today and Mrs A had told them that her right to work/status in the UK had never been questioned.

29. The Home Office found the issues Mrs A experienced accessing accommodation to be more likely to be a result of racial bias or prejudice, as opposed to an inability to demonstrate lawful status.

30. It is undisputed that members of the Windrush generation experienced unacceptable racism and social prejudice during their lives, as per the events Mrs A detailed in her claim. Racism can be experienced by an individual whose lawful status is not in dispute. For example, if a prospective employer does not select someone for a role based on their prejudiced and racist views, even if they do not dispute the applicant’s legal right to work in the UK. This is unacceptable and morally wrong. However, this is an instance of racism which falls outside of what the WCS scheme is set up to provide compensation for.

31. Mrs A said she experienced worry and distress when hearing about other members of her community being at risk of being deported. The Adjudicator explained the worry and distress Mrs A experienced was a result of another person’s inability to demonstrate lawful status in the UK, as opposed to her own. And therefore, she does not meet the criteria.

32. We consider the Home Office was acting in line with the rules it had in place (between 2021 and 2023), when it said it was unable to reimburse Mrs A’s fee for her applications for registration as a CUKC and British Citizenship, because these applications were successful.

33. The WCS rules in place (at the time it considered Mrs A’s application) said an award representing the amount of fees paid for an immigration application may be made, if the application was unsuccessful, because the primary claimant could not provide evidence of their lawful status.

Issue 2 – Mrs A complains she was cold called by a staff member from the Home Office which did not allow her to answer the questions sufficiently

34. We consider the Home Office acted in line with the WCS casework guidance when it called Mrs A to gather information over the phone.

35. The Home Office contacted Mrs A for additional information in relation to her claim. During the call the Home Office asked Mrs A if she had ever been unable to prove her right to stay in the UK. She told the Home Office her right to work in the UK was never questioned. She said when she was job hunting, she was discriminated against due to the colour of her skin. She was hired but not kept on because of the colour of her skin. She was forced to work in poor conditions because of the colour of her skin. The telephone call handler asked: ‘Is there anything you would like to ask me or add to support your claim’. Mrs A answered ‘No – I put everything I wish to in the original claim’.

36. Mrs A’s representative told us the Home Office should not have cold called Mrs A. She told us due to Mrs A’s age she was not prepared and didn't understand the questions and did not answer them sufficiently. She says due to her lack of confidence she didn't ask clarifications when she didn’t understand.

37. The Home Office WCS caseworker guidance says when a claim is received without the minimum information required, the caseworker should: • write to those claimants and outline what information is required • ensure claimants feel supported to obtain the information or documentation required • clearly explain what they are asking for and why this may help with their claim • contact claimants using their preferred contact method, as well as the preferred day/time that they would like to be contacted.

38. Based on this guidance, the caseworker should have written to outline what information was required and what support was available. In this case we understand why it was more appropriate for the Home Office to ask for this information by telephone, rather than by letter. This is because it needed information about one issue (whether Mrs A had ever been unable to prove her right to stay in the UK) and this information would be more easily obtained from a discussion.

39. The Home Office recorded Mrs A’s preferred contact method as phone. This is because Mrs A did not provide an email address on her claim form. As Mrs A had not provided her email, the Home Office was unable to enquire about her preferred day and time to be contacted, and it would not have been practical to make this enquiry by letter.

40. We can see the call handler told Mrs A he was calling from the Home Office about her WCS claim and asked if she was fee to talk. Mrs A replied ‘yes’. We think this was sufficient for the Home Office to proceed in line with the WCS casework guidance.

41. We have not seen any indication the Home Office should have identified Ms A as needing additional support or adjustments during this communication. This is because there is no indication Mrs A did not understand or was not able answer the question sufficiently because of her age.

42. Mrs A appeared to understand the question, and she gave a clear answer. The information Mrs A gave appears to be correct and sufficient because her response was consistent with what she wrote in her primary claim form, the tier 1 review form, and what her representative told us.

43. Neither Mrs A, or her representative, have provided any further relevant information which would have led to the Home Office reaching a different decision. Nor have they set out what questions Mrs A did not understand, or what further clarification she needed.

44. For these reasons, we consider it was appropriate for the Home Office to call Mrs A to gather further information, and we have not seen any indication this put Mrs A at a disadvantage.

45. We recognise Mrs A’s is likely to be disappointed by our decision to close her case, we hope she has found our explanations helpful and understands the reasons for our decision to close her case.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs A’s complaint about the Home Office Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). We have seen no indication anything went seriously wrong.

2. The WCS decided Mrs A did not meet the criteria for a compensation payment under the Loss of Access to Employment, Homelessness, Impact on Life and Immigration Fees categories of the scheme. This was because the injustice Mrs A suffered was likely caused by racist and societal attitudes held at the time.

3. We do not wish to underestimate the deeply upsetting and traumatic circumstances Mrs A experienced when she came to the UK. We have seen no reason to question the Home Office’s view – that her experiences were not caused by issues proving her lawful status in the UK and do not fall within the criteria of the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The racism Mrs A told us she experienced was deplorable and morally wrong. However, these instances of racism fall outside of what the WCS scheme is set up to provide compensation for.

4. We consider the Home Office acted in line with the WCS casework guidance when it called Mrs A to gather information over the phone.

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