Home Office

5. Mr A complains about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) and the way it handled his ‘Homelessness’ claim. He says it: • Wrongly decided to not award him compensation under this category • Wrongly focused on his experience in the 1990s, and did not consider the 1960s when he was also impacted, • Told him he was entitled to compensation and then changed its mind.

6. As a result of his experience, Mr A says WCS has not provided him with compensation to make up for the discrimination he experienced in the 1960s that led to him becoming homeless.

7. As an outcome of his complaint, he would like WCS to reconsider his homelessness claim and award him compensation.

Complaint background

8. Mr A was born on 1 June 1945 in a country that was part of the UK and Colonies (CUKC). Upon the country becoming independent on 1 October 1960, he would have become a citizen of there and was no longer a citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC).

9. Mr A moved to the UK on 12 February 1967 on a 12-month student visa to work as a student nurse at a hospital.

10. He told our office that between 1967 and 1969, he lived in a poor-quality privately owned house. He said it was cold and he suffered while living there. He ended up getting into a confrontation with the landlord, which led to him leaving the property in 1969 and he became homeless. It is unclear how long the period of homelessness lasted, as he struggles to recall dates due to the time that has passed.

11. He extended his visa on 30 October 1967, which allowed him to stay until 30 October 1970.

12. Following the expiration of his visa, Mr A remained in the UK and was classed as an ‘overstayer’. He did try to extend his visa on 25 August 1971, but the Home Office refused his request. After a second failed attempt to extend his visa on 6 December, the Home Office gave him notice that he must leave the country by 31 December. It appears he stayed in the UK after this date, despite a third unsuccessful attempt to appeal the decision on 16 December.

13. Mr A continued to face issues getting legal status between 1972 and 1974, during this time the Home Office threatened him with deportation. However, after multiple appeals and applications, the Home Office eventually granted him indefinite leave (ILR) to remain in the UK on 3 June 1974.

14. In 1976, Mr A married, and we know he lived with his ex-wife during their relationship. However, when the relationship ended in 1984, he told WCS he became homeless again until his local council (Council A) gave him a house in 1998.

15. He applied for citizenship via the Windrush Taskforce on 28 August 2018 and received citizenship on 21 November 2018.

16. He then applied for compensation through the WCS on 29 April 2019. Initially, he applied for compensation under multiple categories, which included ‘Homelessness’. In his claim form, his description for the ‘Homelessness’ claim was very brief. He wrote:

‘Homelessness happened many times. At times I had to sleep in cars [and then I] found a home in girlfriend’s flats, etc. The last 20 years have been okay though.’

17. WCS initially decided to not award Mr A any compensation on 13 January 2020. He requested a Tier 1 review on 3 February but did not mention or put forward new evidence regarding his homelessness claim. WCS reviewed his case and decided to award him £3000 compensation for his ‘Impact on life’ claim on 3 August. After a policy change on 14 December, WCS revised the award and increased it to £37,000 on 18 February 2021.

18. WCS’ policy for Homelessness claim awards changed on 22 August 2022. Off the back of this change Mr A wrote to WCS on 26 February 2023 and said:

‘Please be informed that I was homeless from 1984 to 1998. Apologies for being tardy.’

19. WCS spoke to Mr A about his homelessness claim over the phone on 25 January 2024. During the call, he told the call handler he was made homeless after he divorced his ex-wife in 1984 and left her property. The call handler recorded that Mr A had tried to apply for housing through Council B, but he was not successful and he believes this was partly because he did not have citizenship and part due to racist attitudes. However, he told the call handler he was eventually able to get a house in 1998, and he has lived there since.

20. WCS contacted Council B and asked whether there was any record of Mr A previously attempting to apply for housing prior to 1998. Council B advised there were no records.

21. WCS shared its Tier 1 Review with Mr A on 8 August 2024, where it explained it had decided not to award him with compensation for his Homelessness claim. It explained that Immigration controls on housing services were introduced into UK law under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and it was satisfied he was not negatively impacted by this due to an inability to demonstrate his legal status and was able to get housing from the Council in 1998.

22. Section 9 of the act limited access to housing to those who did not have settled status. This legislation came into force on 19 August 1996, and this was an active policy until the legislation was changed on 1 March 2000.

23. Mr A requested a Tier 2 review by the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) on 15 August 2024. This was because: • He had applied for housing through Council A, not Council B, • He said WCS had told him he was entitled to compensation under the Homeless category, and, • He said he had experienced difficulties and felt he should be compensated for this.

