Home Office

6. Ms J complains about the Home Office regarding its consideration of her claim, originally made in June 2023, for compensation under the WCS.

7. Ms J says she believes she has provided sufficient evidence to establish her eligibility for compensation under the WCS homelessness and impact on life categories, and that following its Tier 2 review WCS has wrongly applied its rules.

8. She says her mental health has further suffered as a result of WCS’s failings, and she has been denied the compensation she is entitled to.

9. Ms J seeks an independent review of WCS’s handling of her claim to establish if it has correctly applied its rules on awarding compensation.

10. Ms J was born in Jamaica in 1948. She came to the UK from Jamaica in 1955. In 1962 Jamaica gained independence from the UK. She automatically gained indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 1971 and was naturalised as a UK citizen in 1987.

11. Around 1966/1967 Ms J became homeless after becoming pregnant at 18 years of age and being asked to leave her family home. She then experienced a prolonged period of homelessness until approximately 1969, after which she was able to obtain long term accommodation. She subsequently had several more children in later years.

12. Sadly, Ms J suffered significant mental health difficulties, including periods where she was admitted to psychiatric wards, throughout her adult life. She explained she suffered racism, abusive relationships, continued poor housing, employment difficulties, and had to place her children in care on occasion. The long-term effect of these traumatic experiences are ongoing, and have had a profound impact on every aspect of her life.

13. In 2017 it emerged the Windrush generation, and their children, were being wrongly detained, deported and denied their legal rights. In 2019 the WCS was set up to compensate individuals who had suffered because of not being able to demonstrate their lawful right to stay in the UK.

14. Ms J applied to the scheme. The Home Office decided she did not qualify for an award based on her submission, which claimed impacts under employment, homelessness, and impact on life categories. Ms J appealed this decision and after two reviews the decision remained the same.

17. Ms J submitted a claim to WCS under its ‘employment’, ‘homelessness’, and ‘impact on life’ categories in 2023. WCS decided she did not qualify for an award initially, but that further information should be gathered as it was not conclusive that she did not qualify at all at that time.

18. Ms J then obtained further evidence to submit for appeal. She had been able to obtain medical records which showed a series of temporary addresses during the period of her being homeless. We note these also provide information on her poor mental health, housing situation and social problems over the years. The appeal, submitted in June 2024, did not include an appeal of the decision on employment so this was not considered at Tier 1.

19. WCS concluded that the new evidence provided still did not establish eligibility under the scheme rules. WCS guidance sets out a number of rules which must be met to be eligible for an award. WCS correctly identified that rules G3, G4 and H1 apply here.

20. The Rules state:

‘G3. For the purposes of [homelessness], the Home Office will consider that a primary claimant or the deceased 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.’

‘G4. 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’

‘H1. An award under [impact on life] 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.’

21. WCS considered rule G3 met as it was reasonably convinced Ms J did not have access to reasonable accommodation for the period in question. There is no dispute between Ms J and WCS that she did suffer a period of homelessness in the 1960’s.

22. WCS considered Ms J did not meet the rules under G4(b) and G4(c). In order to qualify for compensation under the homelessness category, Ms J would need to demonstrate the reason she was made homeless, and/or continued to be homeless, was due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.

23. In practical terms this means she would need to provide some evidence to show she lost her place to live specifically due to not being able to prove she had a right to live in the UK. Ms J’s reason for becoming homeless was, while tragic, not related to her legal status. She has explained she had been thrown out of her family home due to becoming pregnant. This does not meet rule G4(b), so WCS would not be able to award compensation in the homelessness category under its rules.

24. Ms J was unable to provide any evidence that, after becoming homeless, she had been refused accommodation due to not being able to prove she had a right to live in the UK. WCS were also unable to find any records to support this claim. This does not meet rule G4(c) so WCS would not be able to award compensation under its rules.

