Home Office

3. Miss A complains about the HO’s award under the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). She tells us the HO awarded her £40,000 and her children £20,000, whilst her husband received over £100,000. She does not think the HO fully considered all her evidence and circumstances in the categories she applied for in her WCS application.

4. Miss A feels let down by the HO’s decision. She says it has severely impacted her mental health and she will never be out of debt.

5. Miss A seeks compensation in line with her husband’s award.

6. In December 1954, Miss A’s spouse was born in Trinidad and Tobago.

7. In 1958 Miss A’s spouse arrived in the UK.

8. In May 1973, Miss A was born in the UK.

9. In February 2010, Miss A’s spouse was suspended from working in the NHS as he was unable to prove his eligibility to work in the UK.

10. In September 2011, Miss A’s spouse was dismissed from his employment in the NHS, he had worked there for five years, held a permanent contract but was unable to demonstrate his lawful right to work in the UK.

11. In October 2011, Miss A and her spouse were convicted of benefit fraud and both sentenced to a two-year custodial sentence. Their children originally went to stay with a family member, however that did not work out and the children were placed in foster care. After serving 6 months in prison, Miss A was released and went to live with her sister, and her children came back to live with her. However, she explains she lost the family home because of rent arrears.

12. In November 2011, the HO opened a criminal case – which was automatic deportation for Miss A’s spouse. In December 2012, the criminal case closed due to Miss A’s spouse holding Commonwealth Citizen residency before 1 January 1973.

13. In December 2014 Miss A’s spouse stated he applied for employment in the NHS and was successful, but this offer was later rescinded due to his inability to demonstrate his lawful status in the UK.

14. In January 2015, Miss A’s spouse applied for no time limit (NTL) - indefinite leave to remain (ILR).

15. In March 2015, Miss A’s spouse was granted NTL.

The Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS)

16. The WCS was launched on 3 April 2019. It is intended to provide redress for certain losses and detriment experienced by those who came to the UK legally many years ago and are entitled to live and work here, but who were unable to evidence those rights.

17. The WCS is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom. Those most affected are often referred to as the “Windrush generation”. This name refers to the “Empire Windrush”, one of the first ships that brought workers from Caribbean islands to the United Kingdom in 1948, in response to labour shortages following the Second World War.

18. There is no single or consistent picture of the loss suffered by those affected. The WCS has been designed to address potential losses under a range of categories and to take into account the impact of the losses in each case, as far as possible.

Miss A complains about the HO’s award under the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). She tells us the HO awarded her £40,000 and her children £20,000, whilst her husband received over £100,000. She does not think the HO fully considered all her evidence and circumstances.

21. 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.

22. Miss A submitted an application for the WCS as a close family member of a primary claimant (her spouse). Miss A complains about the HO’s awards under the Impact on Life and Living Costs categories of her WCS claim. We have set out our view of each category below:

Impact on Life

23. The HO sent its final award letter to Miss A at the end of June 2023. In considering whether the HO reached a reasonable decision, we have considered the relevant Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) rules for this category, which set out when an award may be made for non-financial impacts on life. These are outlined below: H1. An award under this Annex may be made to a primary claimant, an estate or a close family member if the following conditions are met.

(a) In respect of a primary claimant or an estate, the primary claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the United Kingdom.

(b) In respect of a close family member of a primary claimant or the deceased, the close family member experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by that primary claimant’s (or deceased’s) inability to demonstrate lawful status.

(c) The detrimental impacts experienced are of the type described in paragraph H2 (a) to (f).

H2. Detrimental impacts for the purposes of paragraph H1 are non-financial impacts of the following type and description: (a) inconvenience(b) injury to feelings, including anxiety, distress and reputational damage(c) family separation(d) immigration difficulties when attempting to return to the United Kingdom following a trip abroad(e) inability to attend significant family occasions, celebrations and events(f) impacts relating to a deterioration in physical or mental health such as pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

24. The HO initially considered information provided by Miss A covering the period from September 2011 to the submission of her WCS claim in April 2021. We have seen that the HO assessed Miss A’s supporting evidence in detail, including information about her ongoing physical and mental health conditions, which she said were exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding her husband’s lawful status.

