16. 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.
Homelessness 17. Mr B complains the WCS failed to properly consider the homelessness aspect of his claim.
18. Initially Mr B’s WCS claim was declined. Following a change to the WCS Rules Mr B’s claim was retrospectively reviewed and on 15 March 2021 he was awarded £47,300 compensation under the detention, deportation, removal and return and impact on life categories. He was not offered any compensation under the homelessness category.
19. On 4 November 2022 the Home Office wrote to Mr B to explain the homelessness category under the WCS rules had changed, by expanding the ways in which awards can be made under this category. This included people who experienced homelessness overseas and those who continued to be homeless due to an inability to demonstrate lawful status. It also removed the cap on homelessness awards. This meant people would be compensated for the actual period that they were homeless. The WCS applied these changes retrospectively to Mr B’s case.
20. On 25 January 2024 the Home Office wrote to Mr B to explain following further review it was not making an award under this category as it felt his homelessness was not a direct result of him being unable to demonstrate his lawful status. It explained under the rules of the scheme, to award under this category, it must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr B became, or continued to be, homeless because he was unable to demonstrate his lawful status. It felt it had not been provided with, or found any information to suggest that, this criterion has been met.
21. Ultimately the WCS felt Mr B had to leave his property due to reputational damage and the stigma attached to his detention. It considers the principal reason he had to leave the property was reputational damage and not due to an inability to demonstrate his lawful status.
22. Mr B was unhappy with this decision and referred his complaint to the Adjudicator for further consideration. During its review, the Adjudicator found the WCS’s initial decisions not to offer any compensation under the homelessness category was robust and in line with both the WCS Rules and the WCS Caseworker guidance. It said based on the evidence available to the WCS when they reached their decision of 6 November 2023 and when they reviewed it at Tier 1, the Adjudicator considered the Home Office’s decision is consistent with the WCS Rules and they did not find any grounds to conclude that it is unreasonable.
23. As part of his complaint to the Adjudicator Mr B provided additional information. He explained he was made homeless as he was unable to demonstrate his lawful status for a two-week remand period after he was released from detention. He explained he was required to sign on daily at an immigration centre. He explained his landlord inferred from this he was unable to demonstrate his lawful status and he was asked to leave the property. He says this was because the landlord did not want to be accused of housing undocumented immigrants. He explains this led to him sleeping for months on the street and impacted him severely. Causing irreparable reputational damage and exposed him to continuous psychological pain. This was new information which the WCS did not have the opportunity to consider as part of its initial consideration.
24. On 16 April 2024 the Adjudicator wrote to Mr B to explain following the provision of new evidence, it is recommending the Home Office reconsider the homelessness aspect of his claim. It explained it cannot reach new decision on the homelessness category based on information which the WCS has not seen. For that reason, the Adjudicator asked the WCS to reconsider their decision based on that additional information. The Adjudicator outlined while they have asked the WCS to reconsider its decision and provide a full explanation, this may not alter the decision.
25. The WCS reassessed homelessness on 8 October 2024 following the Adjudicator’s request and considered the new evidence in respect of him having to sign on at the immigration centre but found this did not change its decision in respect of the homelessness aspect of his claim. It says the evidence did not indicate he was formally made homeless because he could not demonstrate his lawful status. It considers the stigma and individual prejudice resulted in his homelessness, which did not satisfy the criteria to award under this category.
26. The WCS completed a further review in March 2025 to review the reassessment concluded on 8 October 2024 in which it determined that the new information had no material effect upon the original claim consideration and maintained the final decision not to award compensation for the homelessness aspect of Mr B’s WCS claim. This was because the WCS again could not see the reason Mr B became homeless was due to an inability to provide his lawful status.
27. We have reviewed the WCS’s decision that Mr B was not entitled to compensation under this category. The WCS Rules for homelessness are detailed in Annex G of the WCS Rules:
28. Section G4 explains an award for homelessness may be made to a primary claimant or an estate if the following conditions are met.
(a) The claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased became homeless on or after the relevant date.
(b) The reason the claimant or the deceased became homeless was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status. Or; (c) The reason the claimant or the deceased continued to be homeless was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status.
