Home Office

3. Mrs L complains about the HO’s decisions regarding her WCS claims. In particular she complains that the HO:

• repeatedly failed to assess harm holistically and the evidence within her WCS claims under the Impact on Life awards • caused systemic delays amounting to maladministration when issuing decisions • made repeated flawed decisions, which were later overturned • asked for documents which caused Mrs L financial hardship.

4. Mrs L says she was impacted in the following ways:

• the HO’s decision in her WCS’s claims caused financial instability due to systemic barriers • the HO’s delays in issuing decisions caused continued harm.

5. Mrs L seeks the following outcomes:

• a finding of maladministration, including delay and flawed decision-making • a finding that compensation awarded was inadequate • financial redress that reflects the impacts described in her complaint

6. Mrs L’s mother was born in April 1934 in Jamaica.

7. Mrs L’s mother arrived in the UK in 1961.

8. In September 1989, Mrs L’s mother was granted citizenship.

9. In February 1992, Mrs L’s mother applied for naturalisation.

10. In March 1992, the HO sent Mrs L’s mother a letter stating she was already a British citizen so did not need to apply for naturalisation.

11. In September 2004 Mrs L’s mother submitted a Long Residency (14 years) application which was voided and her application fee was refunded as she was already a British citizen.

12. Mrs L’s father was born in Jamaica in December 1932.

13. Mrs L’s father stated he moved to the UK in 1958, the HO recorded this as around 1976.

14. In March 1977, Mrs L’s father’s passport stamp showed he had indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

15. In March 2021, Mrs L submitted four completed WCS applications under the Deceased Estate and Close Family Member classifications linked to her late mother and father.

The HO caused systemic delays amounting to maladministration when issuing decisions

18. Mrs L complains that the HO persistently delayed issuing decisions in her WCS applications and this led to increased costs and prolonged psychological distress. We have seen that all four of Mrs L’s completed WCS applications were submitted in March 2021.

19. There is no published time limit or service standard for the time taken to complete consideration of WCS claims. Our Principles of Good Administration say public bodies should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits. They should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take.

20. We have considered the time taken to process Mrs L’s applications at the various stages. We have not seen that overall the time taken was excessive enough to say the HO got something wrong in line with our Principles of Good Administration, being open and accountable and being customer focused. This is because the HO explained to Mrs L the reasons for the time taken and kept her updated and because it needed to consider further evidence in all of her claims.

21. Mrs L’s Deceased Estate claim linked to her late father was rejected by the HO in August 2022 as she was not able to provide a grant of probate to confirm her eligibility for the claim. We have seen that the HO had asked Mrs L for evidence to show that she was eligible to claim but this was not provided in September, October and November 2021 and January and April 2022. We do not consider that the time taken here was excessive enough to say the HO got something wrong in line with our Principles of Good Administration, being open and accountable. This is because the HO explained to Mrs L the reasons for the delay and it needed to consider further evidence.

22. Mrs L’s close Family Member claim linked to her late father was initially concluded in early December 2022. We have seen that the HO wrote to Mrs L in August 2022 to explain that it had introduced a new ‘Living Costs’ category for Close Family Member claims. The HO also said that family members would now be considered for a Level 1 Impact on Life award. Mrs L requested a Tier 1 review of this decision in late December 2022. The HO wrote to Mrs L in July 2023 and upheld the original decision. The Tier 1 decision letter, explained that Mrs L could request a Tier 2 review if she remained unhappy. Mrs L submitted a Tier 2 review request in July 2024, around a year after her Tier 1 review decision. The AO sent its Tier 2 decision to Mrs L in April 2025.

23. We consider this would have added to the time taken to conclude Mrs L’s claim. Mrs L submitted Tier 1 and 2 reviews of this decision, and the review process concluded in June 2025, when WCS sent their final decision letter. We have seen that this claim did take time to conclude, however this was because the HO needed further evidence to reach its decision (the probate evidence) and it subsequently introduced a new category of claim to the Scheme and invited Mrs L to apply for this. The claim in this category also had to be reviewed and this took time to consider. Mrs L did not submit her Tier 2 review until about one year after her Tier 1 review outcome, so this added to the overall delay. We have seen that the HO considered Mrs L’s Tier 2 review despite her being outside of the two month deadline to submit this, as set out in the WCS rules.