25. The HO considered Miss A’s account that her medical conditions had worsened during this period. Miss A told the HO she was receiving treatment for depression, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and Type 2 diabetes. She provided a medical summary in support, which the HO took into account when reaching its decision in this category.

26. Miss A also provided further information about the loss of her family home in 2011. She told the HO that she was evicted, her family became homeless, and her three children were placed in foster care, which she said occurred because her husband was unable to evidence his lawful status. Miss A stated she was unable to claim benefits and that this led to prolonged family separation and a deterioration in her mental health.

27. Miss A explained that her children missed education and that the separation had a serious impact on their emotional and physical wellbeing. She submitted social services records and medical reports as supporting evidence.

28. The HO contacted Miss A by telephone in November 2021 to explore the impact of events following her spouse’s loss of employment in 2010. Miss A described reliance on food banks, reduced benefits and debt. She also described the distress caused by her husband being under threat of deportation in 2011.

29. The HO further considered the impact on Miss A following her spouse’s release from prison and his ability to gain employment. Miss A told the HO she was advised her benefits would stop if she lived with her husband, which caused further hardship and uncertainty.

30. The HO also considered evidence relating to the withdrawal of a job offer made to Miss A’s spouse in 2014 and Miss A’s benefit fraud conviction, which she said was connected to her spouse being described as an illegal immigrant in court proceedings.

31. Following its assessment, the HO concluded that it could not, on the balance of probabilities, link all the events and impacts described to Miss A’s spouse’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. While it recognised this was a very difficult period in Miss A’s life and acknowledged the significant impact on her mental and physical health, the HO offered a Level 3 award under this category, totalling £40,000.

32. Miss A remained dissatisfied and felt the HO had not fully reflected the seriousness and cumulative impact of her experiences. She therefore requested a Tier 1 review in June 2023. The HO issued its Tier 1 review response in April 2024.

33. The Tier 1 review accepted that Miss A’s circumstances had negatively affected her mental health. However, the HO did not agree that, on the balance of probabilities, Miss A’s physical health conditions had been exacerbated by her spouse’s inability to demonstrate his right to work.

34. The Tier 1 review reconsidered Miss A’s claim that her family home was lost because her benefits were stopped. The HO explained that it had made enquiries with the Department for Work and Pensions during its initial consideration and found no evidence that benefits had been refused due to an inability to demonstrate lawful status. The HO also noted that Miss A’s spouse confirmed his benefits had not been stopped for this reason.

35. The HO concluded that the loss of Miss A’s home was linked to benefits issues and her imprisonment in 2011, rather than her spouse’s immigration status. As a result, it did not make an award for this element of her claim.

36. The HO accepted that the loss of employment experienced by Miss A’s spouse would have had a significant detrimental impact on her and her family. It also acknowledged that the existence of a deportation order would have caused distress and negatively affected Miss A’s mental health. The Tier 1 review concluded that a Level 3 award appropriately reflected the impact supported by the evidence and that the WCS rules had been correctly applied.

37. As Miss A remained unhappy, she exercised her right to request a review by the Adjudicator, which she submitted at the end of October 2024. She provided additional medical letters dated April and May and further information about her financial situation and debts.

38. The Adjudicator concluded that the HO had considered the evidence provided both at the final award stage and during the Tier 1 review and found no basis to conclude that its decisions were wrong or inconsistent with the WCS rules.

39. Having carefully considered all of the above, we have not seen any indication that the HO made an error in this category. We are satisfied that the HO and Adjudicator considered the evidence Miss A provided and applied the WCS rules correctly. In reaching this view, we have had regard to the Level 3 descriptor, which states:

Ability to live a relatively normal life was substantially affected. More than one area of the claimant’s life may have been affected and the overall impacts were significant. Cumulative impacts will have been experienced for an extended period (several months) with recovery or a return to normal life having taken a reasonable amount of time. Short periods of focused medical treatment may have been necessary.

40. We recognise that Miss A’s health and family life were affected during this period, and we do not underestimate the seriousness of the experiences she described. We can see that the HO considered these impacts carefully but concluded that some of the most significant events, including imprisonment, loss of the family home and family separation, could not be linked, on the balance of probabilities, to her spouse’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. We have found this assessment to be reasonable and consistent with the evidence and the WCS rules.