29. The WCS Caseworker guidance explains under the homelessness category they should assess a claim on the balance of probabilities. Claimants may provide documentary evidence which could include, but is not limited to: • copies of a homelessness application made to a local authority for help and support and decisions • any relevant correspondence • any assessments by the local authority • anecdotal evidence including witness statements and correspondence from the claimant or the estate • any relevant notes on the claimant’s immigration case record • media articles • contact and/or support from a charitable organisation and/or from a legal representative
30. The WCS Caseworker guidance also goes onto explain in the majority of cases the WCS caseworker should make enquiries of the relevant local authority to establish the necessary facts.
31. During its consideration of this category, the WCS caseworker contacted Mr B’s local Council housing options team and were informed they had been unable to locate any information relating to Mr B, and that their records did not appear to go back as far as the period in question. Therefore the evidence indicates the WCS caseworker has followed the WCS Caseworker guidance in making relevant enquiries to locate any evidence to support the claim.
32. Overall the WCS caseworker considered there was no evidence to demonstrate Mr B did not have access to accommodation in which it was reasonable for him to reside due to an inability to demonstrate his lawful status. The WCS caseworker decided the WCS Rules under Annex G were not met.
33. Mr B explained to us his claim under the homelessness category is that he was unable to demonstrate his lawful status in UK following his period of detention. He explains he still had to sign-on at the immigration centre after the detention. He told us his landlord and fellow occupants felt he was still unable to demonstrate his lawful right to live in the UK as he had to sign-on and he was asked to vacate the property. He explained this was because the owner of the property did not want to be accused of housing undocumented immigrants.
34. He told us how this event led to him sleeping for months on the streets and affected him severely. He told us how this caused him irreparable reputational damage and exposed him to continuous psychological pain and suffering. He believes his homelessness was as a direct result of his inability to demonstrate his lawful status in the UK. He considers this qualifies him for a compensation award under this category.
35. We are truly sorry to hear of the difficulties Mr B experienced because of his detention and the subsequent period he describes he was homeless for. We recognise his time in detention continues to have a significant impact on him. We have carefully considered the evidence available about his situation once he left detention.
36. The WCS considered that while Mr B was asked to leave the property by his landlord following his detention, there is no evidence to suggest he became homeless as a direct result of being unable to demonstrate his lawful status in the UK.
37. The WCS provided the Home Office records to us which demonstrated that Mr B’s release was authorised on 3 March 1987 without any conditions attached to this. This indicates he was not required to sign on at an immigration centre. We can see the WCS’s made further enquiries with the local authority – this did not show that Mr B was denied access to homeless support because of difficulties demonstrating lawful status.
38. Right to rent checks were introduced on 1 February 2016, under the Immigration Act 2014. Prior to this date (including 1987 when Mr B was detained) landlords were not required to check a tenants’ right to live in the UK. The WCS caseworker considered this and felt on the balance of probabilities, the WCS considers the reason why Mr B may have become homeless was not due to an inability to demonstrate his lawful status.
39. We appreciate the rationale given by WCS in refusing the claim for homelessness due to the stigma and prejudice that caused his homelessness is likely to have caused confusion, namely because they referred to stigma which was attached to his unlawful detention.
40. However, the WCS’s further work shows it obtained evidence about the cause of his homelessness – in particular, whether Mr B had to sign on weekly, whether landlords were obliged to consider lawful status at the time of the events and the reason for his homelessness from Mr B’s local Council. Records show that he was released without condition (it appears there was no requirement to sign-on as Mr B states) and Mr B’s local Council had no evidence about his homelessness. In addition, landlords were not required to check lawful status when renting out accommodation. Therefore, we are content WCS correctly applied the rules (as set out above) in its decision on his case.
Failure to follow the Adjudicator’s instruction 41. Mr B says the WCS refused to comply with the Adjudicator’s Office’s instruction to reconsider this aspect of his claim.
42. The Principles explain we expect public bodies to be customer focused by keeping to its commitments, including any published service standard.
43. On 16 April 2024 the Adjudicator wrote to Mr B to explain following the provision of new evidence, it is recommending the Home Office reconsider the homelessness aspect of his claim. As we explain above, the Adjudicator explained it cannot reach new decision on the homelessness category based on information which the WCS has not seen. For that reason, the Adjudicator asked the WCS to reconsider their decision based on that additional information. The Adjudicator outlined while they have asked the WCS to reconsider its decision and provide a full explanation, this may not alter the decision.
44. We can see the WCS then completed two further reviews of Mr B’s eligibility under the homelessness category, in October 2024 and March 2025. On both occasions the WCS caseworker felt the new evidence did not show Mr B was made homeless as he was unable to demonstrate his lawful status. It considers it was more to do with stigma and prejudice related to his detention.