24. The AO shared its decision with Mr A on 31 January 2025, and it stood by WCS’ decision to not award compensation for the homelessness claim. However, it acknowledged WCS had made a mistake in saying Mr A had applied for housing through Council B, as there was no evidence he had ever said this and the case worker should have sought clarification. It said this introduced an element of doubt regarding the accuracy of WCS’ decision, and it recommended it review the decision.

25. WCS reviewed Mr A’s case again and contacted Council A on 12 March to see whether there was any record of him unsuccessfully applying for housing through them. Council A responded on 1 May to advise there was no record of Mr A submitting a homelessness application prior to 1998.

26. WCS wrote to Mr A on 12 June 2025. It apologised for previously recording Mr A had applied for housing through Council B and acknowledged he had applied through Council A. However, it explained it had contacted Council A, and they also advised there was no record of him having issues securing housing, so it stood by its original decision.

Administrative background

27. The WCS is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. As such, the WCS can only consider compensation where the claimant had lawful status but was unable to demonstrate that lawful status.

28. There is no single or consistent picture of the loss suffered by those affected. The scheme 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.

29. Each category of claim under the WCS sets out specific criteria that the claimant must meet to be entitled to an award. All categories of claim, however, share the common requirement that the claimant experienced the impact because they were unable to demonstrate that they held lawful status when in fact they did.

30. Annex G of the WCS rules sets out how WCS considers a claim under the Homeless category.

31. For the purposes of this Annex, the Home Office will consider that a primary claimant did not have access to accommodation in which it was reasonable for them to reside if they were: rough sleeping; staying temporarily in a hostel; night shelter or bed and breakfast; squatting; or staying temporarily in other accommodation (including with friends and family) where they are not a tenant, with poor conditions.

32. An award for homelessness may be made to a primary claimant if there is a link to them being unable to demonstrate their legal status.

Mr A complains about the scope of WCS’ consideration of his ‘Homelessness’ claim

35. Mr A feels WCS should have awarded him compensation for his ‘Homelessness’ claim because of his experiences in the 1960s. He says WCS focused on the 1990s, but he says this was the wrong period to focus on.

36. In Mr A’s complaint form to our office, he describes the 1960s as a time when he experienced a lot of discrimination (he was unable to rent a room and witnessed signs that said, ‘No dogs, no Irish, no blacks’). He says it is unfair that WCS have not awarded him compensation for the suffering he says he experienced due to being homeless in the 1960s.

37. During our phone call on 30 March 2026, Mr A described a time when he had lived in private accommodation between 1967 and 1969. He said it was poor quality and very cold (to the point that he had to place a heater under the bedsheets). He suffered a lot while living there. He then described a situation where he and his landlord got into a fight and the landlord violently attacked him. Following this, he left the property and was homeless for a period, though the timescale is unclear as he struggled to recollect dates due to the time that has passed.

38. It is important to note that there is no record Mr A ever shared this information with WCS, based on the records we have seen.

39. When it comes to how public bodies handle evidence for claims such as these, our expectations are set within our principles of good administration, ‘Getting it right’. We expect public bodies to have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.

40. Mr A is right to say WCS did not focus on his experience of homelessness in the 1960s. However, this is because he never mentioned he had been homeless in the 1960s. We can see from the background evidence, such as his letter from 26 February 2023, he drew attention to a period of homelessness between 1984 and 1998. He had multiple opportunities to raise his homelessness experience in the 1960s, such as when he requested reviews and spoke to a caseworker, and he did not mention it.

41. However, WCS indirectly covered the 1960s when it gathered information from the Councils. We highlighted to Mr A that the scope of the council searches, which were searches through Council A and B’s housing records, would have covered any applications he submitted in the 1960s and it did not show any record of him applying for housing back then. He acknowledged he did not apply for housing in the 1960s, when he was homeless, as he did know how to apply and there was no one he could speak to or ask for help.

42. Overall, WCS’ focus on the homelessness period between 1984 and 1998 was reasonable, and in line with our principles, because this was the period he raised a claim about. We cannot see there were any grounds for it to move its attention to the period of the 1960s without any prompt from Mr A. However, it would have found evidence for that period anyway, if it existed, when it completed the council search. So, there are no indications it did anything wrong with respect to the scope of its investigation.

Mr A complains about WCS’s decision for the ‘Homelessness’ claim

43. The purpose of Mr A’s WCS claim was to seek an award for the impact he experienced as a result of becoming homeless after he divorced his partner in 1984.