41. We consider the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly getting it right. This principle requires public bodies to follow relevant rules and guidance, consider evidence fairly, and reach decisions that are reasoned and proportionate. We are satisfied that the HO applied the correct WCS criteria, used a balance of probabilities approach, and explained its reasoning clearly.

Immigration and Legal Fees

42. The relevant WCS rules for this category are:

B1. An award representing the amount of fees paid for an immigration application (“the application”) may be made to a primary claimant, estate, or close family member (“the fee payer”) if the following conditions are met.

(a) The fee payer making the claim paid the fee and supplies proof of payment of the fee or such other information as may be reasonably required by the Home Office to establish the fee was paid.(b) If the fee payer is a close family member, the fee payer further supplies in a format acceptable to the Home Office:(i) confirmation from the primary claimant to whom the fee payer is related (or from the estate where the primary claimant is deceased) that the fee payer paid the fee on behalf of the relevant claimant(ii) signed agreement from that primary claimant (or estate) permitting the Home Office to make an award to the fee payer; and(iii) signed agreement from that primary claimant (or estate) that they have not made and will not make additional claims for that same fee.

43. In its final award letter of June 2023, the HO acknowledged Miss A’s account that her spouse had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a British passport on four occasions in 2010 and that she had provided him with money to cover these applications. However, Miss A was not able to provide documentary evidence to confirm that the fees had been paid, or the amounts involved.

44. The HO explained that, in the absence of evidence showing that Miss A paid the fees claimed, it was unable to make an award under this category. It also explained that fees relating to British passport applications do not fall within the scope of the Windrush Compensation Scheme. This position is reflected in the WCS rules, which limit awards in this category to the following application types:

(e) The application was one of the following types:(i) British citizenship(ii) confirmation of British nationality status(iii) certificate of entitlement to a right of abode(iv) indefinite leave to enter(v) indefinite leave to remain(vi) no time limit(vii) returning resident visa application; or(viii) a biometrics application ancillary to an application in (i) to (vii) above.

45. We consider that the HO’s decision in this category was in line with the WCS rules. As Miss A was unable to provide evidence of the fees she said she paid, and as British passport applications are excluded from this category, the HO reached a decision that was reasonable on the basis of the evidence available to it.

46. We consider the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration here, particularly getting it right. This principle requires organisations to act in accordance with the relevant legislation, policy, and guidance, and to base decisions on appropriate evidence. The HO clearly explained why an award could not be made under this category and linked its decision to the relevant WCS rules, demonstrating a proper and transparent application of the WCS.

Living Costs

47. The relevant WCS rules for this category are:

J1. An award under this Annex may be made to a close family member if the following conditions are met.

(a) The close family member incurred significant additional living costs paid to, or on behalf of, the primary claimant, as a direct result of the primary claimant being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the United Kingdom.

48. Miss A had informed the HO that she had paid a significant amount on food, bills and care from 2012 and these payments were still ongoing. Miss A provided bank statements in support of her application.

49. In the HO’s final award letter of June 2023, it deemed Miss A had not given or obtained evidence to show the additional living costs were incurred were as a direct result of her spouse being unable to demonstrate their lawful status.

50. The Tier 1 review of April 2024 reconsidered this category. The HO said Miss A called the HO in May 2023 and said she did not have any evidence to support this part of her claim. Miss A called the HO again in May 2023 and said despite making several attempts to gather this information she was not able to do so. Miss A had initially provided bank statements and asked the HO to consider these as part of her claim under this category.

51. The bank statements Miss A supplied were dated from March 2016 to December 2021 and showed payments to her spouse. As such, the HO said it could not consider these as Miss A’s spouse was granted no time limit (NTL) leave in March 2015. This meant that Miss A’s spouse had evidence he was lawfully in the UK from March 2015, and the additional costs Miss A incurred were not due to her spouse’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. The HO upheld its initial decision in this category and did not make an award.