45. We understand Mr B’s concerns the WCS failed to reconsider the homelessness category properly following the Adjudicator’s review. It is important to outline at this point the advice from the Adjudicator in its letter to Mr B that the WCS’s decision may not change. There is no formal instruction of the Adjudicator on what the outcome of this reconsideration may be. We therefore see no evidence to suggest there was a specific instruction to provide compensation under the homelessness category.
46. The evidence shows the WCS did properly reconsider the homelessness category following the Adjudicator’s review. The decision was the new evidence did not change the outcome that Mr B was not entitled to any compensation under this category. We have looked at the WCS’s actual consideration of this above.
47. Based on the evidence available, we are satisfied the WCS has properly followed the instruction from the Adjudicator to reconsider the new evidence. This is in line with the Principles of being customer focused and keeping to the commitments made. We have seen no indications of a failing here.
Delayed compensation award 48. Mr B complains there was a delay between March 2021 and November 2021 in the Home Office sending him the compensation award letter, despite him chasing this every week over the telephone.
49. The Home Office explained to us during our investigation it there is no formal service level agreement in place for issuing payments.
50. The Principles outline how we expect public bodies to behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales. They should also communicate effectively.
51. We have reviewed the evidence further. While we do not think there was a delay for the full duration Mr B says between March and November 2021, we seen indications of a delay in WCS progressing the case.
52. The evidence shows the decision to award compensation was submitted for approval on and approved on 16 March 2021. There is no evidence which shows the offer letter was issued to Mr B at that time.
53. Over the following months, Mr B made several telephone calls seeking updates on this. Finally Mr B spoke to the Home Office on 1 September 2021, and the error was identified. The Home Office apologised for this delay and arranged for the decision letter dated 15 March 2021, to be sent to Mr B by email the same day. The letter was not updated to reflect the current date.
54. We asked the Home Office about this and for clarification as to what happened after the award was calculated. It explains in Mr B’s case unfortunately, the action that should have followed the authorisation decision was not completed. It explains the precise reason for this remains unclear, although with hindsight it feels the likely cause was either an administrative oversight or human error. We are satisfied this is an accurate explanation of what happened.
55. The evidence suggests there was a five-month and three-week delay, between 15 March 2021 and 1 September 2021, in the Home Office sending the offer to Mr B. We can also see during this time the Home Office failed to provide any updates to Mr B about his compensation offer. This is contrary to the Principles on dealing with people promptly and communicating effectively.
56. Mr B explained to our service the delay in sending him the compensation award caused him distress and inconvenience, as he was constantly having to chase the Home Office for this. He says it prevented him from receiving the compensation he was entitled to on a timely basis.
57. We agree with this and think it is likely the delayed payment is likely to cause distress and inconvenience. Mr B explains how difficult this was, given the extremely difficult circumstances given his detention. We think it is likely, the failing would have compounded his distress at what was already a very difficult time. We are sorry to hear of how much Mr B has been impacted by this delay.
58. As an outcome of his complaint, Mr B has asked the Home Office to apologise, implement service improvements and provide a financial remedy.
59. We approached the WCS with our concerns in respect of the time taken to provide Mr B with his compensation award letter and the subsequent impact this is likely to have had on him. The WCS outlines it is willing to apologise to Mr B for the delay and offer a financial remedy of £350 in recognition of this. This is in line with a level two award on our guidance on financial remedy, which outlines we consider there has been an emotional impact of distress or annoyance lasting up to six months.
60. We are satisfied this provides Mr B with a sufficient outcome of this element of his complaint. We have considered whether any service improvements are required in relation to this issue. The WCS explained to us it considers this error is attributable to an administrative oversight or human error. We have seen no evidence to suggest there is a wider issue at hand in respect of delayed payments under the WCS, and we do not consider service improvements are required in relation to this issue. We hope Mr B is assured of the action the Home Office will take on this issue.
Incorrect calculation period 61. Mr B says the WCS has failed to include the four-day period (between 21 February and 25 February 1987) that he was detained by the police before he was transferred to the immigration detention centre. He says during this period he was detained under immigration powers, and the WCS award has failed to consider this as part of its calculations.