24. In May 2022 the HO issued its final award letter in Mrs L’s Deceased Estate Claim linked to her late mother. Mrs L rejected the award and asked for a Tier 1 review in May 2022. This was not upheld and Mrs L requested a Tier 2 review in December 2022. The Tier 2 review concluded in March 2023 and the HO’s initial decision was upheld. We have not seen this was an overly excessive amount of time to conclude Mrs L’s claim here. We have considered the time taken to complete both review stages. While this process took several months, we haven’t seen this length of time was unreasonable or that there were periods of avoidable delay.

25. Mrs L’s Close Family Member Claim linked to her late mother was first considered by the HO in May 2022. As with the previous claim, the HO introduced a new category in August 2022 which meant the WCS rules had changed. The HO issued a reconsideration of its decision in February 2023. Mrs L requested a Tier 1 review of this decision in the same month, and the HO issued the Tier 1 decision in November 2023. Mrs L submitted an email in July 2024 to request a Tier 2 review of this decision which was accepted on an exceptional basis. The Tier 2 review concluded in March 2025. We have seen that there were some delays here and that these were mainly caused by the change of the WCS rules and also Mrs L not submitting a Tier 2 review until around seven months after the Tier 1 outcome.

26. Mrs L submitted four WCS applications and the HO would have needed to assess these applications in line with the WCS rules and its casework guidance. There were a number of reasons for the time taken to conclude Mrs L’s claims. We have seen that in each application the HO asked for supporting documents to review each claim. We have also seen that at certain stages Mrs L was not able to provide the evidence the HO asked for and this meant the applications could not be moved forward. We have seen that when changes were made to the scheme rules WCS reconsidered decisions in line with these. At points it appears Mrs L submitted review requests outside the time limits to do so. Nevertheless, we understand that the uncertainty around each application would have caused Mrs L distress.

27. Overall, we have seen that the HO acted in line with our Principes of Good Administration, being customer focused. This principle sets out that public bodies should behave helpfully and within reasonable timescales. They should tell people if things take longer, or than people can reasonably expect them to take. We have seen that the HO acted in line with this principle as it explained why Mrs L’s applications took the time they did to conclude.. We have also seen that the HO responded to several complaints about this during this time and it addressed the reasons why her applications were taking as long as they were.

The HO made repeated flawed decisions, which were later overturned

28. Mrs L explains that the HO made flawed decisions in her WCS applications. Mrs L states that decisions were later withdrawn, overturned or reconsidered after the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) intervened. We recognise the uncertainty this caused Mrs L.

29. We have not seen that any decisions were withdrawn in Mrs L’s WCS applications. We note that Mrs L’s WCS application on behalf of her deceased father’s estate was rejected on eligibility grounds due to Mrs L not being able to provide grant of probate.

30. We have seen that the AO asked the HO to reconsider Mrs L’s WCS application as a Close Family Member linked to Mrs L’s mother. Specifically, the AO asked the HO to reconsider the Impact on Life and Living Costs categories of this claim as it identified that Mrs L’s mother may not have received a citizenship certificate to demonstrate her lawful status between January 1988 when she made the first application and March 1992.

31. We have not seen any indications the HO got something wrong here as it reviewed Mrs L’s application in line with the AO’s recommendations and it later awarded Mrs L £20,000 for this claim under the Impact on Life category. As set out in WCS rules, claimants can request an independent review by the AO. We have seen that the HO acted in line with the WCS rules here when it reviewed its offer of compensation after the AO made its recommendation:

10.2 Subject to paragraph 10.3, a request for a review can challenge any aspect of the determination, including:

(a) a decision under Part 2 that the claimant is not eligible under the Scheme (b) a decision under Part 4 to reduce or decline to make an award on the grounds of double recovery, failure to mitigate, criminality or fraud; and (c) the amount of an award in a determination.

32. Similarly, the AO recommended that the HO reconsider Mrs L’s WCS application as a Close Family Member linked to her late father. The AO asked the HO to reconsider the Impact on Life category as it could not see if the HO had considered if a record of Mrs L’s father entering the UK in 1976 and subsequently applying for ILR, indicated he may have had difficulties regulating his status. Additionally, the AO said it was unclear if this was sufficient evidence for the HO to offer an award, especially considering that these events took place after Mrs L’s father had already left the family home. The AO said it expected the HO to have taken all information into account when reaching its decision though. The AO directed the HO to review its decision under the Impact on life category to consider if Mrs L’s father experienced issues re-entering the UK in 1976 and if this had an impact on her.