52. The Adjudicator reviewed this category and agreed with the HO’s above position.

53. We have seen the HO and Adjudicator decisions assessed all the evidence available to them in consideration of this category. We have seen that Miss A supplied evidence that postdated her spouse’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status. As such we have not seen any indication that anything went wrong here.

54. We consider the HO made its decision in line with Principles of Good Administration, getting it right. As above this principle states we expect organisations to act in accordance with the relevant legislation, policy, and guidance. We consider that HO reached their decisions in line with the WCS rules.

Discretionary Category

55. Miss A applied for compensation under the Discretionary category as a close family member, citing the impact on her children’s education and mental health arising from her spouse’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status.

56. Under the WCS rules, close family members may receive compensation where they have suffered a direct and significant impact as a result of the primary claimant’s difficulties. However, the WCS also requires that impacts are assessed on an individual basis and that compensation is not duplicated where multiple close family members submit claims.

57. In this case, the HO explained that Miss A’s three children had each submitted their own close family member claims, and that the impacts relating to their education and mental health would be assessed within those individual applications. This approach is consistent with the WCS requirement to consider each claimant’s losses separately and to avoid compensating the same impact more than once. It was therefore reasonable for the HO not to consider those impacts within Miss A’s claim.

58. We have also set out the criteria for awarding under the Discretionary Category below:

I1. An award may be considered under this Annex to a primary claimant, an estate or a close family member if the following conditions are met.

• (a) The primary claimant or (in the case of an estate) the deceased experienced significant impacts, loss or detriment of a financial nature as a direct consequence of being unable to establish their lawful status.

• (b) In relation to a close family member, the close family member experienced significant impacts, loss or detriment of a financial nature as a result of being adversely affected by the primary claimant’s or the deceased’s inability to establish their lawful status.

• (c) The impact, loss or detriment is not of a kind provided for in Annexes B to H and J, whether or not an award has been made under one or more of those Annexes.

• (d) The impact, loss or detriment is not of a kind excluded from consideration under paragraph 3.16 of the Scheme.

• (e) The Home Office is satisfied the evidence, mitigation and causation requirements set out in paragraph I2 have all been met.

59. The HO considered whether Miss A had suffered a distinct and significant financial loss or other personal detriment that could justify a discretionary award, or impacts not covered under other WCS categories. It concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate this.

60. We have not seen that Miss A evidenced significant impacts, loss or detriment of a financial nature to be awarded under this category. We have not seen anything to indicate the HO’s decision on this category was not in line with the scheme rules.

61. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration, getting it right, require public bodies to act lawfully, fairly, consistently, and with proper regard to relevant guidance, as well as to make decisions that are evidence-based and proportionate.

62. Overall, the Home Office’s handling of this aspect of the complaint reflects the Principles of Good Administration, in that it followed relevant guidance and gave appropriate reasons for its decision.

Difference in compensation awards

63. Miss A complains that the compensation awarded to her under the WCS (£40,000) is significantly lower than that awarded to her husband (over £100,000), and she considers this to be unfair given what she describes as similar lived experiences. She also notes that her children received £20,000 and believes the disparity does not adequately reflect the impact on her.

64. In reaching its decision, we considered the HO correctly applied the WCS rules. While close family members may be affected by the same underlying events, the nature, duration, and severity of impact can differ between individuals.

65. Having carefully reviewed the evidence, the HO’s decision, and the Adjudicator’s findings, we have not identified any fault in the way the award to Miss A was determined. Although we acknowledge Miss A’s disappointment and her comparison with her husband and children’s awards, the evidence indicates that the HO reached a decision that was consistent with the WCS rules and the evidence she provided. We therefore consider the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, being fair and proportionate.

66. We recognise this is not the outcome Miss A was hoping for. We would like to thank her for giving us the opportunity to investigate the concerns in her complaint and hope our decision clearly explains the reasons for our view.

1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about the Home Office (HO). We have not seen anything has gone wrong.

2. Miss A complains about the HO’s decision regarding her Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) claim. She is unhappy about the amount of compensation she was awarded and does not think the HO considered all of the evidence she supplied in support of her claim. We have not seen anything to indicate the HO made an error when it considered Miss A’s WCS claim. We recognise the distressing circumstances of Miss A’s complaint.