Rejected Application for the Windrush Compensation Scheme
13. Mr I complains that his application for compensation through the Windrush Compensation Scheme was rejected. He believes that he has met the criteria required for his application to be approved, but that it was rejected because the HO failed to acknowledge his experiences or the ongoing impact of them. He told us that he was often subjected to racism, and that he was denied employment and housing because of this.
14. 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. During our primary investigation, we looked at the actions and decisions the HO took and considered whether these were in line with existing policy and guidance. In doing so we found no indications that something had gone wrong.
15. The Home Office provided its Tier 1 Review Decision on 3 August 2024
16. Mr I had requested a review of his decision under the following categories of the Windrush Compensation Scheme:
• Loss of Access to Employment • Denial of Access to Housing Services • Homelessness • Impact on Life
17. For each of the four categories, the Home Office had determined that Mr I was not entitled to an award. Following the review, it upheld the decision for all four categories.
Loss of Access to Employment
18. Mr I had explained that he experienced difficulty accessing employment in the United Kingdom (UK) during the 1970s and 1980s because he had no documentation to prove his lawful status to employers. He also felt that this rejection was due to racism.
19. The Home Office explained that under this category, an award may be considered if an applicant had their employment terminated, had an offer of employment withdrawn or were otherwise unable to access employment because of an inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
20. It noted that the requirement for status checks by employers was only introduced in 1997 and so any issues prior to this would not have been because of an inability to demonstrate lawful status, because employers would not have been checking for this.
21. Because of this, the Home Office said that it was not able to link any difficulties that Mr I experienced in accessing employment with an inability demonstrating his lawful status.
Denial of Access to Housing Services
22. In his original application Mr I detailed the problems he encountered when attempting to rent a flat as he was unable to provide evidence of his lawful status. During this time, he had to live with friends and family members because he could not find housing of his own.
23. The Home Office noted that he provided further detail regarding these events during a telephone conversation on 9 November 2023. Mr I had explained that this had occurred during the late 1970s and/or early 1980s.
24. Mr I said he had also tried to access council housing but he was deemed a low priority, and it wasn’t until 1986 that he was finally able to secure housing through a private landlord.
25. The HO acknowledged that Mr I may have encountered difficulties accessing housing in the 1970s and 1980s but said it could not link this to an inability to demonstrate lawful status. At this time, there had been no requirement for private landlords or local councils to check a person’s immigration status.
26. It said checks on housing services were introduced into UK law under the ‘Asylum and Immigration Act 1996’ and right to rent checks were introduced for landlords in the UK’s private rented sector in the ‘Immigration Act 2014’.
27. The Home Office told Mr I that this meant that any difficulty accessing housing services prior to these dates would not have been due to an inability to demonstrate lawful status.
Homelessness
28. When making his claim, Mr I told the Home Office that he moved out of his family home. Due to the difficulties accessing housing that we discussed previously, he had to stay with friends, sleeping on a sofa for over a year (spanning 1983-1984).
29. The Tier 1 Review acknowledges these difficulties, but as in the previous category notes that because private landlords and local councils were not required to check a person’s immigration status at this point, it could not link the impacts described by Mr I to any inability to demonstrate lawful status.
Impact on Life
30. As already noted above, Mr I had told the Home Office about the difficulties he had gaining employment and housing in the 1970s and 1980s. In his claim, he also described experiencing racial discrimination throughout this period and discussed the mental impact of these events (which have continued throughout his life). Mr I told the Home Office about the challenges he faced after first arriving in the UK and how this led to him being worried about his family.
31. He went into detail about how this had been an incredibly scary and anxiety inducing time, and the long-term trauma he experienced because of this. He said he still feels the impact today and suffers flashbacks from this period despite his attempts to forget.
32. The Home Office explained that “Lawful status, as defined by the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) rules, refers to the following:
• A right of abode in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the ‘Immigration Act 1971’ • Indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the ‘Immigration Act 1971’”
33. The Home Office noted that Mr I was born in Jamaica in 1956. Jamaica gained independence from the UK on 06 August 1962, and the Home Office explained that this meant Mr I became a citizen of Jamaica and Commonwealth at this point.