33. Following the AO’s recommendations, the HO sent its response to this in June 2025. The HO maintained its initial decision not to award compensation in the Impact on Life category. This was because the HO was informed by Mrs L that her father left the household when she was around seven years old (due to imprisonment for domestic abuse), and she rarely saw him afterwards. Mrs L had also told the HO that her father was largely absent, unemployed, and struggled with alcohol and incarceration.

34. The HO had identified that in Mrs L’s Tier 1 review request she did not provide additional information. She later provided an email in January 2023, in which she informed the HO that her father had been detained at the airport following a trip to Jamaica. Mrs L said this immigration issue led to him losing employment and being unable to contribute to the family.

35. The HO noted that Mrs L’s father’s passport had a stamp indicating indefinite leave to enter (ILE) in 1977. Although the HO was unable to clarify an exact date it said it was likely issued in early May 1977.

36. To make an award under this category the HO must be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, Mrs L faced detrimental impacts to her life as a direct consequence of her father’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status. The HO considered what Mrs L told her about her father and that he lived with her until she was roughly seven years old. Mrs L told the HO that after this she rarely saw her father and described herself as growing up in a single-parent household. The HO concluded that as Mrs L’s father left the family home in approximately 1973, it was unlikely that she would have been affected by any difficulties her father could have faced when returning to the UK from Jamaica in 1976 or 1977.The HO concluded that the requirements set out under section H1(b) of the scheme rules have not been met:

(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.

37. We have not seen any indications the HO got something wrong here as it explained why it did not change its decision in line with the WCS rules and it came to reasonable decision based on the available evidence. This is also supported in the WCS casework guidance below:

The Home Office will consider the recommendation of the Adjudicator and will notify the claimant in writing of its Tier 2 review decision and will include the determination that is in force.

If the Home Office does not accept and implement the recommendation of the Adjudicator, it will provide written reasons for its decision.

38. We have seen that the HO considered the Adjudicator’s recommendation and wrote to Mrs L to explain its decision. We consider this is in line with Principles of Good Administration, getting it right. This principle explains that public bodes should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal. We have seen that the HO followed its casework guidance here.

The HO under assessed Impact on Life awards

39. Mrs L complains that the HO under assessed her Impact on Life awards in the Deceased Estate claim linked to Mrs L’s late mother and as a Close Family Member, also linked to her late mother. We have set our views of these issues below.

Deceased Estate claim linked to Mrs L’s late mother

40. In May 2022 the HO awarded Mrs L £10,000 under her Deceased Estate claim linked to her late mother. When making its decision, the HO considered Annex H of the Impact on Life category. This means the HO can make an award for non-financial impacts the deceased experienced as a result of their inability to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. The relevant WCS rules for this category are:

(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.

41. In March 2023 the AO considered further evidence from Mrs L which included that she had to care for her siblings from a young age. Mrs L said her mother was also distressed when she had to move from Jamacia to the UK and ‘live amongst racist people’ and suffered displacement. Mrs L also said that her mother and children experienced ‘distress, low mood, depression and heavy smoking’. Mrs L also said her mother experienced racism.

42. The AO explained to Mrs L that when it reviewed the HO’s decision on her mother’s deceased estate claim it could not take account of any impacts experienced by Mrs L or her siblings. The AO said in reaching its decision, the HO recognised Mrs L’s mother was able to access employment and that she probably did not claim benefits. It was also noted that Mrs L’s mother could access housing. The HO also acknowledged Mrs L’s mother being attacked by a white woman and the discrimination she suffered, but considered these were not due to an inability to demonstrate her lawful status.

43. The AO went on to explain that the HO considered it was reasonable to conclude Mrs L’s mother felt pressurised to apply for naturalisation and that she feared deportation. The AO noted that the HO considered if it could an award at level two, which is described as:

Moderately severe impact on some aspects of the claimant’s life over an extended period of time (weeks or months) or where multiple cumulative impacts were suffered for a relatively short period of time.