62. The WCS Rules for detention, deportation, removal and return are outlined under Section C1 of Annex C, which says an award under this Annex may be made to a primary claimant or an estate if the following conditions are met: (a) The primary claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased was detained, deported or removed under one or more provisions of the following legislation, or returned under one or more of those provisions or voluntarily: • The Immigration Act 1971; • The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; • The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; • The UK Borders Act 2007.
63. The WCS Rules explain after the first 30 minutes of detention, the hourly rate award for the next three hours is £500 per hour. For the subsequent six hours of detention the hourly award rate is £300 per hour, and the remaining balance of the first 24-hours of detention is £100 per hour. Each full day of continuous detention following the first 24 hours of detention attracts an award of £500.00 per 24-hour period for the first 30 days.
64. We spoke to the Home Office about this during our investigation. We asked for clarity on the period covered by the calculation and if it had any comments on this additional four-day period Mr B claims he was detained for. The Home Office explained to us there is no evidence Mr B was detained under immigration powers prior to the date the calculation started from under his award, on 26 February 1988.
65. We have carefully considered the available evidence and what Mr B has told us. We recognise the unacceptable circumstances of his detention. It is clear how strongly Mr B feels about this. He has explained the impact this continues to have on him.
66. We have not seen evidence to support Mr B’s interpretation of that period. The records show on 25 February 1987 Mr B attended the police station by arrangement to discuss road tax and insurance on his car. He was arrested as a suspected immigration act offender. On 26 February 1987 he was interviewed by an Immigration Officer at the police station. The interviewing officer decided he had obtained entry to the UK by falsely representing himself to be British citizen and therefore he was an illegal entrant. They authorised the detention of him under section 33(1) of Immigration Act 1971.
67. On 3 March 1987 he was reinterviewed by an Immigration Office who subsequently authorised his release.
68. We know Mr B disputes this. He has provided a letter from the Metropolitan Police about which he says supports his view about the additional four-day period of detention. The letter he provided says there are no records available from this period due to the time that has elapsed since Mr B’s arrest. The letter goes onto declines any liability in relation to any arrest and detention period, as it says the officers were acting on instruction of the Home Office.
69. We have considered this further. The Home Office file contains details of a claim submitted by Mr B’s solicitor in 1988 for wrongful arrest relating to the incident on 25 February 1987. In that 1988 wrongful arrest claim, Mr B’s solicitors stated: “At or about 8pm on 25th February 1987 the Plaintiff [Mr B] attended by arrangement at the Police Station in connection with inquiries relating to a motor vehicle for which he was the registered keeper.” They go on to state that he was questioned, arrested on suspicion of being an illegal entrant, and held in a police cell overnight.
70. Regarding Mr B’s arrest that night, the WCS considered there is no evidence he was detained under immigration powers on the evening of 25 February. The evidence available to us, namely the IS151A form (a notice of liability to removal issued by the UK government to individuals who have breached immigration conditions) and the handwritten notes provided indicates that immigration custody commenced the following day (26 February) at 4.55pm when the IS151A was served.
71. The Home Office told Mr B any period of detention prior to that would have been under police authority, not the Immigration Act. i.e. not due to queries about his right to reside in the UK, rather for separate reasons. We know Mr B disputes this. Based on the records we have seen, there is insufficient evidence which supports Mr B’s statement he was detained for longer than the Home Office records show.
72. As we explain above the WCS Rules about the calculation period are outlined in Annex C of the WCS Rules, section C1 of the Scheme requires that detention be under immigration legislation. The Home Office considers the time spent in police custody before the IS151A was served cannot be included in the period compensated for. While the IS151A was served at 4.55pm, the WCS award was calculated from 12am on 26 February 1987.
73. Using the rates outlined by the WCS Rules, the WCS calculated a total of £4,800 for Mr B’s first 24 hours of detention on 26 February 1987. For the subsequent five days detention, when allowing for part days to be rounded up to the nearest day, the WCS calculated a total of £2,500. Meaning his total award was £7,300 under this category. Based on the evidence Mr B’s award actually exceeded his entitlement under the WCS Rules.
74. Taking this into consideration, we are satisfied there are no indications the Home Office has incorrectly calculated Mr B’s award in respect of the period of his detention in February 1987, and it has followed the WCS Rules in respect of this.
75. We understand this is likely to be a disappointing decision. We appreciate Mr B was subject to a period of detention through no fault of his own. We trust he finds the explanations we have provided above helpful, in respect of the WCS decisions on the additional matters he raised above.