Form of Awards - Lump Sum and Periodical Payments
Infected Blood Inquiry · Second Interim Report · Issued 5 April 2023 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
I recommend that: a) awards should be made in a lump sum in respect of an Injury Impact Award, Social Impact Award, Autonomy Award, and an award to compensate for past losses under the Care Award and Financial Loss Award for infected and affected persons; b) at the option of the applicant, for continuing future losses under the Care Award and Financial Loss Award, there should be paid either a lump sum award or payment by way of guaranteed periodical payments uplifted annually for inflation for life, or the predicted period of the loss, if earlier; c) an infected person should have the option of receiving a lesser lump sum as a provisional award (i.e. one assessed on the footing that as a result of receiving infected blood or blood products or tissue transfer there is a chance that at some definite or indefinite time in the future they will develop some serious disease or suffer some serious deterioration in their physical or mental health) such that in that case they may return to the scheme, or in accordance with arrangements to be made by the scheme, for further compensation then to be paid in respect of the newly developed disease or deterioration; and d) unless the option to have a provisional award is taken, all awards should be final.
Infected Blood Inquiry, Second Interim Report · 5 Apr 2023 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The Government stated in December 2024 that payment options including lump sum and periodical payments had been implemented (Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Cabinet Office, December 2024).
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government — initial response
In line with recommendations 9 and 10 of the Second Interim Report, acceptance of an award does not require applicants to waive their right to pursue litigation. In defined circumstances, if an infected person's condition deteriorates after their compensation award has been assessed, they will be able to return to IBCA for reassessment to determine whether they are eligible for an additional compensation payment. A reassessment following a health deterioration will be possible at any time, regardless of the time that has passed since a person's initial assessment.
UK Government · 17 Dec 2024 Written response →
●UK Government — follow-up
The scheme provides lump sum awards for core compensation. Options exist for periodical payments for ongoing losses. Provisional award options allow return to scheme if condition deteriorates.
UK Government · 14 May 2025 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 17 Dec 2024 Payment options implemented including lump sum and periodical payment choices. Source →
- 15 Jan 2026 · IBCA Community Update As of 13 January 2026: 3,721 people asked to start claims, 3,546 begun process, 3,074 received offers totalling £2.47bn, 2,861 paid totalling £1.89bn. Third compensation regulations in force 31 December 2025. View source → Good Progress
- 31 Dec 2025 · UK Parliament Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 established IBCA. Three sets of scheme regulations in force (Aug 2024, Mar 2025, Dec 2025). First payments December 2024. £1.89bn paid to 2,861 people by January 2026. View source → Good Progress
- 28 Oct 2025 · IBCA Independent Review IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin compensation claims; 1,934 started process. £812m+ paid via Horizon Shortfall Scheme. £11.8bn committed in Autumn Budget. View source → Reasonable Progress
- 22 Jul 2025 · IBCA Community Update Infected Blood Compensation Authority established August 2024. First claims for deceased infected/affected opened December 2025. IBCA accepted all 11 recommendations directed to them. View source → Good Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.