Claimants may have been unable to engage in activities with which they were previously familiar, although should still have been able to live a relatively normal life for much of the time. There may have been an inability to attend one or more significant family events; or there may have been family separation.

44. We have seen that the AO and HO did not find evidence of severe impacts on Mrs L’s mother’s life, and did not see information to suggest she was unable to engage in activities with which she was previously familiar. There was also no evidence to suggest she was unable to attend significant family events or that there had been family separation.

45. We contacted the HO to ask for further information on how it reached its decision here and also if this affected its decision in Mrs L’s close family member claims. The HO explained that the close family claim related to Mrs L’s late father. In this claim the AO made a recommendation that the initial decision should be reviewed. The HO undertook the AO’s recommendation and maintained it had not seen any evidence to recommend an award in this category.

46. Mrs L also brought a close family member claim relating to her mother the Tier 1 decision was reviewed by the AO, who did not make a recommendation to review this decision. In The HO explained that if an incorrect decision had been made on a previously concluded claim, it can re-open and review any claim. In this case, the AO did not make any findings to indicate that the decision was incorrect and as a result, the Deceased Estate claim linked to Mrs L’s mother was not re-opened.

47. We have considered both the AO and HO responses here and have seen that the justifications to award a level 1 under the Impact on Life Category appear to have taken into account the relevant evidence. We note Mrs L’s mother arrived in the UK in 1961, prior to Jamaican independence on 6 August 1962, on a UK and Colonies (CUKC) passport. We can see the HO accepted there could have been a time when Mrs L’s mother was not able to fully demonstrate her lawful status. As such, we have seen the HO acknowledged Mrs L’s mother would have experienced inconvenience, frustration and worry when trying to regularise her status. We have seen that the HO reasonably linked this with the Impact on Life award description section under Level 1 in the WCS rules:

Marked detriment such as inconvenience, annoyance, frustration and worry, where the effect on the claimant was fairly short- lived (lasting up to a few weeks). Family events may have been missed.

Close Family Member, linked to Mrs L’s late mother

48. The HO’s initial decision, made in May 2022, under the Impact of Life category did not recommend an award. We have seen that the HO considered the impact of Mrs L’s mother making an application for naturalisation and that she had to work three jobs to enable her to pay the fee. The HO also considered a written statement from Mrs L in which she stated she experienced hostility and racism and difficulties in the work environment.

49. The HO did not award under this category as they said Mrs L’s described experiences did not meet the requirements for the minimum level of award as a Close Family Member under the WCS rules.

50. Mrs L asked the HO for a Tier 1 Review of its initial decision. The HO’s Tier 1 Review was issued in February 2023 and did not recommend an award under the Impact on Life category.

51. In July 2024 Mrs L asked the AO to review her WCS application. As part of her review, Mrs L told the AO that her mother faced racism and discrimination when she came to the UK. Her mother was only able to gain employment as a cleaner and she had to work numerous jobs to support her family. Mrs L said that when the UK government called for British subjects to be naturalised it a put a lot of pressure on her mother and impacted her mental health.

52. The AO issued its decision in March 2025 and identified that it was recorded that Mrs L’s mother’s citizenship certificate did not appear to have been dispatched between January 1988 when she made the first application and March 1992. The AO suggested this meant Mrs L’s mother was not aware of her status and could have been the reason why she applied for a second citizenship application in January 1992. As such, the AO asked the HO to review its decision under this category.

53. In June 2025 the HO issued a revised decision letter to Mrs L following the AO’s recommendation to review the Impact on Life category. The HO said Mrs L’s mother did not receive a naturalisation certificate after her first application in 1987 and was not issued a duplicate following a second application. The HO said this meant she had no documentary evidence to prove her lawful status until 1995. This issue had not been fully reflected in the earlier consideration of the claim. The revised decision therefore reconsidered the impact of this lack of documentation on Mrs L , particularly in relation to the Impact on Life award.

54. As such the HO said Mrs L would have experienced emotional distress and disruption to her life due to her mother’s uncertainty around her lawful status. The HO recommended a Level 2 award under the Impact on Life category which we have set out below:

Moderately severe impact on some aspects of the claimant’s life over an extended period of time (weeks or months) or where multiple cumulative impacts were suffered for a relatively short period of time. Claimants may have been unable to engage in activities with which they were previously familiar, although should still have been able to live a relatively normal life for much of the time. There may have been an inability to attend one or more significant family events; or there may have been family separation.