34. Mr I came to the UK in May 1968 on a Jamaican passport. When the ‘Immigration Act 1971’ came into action (on 1 January 1973), Mr I automatically obtained Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). This is an immigration status that allows someone to settle in the UK permanently, and to live, work and study in the UK without restrictions.
35. This remained Mr I’s lawful status until he registered as a British citizen on 6 December 1988. The Home Office explained that to provide an award in the ‘Impact on Life’ category, it must be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, an applicant had experienced a detrimental impact as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
36. It told Mr I that the WCS is designed to compensate individuals and their family members who have suffered loss in connection with an inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK.
37. The Home Office acknowledged the impact that Mr I had described to them, including that he was a victim of racial discrimination, but made the decision that there was insufficient evidence to suggest these experiences were caused by an inability to demonstrate lawful status in the UK.
38. The Home Office said that because Mr I was able to successfully apply for naturalisation, this suggested he was able to demonstrate his lawful status.
Second Review:
39. Mr I challenged the Tier 1 Review decision, and the case was then escalated to the Adjudicator’s Office (the AO). The AO provided its Tier 2 Review decision on 10 March 2025.
40. In setting out its decision, the AO covered the scope of the WCS, noting that it is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. It explains that WCS rules can only apply where the claimant has lawful status but has been unable to demonstrate that.
41. It explained that while each category in which a person can make a claim under the WCS has its own specific criteria, all categories share the common requirement that the claimant experienced the impact because they were unable to demonstrate that they held lawful status.
42. It also noted that racism falls outside the scope of the scheme and therefore the Home Office cannot make any awards for the impact of racial discrimination.
43. The AO’s response noted the impacts Mr I had described to the Home Office in his application, and the Home Office’s subsequent decision that while it did not dispute that these impacts occurred, it had not seen enough evidence to suggest they were more likely than not caused by Mr I not being able to demonstrate his lawful status.
44. The AO accepted the reasons that the Home Office had given for rejecting Mr I’s application and said it would not ask the Home Office to review its decision.
Analysis and Decision:
45. As well as complaining about the decision to reject his application, Mr I said the Home Office had not acknowledged the experiences he had, or the ongoing impact of them. However, in the responses from both the Home Office and the AO it does appear that his experiences and the impact on him were acknowledged and referred to several times.
46. The Home Office has not disputed Mr I’s claims that these events occurred, or the impact he suffered because of them, but has explained that there is nothing to indicate that the cause of them was Mr I being unable to demonstrate his status.
47. Given the explanation provided (primarily that various checks on a person’s immigration or citizenship status were not required at the time period in question), this would appear to be correct. This is also supported by the fact Mr I was able to successfully apply for naturalisation.
48. We have reviewed the introduction and background section of the Gov.uk guidance ‘Windrush Compensation Scheme: full rules’, which states:
49. “This compensation scheme is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom.”
50. In PHSO’s own guidance on ‘Principles of Good Administration’, we set out the standards we expect to find when investigating a complaint. These principles aim particularly to promote a shared understanding of what is meant by good administration and to help public bodies in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction provide a first-class public service to their customers
51. In the section ‘Getting it right’, we explain that “All public bodies must comply with the law and have regard for the rights of those concerned. They should act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal.
52. Public bodies must act in accordance with recognised quality standards, established good practice or both, for example about clinical care.”
53. We also say we expect that “In their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.”
54. The evidence we have seen suggests that the HO has indeed followed its own policy and procedural guidance when assessing Mr I’s claim.
55. We appreciate that Mr I has been subjected to very difficult conditions at times, including but not limited to his difficulty in securing employment and housing. The HO felt that there was not enough evidence to say these difficulties were more likely than not caused by an inability to demonstrate his lawful status in the UK. We have not seen anything to suggest this conclusion was unreasonable. As that is the key criteria for eligibility under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, we could not find that there is any indication of maladministration or service failure in the HO’s decision. They appear to have considered the information Mr I gave them and followed the rules governing the scheme. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration.