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. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
15. WCS should have considered Miss G’s claim in line with the scheme rules. They should have taken relevant evidence into account in line with our ‘Principles of Good Administration’.
16. In doing this, WCS reviewed Miss G’s claim form and submissions, correspondence with her, and identification and citizenship documents relating to both Miss G and her mother. WCS also considered discussions they had with Miss G, and Home Office files relating to Miss G and her mother.
Discretionary
17. Annex I1 of the WCS rules explains compensation may be considered for a CFM (Miss G) if they experienced significant financial impacts, loss or detriment as a result of being adversely affected by the primary claimant’s (her mother’s) inability to establish their lawful status. The information provided by Miss G detailed issues relating to her own application for citizenship, rather than her mother’s, therefore the WCS decided this issue would be best considered under Miss G’s application as a primary claimant, and because of this decided they could not award Miss G any compensation under the discretionary category as part of her CFM application.
18. Miss G told WCS she first had problems because of her mother’s inability to prove lawful status, when she attempted to apply for her passport at the age of 16. She said that because her mother had not acquired citizenship, her application was refused. Miss G told WCS she missed out on educational trips because of this. She said she was told that to get a British passport she needed to apply for naturalisation. To do this, she said she was forced to borrow money, which she had to pay back interest on over £1,000. Miss G also told WCS she had difficulties securing employment because of her lack of identification documents.
19. With regards to Miss G being unable to obtain a British passport at the age of 16, WCS found no evidence of any passport applications made by Miss G before 2017 (when she was aged 26). Despite this, WCS also established Miss G should never have been required to register as a British citizen, as she was already legally British under Section 1(1)(b) of the ‘British Nationality Act 1981’, which sets out that a person born in the UK ‘after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is […] settled in the United Kingdom’. This means a child born in the UK after this law began is a British citizen at birth if at least one parent was permanently allowed to live in the UK at that time.
20. WCS considered Home Office information that showed when Miss G’s mother arrived in the UK in 1967, her passport was stamped with a valid entry clearance to live in the UK. When the ‘Immigration Act 1971’ was enacted on 1 January 1973, Miss G’s mother automatically obtained Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) as a commonwealth citizen settled in the UK. Therefore, Miss G’s mother could legally stay in the UK permanently.
21. We understand Miss G said her mother’s passport was damaged and she could not get a replacement. Because the stamped passport was the only evidence of her mother’s lawful status, she became worried about her mother’s ability to prove that status and, in turn, Miss G feared she might be unable to prove her own lawful status as well. From reviewing the files WCS assessed when considering Miss G's application, we understand they had knowledge of this when making their decision.
22. Nevertheless, the fees paid by Miss G to register as a British Citizen are more appropriate for consideration under her application as a primary claimant, rather than her application as a CFM of her mother. This is because the fees paid relate to Miss G’s issues with her own status, rather than her mother’s. Under the WCS rules (I1(b)), the CFM must have ‘experienced significant impacts, loss or detriment of a financial nature as a result of being adversely affected by the primary claimant’s […] inability to establish their lawful status’. In summary, the impact claimed related to Miss G’s own application for citizenship, rather than her mother’s, so WCS considered the issue belonged under Miss G’s application as a primary claimant and therefore they did not award her compensation under the discretionary category as part of her CFM application.
23. During a phone call between WCS and Miss G, on 14 May 2024, WCS queried whether Miss G had ever helped financially with her mother’s immigration fees. In response to this, Miss G said she could not recall paying any fees towards her mother’s immigration applications and cannot recall supporting her financially. Whilst Miss G later said she did support her mother financially (when she requested a review of WCS’s decision), we cannot see any further evidence she submitted in support of this.
24. We reviewed the evidence considered by WCS in reaching their decision. This evidence has been set out in paragraph 16. Upon reviewing this, it is our view that WCS considered everything Miss G told them and applied their rules correctly, in line with our principles of good administration.