44. Annex G of the WCS rules says that the period of homelessness must be linked to the applicant’s inability to demonstrate their legal status. As we can see from the background, Mr A did have legal status during the period in question, as he successfully got ILR status in 1974.

45. According to Mr A’s first WCS claim, which he submitted on 29 April 2019, he had a Nigerian passport between 1976 and 1982, and he had a ‘Returning resident status’ stamp added to his passport when he and his ex-wife returned to the UK from holiday in 1982.

46. We know from the Home Office records that he received a letter on 16 November 1994 that confirmed in writing he had ILR status, which he could have used as evidence between 1994 and 1998.

47. In any case, he did not become homeless because of issues proving his legal status, it was because he and his ex-wife divorced. There is also no evidence that issues proving his legal status prolonged the period of homelessness, as there is no record he made an application for housing which was impacted by an inability to evidence his legal status.

48. Mr A told a WCS call handler on 25 January 2024 that he thinks he could not get a property because he did not have citizenship and/or because of his skin colour. While the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 restricted housing for those who did not have settled status, we know he did have settled status. Counter to his belief that he required citizenship, his ILR status would have been sufficient to apply.

49. Regarding his claim that racist attitudes were an obstacle, this is an issue that falls outside of WCS’ scope. We are sorry to learn that Mr A had this experience, which was wrong and unjustified. The purpose of WCS is not to award compensation for these types of experiences, and it is solely focused on issues caused by the applicant’s inability to prove they have legal settled status in the UK.

50. As such, there are no indications WCS’ decision on the ‘Homelessness’ claim was unreasonable based on the evidence we have seen. This is because it had not seen enough evidence to show Mr A could not prove he had settled status, and that this resulted in him becoming homeless and/or remaining homeless. It appears to have correctly followed the rules governing the homelessness category of the scheme and taken everything relevant into account when making its decision.

51. It may be useful for Mr A if we highlight that he provides similar reasons for his homelessness in the 1960s. If he does decide to return to WCS regarding his ‘Homelessness’ claim, he needs to be mindful that it will not award him compensation for homelessness caused by discrimination.

WCS offered Mr A compensation for his ‘Homelessness’ claim and then later changed its mind

52. Mr A says WCS wrote a letter to him that said he was entitled to compensation under the ‘Homelessness’ category and initially offered him compensation but later changed its mind. As we have already seen above, it is our view that it was reasonable for WCS not to award him with compensation under this category.

53. However, we would expect WCS to communicate with service users in line with our principles of good administration. Under our principle, ‘Being customer focused’, we expect public bodies, like WCS, to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities. Applied to this case, WCS should not contradict what it tells service users with respect to their eligibility for a monetary award.

54. We have looked at the records for this case and cannot see that WCS has ever told Mr A he was due compensation under the ‘Homelessness’ category and then later changed its mind. We can see that after reviewing its original decision, it did award him compensation for his ‘Impact on life’ claim, but there is no indication in any correspondence it extended this offer to his Homelessness claim too.

55. On 2 August 2022, there was a policy change that affected the Homelessness category. According to the Home Office’s Windrush blog, ‘Windrush Compensation Scheme factsheet – October 2022’, it made changes in August 2022 to make the scheme more generous. It removed the cap from the Homelessness category, as well as the requirement to demonstrate physical or mental health impacts due to homelessness.

56. Based on the records, it seems Mr A learned of these changes, and this prompted him to resubmit his claim for compensation under the Homelessness category. WCS make reference to the policy change frequently in its correspondence. For example, in its letter, dated 2 February 2024, it says: “We have made changes to the Homelessness category so some people will receive more money”. It is possible Mr A perhaps misunderstood what it was saying here.

57. Ultimately, in its decision letters, it communicated in line with our principles and was clear that it was not awarding him compensation under the Homelessness category. As such, there are no indications WCS did anything wrong here.

1. We are sorry to learn about the difficult experiences Mr A had after he was made homeless in the 1960s and 1980s. We can appreciate these were very extremely difficult times in his life.

2. Having looked at Mr A’s case, we have decided not to consider it further. We have not seen enough evidence to show that he explained to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) that he was homeless in the 1960s, nor that he demonstrated how his issues with homelessness were linked to his legal status.

3. WCS provides individuals with financial compensation to make up for losses they have suffered as a result of not being able to prove their legal status in the UK.

4. We appreciate this complaint is important to Mr A and we will explain our decision in more detail below. We hope our explanation provides him with reassurance that we have carefully considered his complaint before reaching our decision.