55. . We have seen that the revised decision took into account the impact on Mrs L of her mother not having documentary proof of her lawful status, and the resulting uncertainty this created. It appears WCS took everything relevant into account and balanced the evidence appropriately, in line with our principles, and came to a reasonable decision.

Mrs L states the HO repeatedly failed to assess harm holistically and evidence within her WCS claims

56. 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.

57. Mrs L made four applications under the WCS and she states that the HO did not consider the harm holistically across her applications. We have carefully considered this point and have not found the HO got anything wrong here. This is because the WCS considers claims on an individual basis, and any harm will be assessed on an individual basis within each claim. This is set out in the WCS rules:

1.2 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.

58. We have seen that each of Mrs L’s WCS applications was considered based on the individual circumstances she put forward and the HO considered the evidence within each claim.

59. We have seen the HO referenced what evidence Mrs L supplied at each stage of the process in Mrs L’s WCS applications. Mrs L supplied documentary evidence of the impacts she experienced as well as specific information such as birth certificates. The HO also searched its data bases and government agencies for records related to Mrs L’s WCS applications. This is in line with the WCS casework guidance on the standard of proof it uses to assess claims, which we have set out below:

• direct documentary evidence – this information is factual and corroborates what a claimant has told us - it may be from Home Office records or official correspondence, for example from employers or a local authority • circumstantial information – this won’t categorically prove something but may indirectly support what a claimant has said - it may include statements from a claimant and / or others, or it might be documentation that proves aspects of a claim but not all, for example records from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) which might tell you that an individual stopped being employed but doesn’t tell you why

60. We haven’t seen that the HO failed to consider evidence Mrs L provided. It appears the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, getting it right. This principle sets out that public bodies should act according to their statutory powers and follow their own policy and procedural guidance. We have found the HO acted in line with the WCS rules and assessed Mrs L’s applications in line with its publicised casework guidance.

The HO asked for documents which caused Mrs L financial hardship.

61. Mrs L says she had to obtain documents in support of her WCS applications, including death certificates and documents relating to a probate application for her late father. We recognise that obtaining this type of evidence, particularly some years after the events in question, can create financial pressure as well as additional emotional strain.

62. Under the Impact on Life category, the WCS casework guidance says that all claimants should provide information to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the primary claimant, the deceased or the close family member experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status.

63. We have seen that the HO awarded Mrs L a total of £30,000 across her four WCS claims. We have also seen that it offered to cover the cost of a probate application fee and up to £1,500 in associated legal fees. While Mrs L was ultimately unable to proceed with the probate application, this indicates that the HO was prepared to provide financial support where additional costs arose.

64. We recognise that the WCS requires claimants to provide supporting evidence, and that this can be challenging where records are historic or difficult to obtain. However, we consider it was reasonable, and in line with the scheme’s rules and guidance, for the HO to request evidence in support of Mrs L’s claims in order to assess her entitlement to compensation under the scheme.

65. In this case, we have not seen evidence that Mrs L incurred significant unreimbursed costs which the HO failed to consider. We have also seen that it offered financial support where appropriate. Taking this into account, we have not identified an indication that the HO acted unreasonably in how it approached evidential requirements. We consider the HO acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly being customer focused, as it recognised where additional support may be required and offered to meet reasonable costs associated with progressing the claim.

66. We recognise this will not be the outcome Mrs L was hoping for. We understand that engaging with the WCS over a prolonged period, including gathering supporting evidence, will have been difficult. We thank her for bringing her concerns to us and hope this explanation clarifies how we have reached our view.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs L’s complaint about the Home Office (HO). We have seen no indication that anything went wrong. Mrs L complains about the HO’s decisions on four applications she made to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). She also complains about delays in reaching decisions and does not think all of her evidence has been considered. We have seen that the HO responded to Mrs L’s WCS claims as it should have and reached reasonable decisions on her four applications.

2. We understand the significant impact of Mrs L’s complaint and appreciate the time taken to reach these decisions would have caused her distress.