25. Whilst we empathise with Miss G’s experience and the financial and educational losses she has described, our review of WCS’s decision alongside their rules and our own principles of good administration has not found any indication they reached the wrong decision under the discretionary category of her CFM claim. We can also see Miss G had the opportunity to describe this experience as part of her application as a primary claimant, and for that application she received a total award of £40,000. In light of this, and because there is no evidence that WCS made an incorrect decision within this category, we will not be investigating this aspect further.
Impact on Life
26. Annex H1 of the WCS rules explains compensation may be considered to a CFM (Miss G) if they experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by the primary claimant’s (her mother’s) inability to demonstrate lawful status.
27. Similar to the discretionary category, Miss G described the fees she had to pay to register as a British Citizen and the frustration and confusion she faced as a result of having to do this. Miss G did not understand why she had to apply for British Citizenship when she was born in the UK. Miss G also described how she missed educational trips, job opportunities, and a family member’s funeral abroad because of this.
28. WCS were unable to award Miss G compensation for this experience for similar reasons as above. WCS rules (H1(b)) explain the CFM must have ‘experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by that primary claimant’s inability to demonstrate lawful status’ to be entitled to compensation. However, the frustration and confusion faced by Miss G as a consequence of this experience relates to her own citizenship status, rather than that of the primary claimant (her mother). Therefore, WCS decided this issue would be best considered under Miss G’s application as a primary claimant.
29. For this element of Miss G’s CFM application, under the impact to life category, we recognise the effect these circumstances have had on her and appreciate how difficult this must have been. Having reviewed WCS’s decision in line with their rules and our own ‘Principles of Good Administration’, we consider their approach to be consistent with what those rules require. We have not found any indication its decision under this part of the impact to life category was incorrect. As there are no indications of failings in how this decision was reached, we will not be investigating this aspect further.
30. As part of Miss G’s claim under the impact to life category as a CFM, Miss G also told the WCS she suffered significantly growing up as her mother was a single parent and could not work due to proving her immigration status and lack of documents. Miss G explained to the WCS how this affected her emotionally. Following her initial decision, Miss G added she had to support her mother financially.
31. WCS considered this but decided it was unable to link any of the impacts to Miss G’s mother being unable to prove her lawful status. Therefore, WCS decided, on the balance of probabilities, the issues Miss G described were financial and not linked to her mother’s lawful status, so Miss G was not entitled to compensation under the impact to life category of her CFM application.
32. We have assessed the evidence WCS relied upon when reaching their decision, as outlined in paragraph 16. Based on this, we consider WCS took full account of the relevant files they had, alongside information provided by Miss G and applied their rules appropriately, in line with our principles of good administration.
33. We recognise how important this part of Miss G’s claim is to her and the impact these circumstances have had. After reviewing this section of her application under the impact to life category, alongside WCS’s rules and our own ‘Principles of Good Administration’, we have not found any indication of failings based on the evidence submitted to and considered by the WCS. As there is nothing to suggest the decision was made incorrectly, we will not be investigating this aspect further.
Decision relating to other family members
34. We understand Miss G felt frustrated and confused that her application as a CFM was rejected, whilst other family members received compensation under applications as CFM and primary claimants. Whilst we are unable to review the applications of Miss G’s family members due to data protection legislation, we queried Miss G’s concerns with WCS and it explained that when there are known family members, it will identify and record these and there will be an element of cross-referencing family members’ claims to establish a history for the individual the claim relates to. In Miss G’s case, it did identify and link other individual claims to Miss G’s CFM claim.
35. WCS told us there is no route for consideration as a whole family unit. Each claim is assessed on its own unique circumstances and basis of claim. This can mean that members of the same family unit will receive different decisions in relation to compensation because each person will have had different experiences and impacts either because of their own inability to demonstrate lawful status, or because of the family member’s inability. For example, two children can claim as CFMs of the same parent but have very different experiences and claim different impacts.
36. Although we empathise with Miss G’s frustration at her family members receiving compensation under their own CFM applications when she believes their circumstances were comparable to her own, we are unable to comment on this further as we are unable to review her other family members’ files or applications.
37. We were sorry to hear about Miss G’s experiences and are grateful that she felt able to share them with us so openly. Although we have not been able to reach the decision she was hoping for, we hope this statement has offered some clarity and reassurance about how her CFM application was considered.