Home Office

5. Miss P complains the Home Office did not properly consider the level of award it offered her under the WCS. The Home Office’s WCS offered her a level 4 award of £70,000 under the category of Impact on Life. Miss P says this does not reflect the level of impact she experienced. She considers the Home Office should have awarded her a level 5 award due to the profound long-term impact on her mental health.

6. She says she received no acknowledgement, or substantive response, from the Home Office after she sent her request for a tier 2 review in September 2023.

7. Miss P says the impact of her not receiving the compensation award she believes she meets means: • she has needed to request several reviews.

• she feels the constant need to keep proving herself and providing evidence is causing her to relive trauma and is causing stress and affecting her mental health • she has not been compensated for the emotional, mental, and financial toll she experienced because of the government’s treatment of her father which has had a long-term, profound impact on her life. She says the trauma she experienced triggered her diagnosis of Generalised Anxiety Disorder in 2018. She says her clinician and therapist do not believe she will fully recover.

8. Miss P says the lack of a response, or acknowledgement, from the Home Office has caused her stress and had an impact on her mental health. She said she felt disrespected and as if her experience has been minimised.

9. Miss P would like the Home Office to:

• reconsider her case and compensate her fairly. She would like to be awarded compensation which truly reflects the trauma she experienced as well as the profound, long-term and irreversible damage to her well-being, finances, and career. She considers her case should be considered for a higher impact level award.

• to make changes to its processes to be more empathetic and victim-centred • to commit in writing to implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams Lessons Learned Review particularly for the recommendations about cultural competency, engaging with affected communities and the recommendation to review its ‘hostile’ or ‘compliant’ environment policies.

• apologise and provide a financial remedy for the distress caused by its failure to send her a response to her request for a tier 2 review in September 2023.

10. Miss P told us her father received a letter in 2018 advising him he was liable for deportation from the UK. Miss P told us this was an extremely worrying experience for their family, and she did everything she could to help her father resolve his lawful status.

11. Miss P says after her father was granted lawful status in April 2019, she succumbed to the stress that had built up. Her mental health and wellbeing were affected by stress and anxiety. Her doctor signed her off work for 3 months. She was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and prescribed Sertraline. She hit an all-time low and felt suicidal. She decided to take a pay cut and leave her work at Childline for a less emotionally taxing job.

12. In June 2021 the Home Office WCS awarded Miss P £20,000 under the Impact on Life award on her close family member claim.

13. Following a review by PHSO in 2022 the Home Office WCS agreed to reconsider Miss P’s case.

14. The Home Office reviewed its decision using new evidence in the form of a counsellor’s report. The Home Office found the counsellor’s report established there was a significant impact on Miss P’s ability to live a normal life. This was due to her having severe depression and anxiety as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by her father’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status. This required medication and ongoing therapeutic intervention. In May 2023 the Home Office increased the original award to a level 4 award of £70,000.

15. In September 2023 Miss P requested a Tier 2 review. She considered her experience of having an anxiety disorder for 5 years would be determined as long term and should meet a level 5 compensation award.

16. In September 23 the Adjudicator’s office considered it was not appropriate for it to conduct a second tier two review. It asked the Home Office to write to Miss P and explain that as she has already had a tier 2 review of the Home Office decision, her next step is to ask the PHSO to look at the matter.

17. Miss P says she never got an acknowledgement of her tier 2 request or a response.

Issue 1 - Miss P complains the Home Office did not properly consider the level of award it offered her under the WCS

20. 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.

21. The Windrush Compensation Scheme: full rules (accessible) - GOV.UK on the Impact of Life section says: H1(b). An award may be made to a close family member if 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.

H3. If an award is made, the Home Office will determine the amount of award payable by reference to the amounts set out in the table below, taking into account all the circumstances, the number, severity and duration of detrimental impacts and all available evidence.

Level 4 Significant impacts to the extent that the claimant’s ability to live a relatively normal life was seriously compromised. Cumulative impacts will have been experienced for a prolonged period (months or years). The claimant’s life will have undergone change of some description, such as having regular medical treatment, care visits or other therapeutic intervention, with recovery taking a significant amount of time.

Amount of Award = £70,000

Level 5 Profound impacts on a claimant’s life which are likely to be irreversible. This is expected to involve major physical or mental health impacts, where the claimant has been permanently affected or where recovery or return to a relatively normal life is likely to take (or has taken) several years.

Amount of Award = £100,000

H4. The Home Office will make a determination under this Annex on the balance of probabilities.

22. Miss P says the level 4 award of £70,000 does not reflect the level of impact she experienced. She considers the Home Office should have awarded her a level 5 award due to the profound long-term impact on her mental health. She considers she has experienced a major mental health impact, where she may be permanently affected or where recovery is likely to take (or has taken) several years. She said her clinician and CBT therapist say they are unsure if she will ever recover.