25. WCS considered rule H1 had not been met, as there was no evidence to establish Ms J ‘experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the United Kingdom.’ Not meeting this rule meant no award could be offered. WCS accepted the significant difficulties she had experienced throughout her life including her poor physical and mental health, inadequate housing, having to place her children into care, and experience of racism among other traumatic experiences.

26. Again, we see there is no dispute between Ms J and WCS that she did suffer significant impacts on her life from these problems and others. Where WCS considered Ms J did not meet the rules was in relation to the cause of these impacts. In order to qualify for compensation under the homelessness category, Ms J would need to demonstrate the impact on her life was directly due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK.

27. Ms J was unable to provide any evidence to establish a direct link between not being able to prove she had a right to live in the UK and impacts on her life. WCS were also unable to find any records to support this claim. This does not meet rule H1(a) so WCS would not be able to award compensation under its rules.

28. As WCS would be unable to provide an award under the rules set for it due to a lack of evidence, we have not seen any indication its decisions were wrong. We recognise that this may have been due to the passage of time and such documents no longer existing as a result of data retention laws. However, regardless of the reason, the scheme rules do not allow WCS to make an award without this supporting evidence.

29. Ms J then appealed to the Tier 2 Independent Reviewer. Under the homelessness category her representative submitted arguments in support of her having been homeless for the period claimed for. We note there was little new information provided and no new arguments to support that the cause of this was being unable to prove her lawful status in the UK.

30. WCS had not disagreed that Ms J had been homeless, only that it could not be established the cause was one that qualified her for compensation under the Scheme rules. We have seen no evidence to indicate WCS was incorrect to conclude Ms J did not qualify under the homelessness category due to not meeting rule G4. As such, the Tier 2 decision appears correct in not identifying any fault in the Tier 1 decision.

31. Ms J had also provided further evidence, in the form of medical records, to show her poor mental health in support of her claim under the impact on life category. Her representative submitted arguments that the cumulative effect of her experiences following her homelessness were due to an inability to prove her lawful status in the UK.

32. Having reviewed this new evidence, we found no reference to problems with legal status. The records do support that Ms J has had a lifelong struggle with depressive illness, poor housing, and lots of contact with NHS psychiatric services. However, we saw no evidence to indicate being unable to prove her lawful status was the cause of these struggles.

33. Again, WCS had not disagreed that Ms J had suffered these impacts on her life, only that it could not be established the cause was one that qualified her for compensation under the Scheme rules. We have seen no evidence to indicate WCS was incorrect to conclude Ms J did not qualify under the impact on life category due to not meeting rule H1. As such, the Tier 2 decision appears correct in not identifying any fault in the Tier 1 decision.

34. In summary, we have found no indications WCS’s Tier 2 decision was incorrect, as the WCS rules appear to have been correctly applied earlier by WCS. Unfortunately for Ms J, the WCS scheme rules do not allow WCS to award compensation. If it is not possible to show with evidence how difficulties proving a person’s lawful status led directly to impacts on or injustices in their life, WCS rules compel the Home Office to decline a claim.

1. We have carefully considered Ms J’s complaint about the Home Office Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). We have decided not to take further action as we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.

2. We have come to this conclusion as, after reviewing WCS’s handling of her claim through its initial consideration and later appeals, we have seen no indication WCS has failed to correctly apply the rules set for it.

3. We have found the WCS rules do not give the Home Office discretion to award compensation, unless the claimant can provide clear evidence that being unable to prove their lawful status in the UK directly impacted their life.

4. This appears to be the case for Ms J’s claim, as there is a lack of historical documents that could support her claim that it was her legal status that directly caused injustices. While this is unfortunate, it is a factor outside of WCS’s control. Therefore, WCS would have no option but to decide Ms J did not qualify for compensation, which is what it did.

5. We were saddened to learn of Ms J’s difficulties throughout her life, and how these continue to affect her. We thank her for bringing her complaint to us and hope we have been able to provide some reassurance that, while the outcome will have been disappointing, WCS fairly considered her claim and appeals.