23. We have seen the Home Office considered the new evidence from the counsellor. The counsellor’s report says, ‘I feel that Miss P would benefit from further therapy’. We have not seen any evidence showing the counsellor reporting she was unsure if Miss P will ever recover.

24. The Home Office recognised Miss P’s life has undergone change of some description, such as having regular medical treatment, and other therapeutic intervention, with recovery taking a significant amount of time.

25. The Home Office considered the evidence and decided this met level 4 within its ‘Impact on Life’ award scale. A level 4 award includes a ‘Significant impacts to the extent that the claimant’s ability to live a relatively normal life was seriously compromised. Cumulative impacts will have been experienced for a prolonged period (months or years)’.

26. The Home Office did not consider the evidence met a level 5 award which includes ‘Profound impacts on a claimant’s life which are likely to be irreversible’, because it said it said it had not found any indication Miss P’s situation was irreversible in the counsellor’s report.

27. We have not found indications of maladministration. We consider the Home Office applied its criteria and rules correctly, took everything into account and weighed the evidence accordingly when it reached this decision. This is in line with PHSO’s Principles of Good Administration on ‘getting it right’ which require organisations to take reasonable decisions, based on all relevant considerations.

Issue 2 – Miss P says she received no acknowledgement, or substantive response, from the Home Office after she sent her request for a tier 2 review

28. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found the Home Office has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

29. PHSO’s Principles of Good Administration include being: • Open and accountable – this requires organisations to give people information that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely.

• Customer focused - this requires organisations to keep to its commitments and to deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively.

30. We have seen in September 23 the Adjudicator asked the Home Office to write to Miss P and explain that as she has already had a tier 2 review of the decision her next step was to ask the PHSO to look at the matter.

31. We have not seen any evidence the Home Office responded to Miss P’s request for a tier 2 review or that it updated her about the outcome. This is despite Miss P chasing this on 28 November 2023, 9, 15 and 18 February 2024, 4 April 2024 and 30 April 2025. There is also no evidence the Home Office updated Miss P following requests from her MP and PHSO asking the Home Office to update her of the outcome on 3 May and 8 July 2024.

32. We consider the Home Office should have written to Miss P to advise her on the outcome in October 2023. We consider the Home Office did not act in line with our principles of being open and accountable or customer focused when it failed to write to Miss P with an outcome letter.

33. We wrote to the Home Office about this, and it told us in April 2024 it allocated Miss P’s requests for an update to the Tier 1 Review Team to response. It said it paused drafting the response while it sought advice from the Adjudicator and the PHSO on how to handle the case. Regrettably, it closed the task in August 2024 without issuing a response.

34. The Home Office acknowledged this was an administrative error which should not have occurred. It acknowledged it did not respond to Miss P’s requests and acknowledged the level of service provided fell below the standard expected and to which Miss P was entitled. It recognised this lack of communication will have caused frustration and uncertainty. It said it sincerely regrets any inconvenience or distress this may have caused.

35. As a result of our enquiry, the Home Office:

• contacted Miss P to apologise and explain the current position of her claim.

• told Miss P it will send her a detailed written response • agreed to give Miss P a consolatory payment of £600 • provided the following learning statement: • it recognises the failure to issue an outcome letter before the case was closed fell below expected standards and resulted in unnecessary delay and distress to the customer.

• WCS has identified the need to strengthen assurance around case closure processes to ensure that cases cannot be closed unless a final response has been issued and recorded.

• guidance to staff will be reinforced on the importance of timely acknowledgements and clear communication with customers, particularly where cases remain open or under consideration.

• learning from this case will be shared across the team to reinforce accountability and reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

We have decided that following this the Home Office has done enough to put right the impact of these events on Miss P. We hope Miss P is reassured the Home Office has taken action on this issue.

36. We thank Miss P for all the information she gave us to help us complete this primary investigation. We recognise Miss P is likely to be disappointed with our decision not to look at her complaint further. We hope Miss P understands the reasons for our decision to close the case at the primary investigation stage and has found our explanations helpful.

1. We have carefully considered Miss P’s complaint about the Home Office Windrush Compensation Scheme.

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong when the Home Office considered her claim and offered her a level 4 award of £70,000 under the category of Impact on Life. We do not wish to underestimate the profound long-term impact Miss P has told us the effects of her father’s experience trying to prove his status, had on her mental health.

3. Miss P also complains she received no acknowledgement, or substantive response, from the Home Office after she sent her request for a tier 2 review in September 2023. We have seen indications the Home Office failed to provide Miss P with a response. The Home Office told us it agreed it failed to send Miss P a response when it closed her case in August 2024. The Home Office acknowledged this was an administrative error. As a result of our enquiry, the Home Office contacted Miss P to apologise and explain the current position of her claim. It provided assurance it will send her a detailed written response. The Home Office has also agreed to give Miss P a consolatory payment of £600 and provided a learning statement. We have decided that following this the Home Office has done enough to put right the impact of these events on Miss P.

4. We have set out more detailed explanations below and hope Miss P will find the information in this statement helpful.