Home Office

5. Mr S complains the Home Office has refused to follow the recommendations set out by the Adjudicator’s Office regarding his WCS claim on 28 February 2025. The Adjudicator’s Office recommended the Home Office reconsider its decision on the homelessness and impact on life categories. Mr S says the awarded amounts in these categories should be higher or at least more representative of the struggles he has faced.

6. Mr S also complains about the amount of compensation calculated under the housing and education categories.

7. As a result, Mr S says this process has taken four years too long. Mr S says he has been suffering injustice and has been treated unfairly since he arrived in the UK. He says the impact is ongoing.

8. Mr S would like the Home Office to reconsider its decision around the level of compensation he is entitled to as a primary claimant. If we uphold his complaint, Mr S would like an apology, acknowledgement of failings, service improvements and a financial remedy.

9. Mr S entered the UK from Jamaica on 19 June 1988.

10. On 24 November 1992, Mr S wrote to the Home Office to request proof of lawful status. On 15 December, the Home Office wrote to confirm he was granted indefinite leave to remain on 1 November 1989.

11. On 5 March 2003, Mr S applied for Naturalisation as a British citizen. The Home Office refused Mr S’s application on 21 July.

12. On 1 July 2023, the Home Office received Mr S’s WCS claim.

13. On 21 and 30 November, a WCS caseworker telephoned Mr S to discuss his claim. The caseworker requested information from a probation office and local council regarding events which took place in 1992.

14. On 12 February 2024, the Home Office wrote to Mr S with the outcome of his WCS claim. It awarded him the total sum of £21,250 with the following awards for each category:

• impact on life: proposed award £20,000 • denial of access to housing services: proposed award £1,000 • homelessness: proposed award £250 • immigration and legal fees: no award • detention, deportation, removal and return (DDRR): no award • denial of access to higher education: no award.

15. On 14 February, Mr S requested his claim be reviewed under the categories of housing, education, homelessness and impact on life. He wrote to the Home Office on 25 March to accept the initial £10,000 offered whilst his review was being considered. The Home Office confirmed successful payment on 10 April.

16. On 6 August, a WCS Tier 1 Reviewer completed their review. They wrote to Mr S with the outcome on 13 August. They explained they had maintained the total award amount.

17. On 27 August, Mr S requested his claim be reviewed by the Adjudicator’s Office under the same categories as at Tier 1. The Home Office referred the claim on 3 September.

18. On 28 February 2025, the Adjudicator’s Office wrote to Mr S with the outcome of its Tier 2 Review. It recommended the Home Office reconsider its decision on homelessness. It also recommended the Home Office review its decision under the impact on life category. It did not recommend a review of the decisions under the housing and education categories.

19. Between 3 April and 10 April, WCS completed their review. They wrote to Mr S on 14 April with the outcome. They explained, whilst the relevant dates used to calculate the start and end of his period of loss were different, they had maintained the award amount. They confirmed the outstanding award of £11,250 was still to be paid.

22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event 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.

Categories: homelessness and impact on life

23. Mr S says the Home Office has refused to follow the recommendations set out by the Adjudicator’s Office regarding his WCS claim on 28 February 2025. The Adjudicator’s Office recommended the Home Office reconsider its decision on the homelessness and impact on life categories. Mr S says the awarded amounts should be higher or at least more representative of the struggles he has faced.

What should have happened

24. WCS guidance outlines caseworkers are required to assess each category of a claim on the balance of probabilities. This means they must be satisfied it is more likely than not (over a 50% chance) what has been claimed for occurred.

25. If caseworkers feel it is necessary to contact claimants for further information, they should do so and invite claimants to provide this. If the claimant is unable to do so, caseworkers should proceed to a full consideration. The WCS guidance is clear caseworkers should not continue to ask the claimant to provide something they say they cannot get.

Homelessness

26. Annex G of the WCS rules provides the framework for the homelessness category. Awards are given at a rate of £250 per month of homelessness with part months treated as full months.

27. G3 says the Home Office considers a claimant did not have access to accommodation in which it was reasonable for them to reside if they were rough sleeping, staying temporarily in accommodation (including with friends and family), or squatting.

28. G4 sets out an award may be made if the following conditions are met:

• the claimant became homeless on or after the relevant date (the date on which they became aware they could not demonstrate their lawful status) • the reason the claimant became homeless was their inability to demonstrate lawful status • the reason the claimant continued to be homeless was their inability to demonstrate lawful status.

29. G5 says the period of homelessness starts on the relevant date and ends on the date on which the claimant secured access to new accommodation that was reasonable to reside in.

Impact on life

30. The WCS guidance sets out several detrimental impacts which may be claimed. Each case should be considered on its merits. Caseworkers should ensure they do not include any impacts in this category that would be more appropriate to consider under others.

31. Caseworkers should consider whether the claimant has experienced a loss or disturbance in their everyday life because of their inability to demonstrate status. They need to determine the significance of the impact on the claimant. This, alongside supporting evidence, is what determines the tariff payment awarded.

32. For lower level impacts, evidence may be circumstantial. Caseworkers may take these statements at face value. However, impacts that have a greater effect on the claimant should be accompanied by directly relevant information and evidence where possible. For example, claims for impacts on health should be supported by medical evidence.

33. Annex H provides the framework for the impact on life category. H1 sets out the conditions which should be met. H1(a) says the primary claimant experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate lawful status. H1(c) says the detrimental impacts are of the type described in H2.

34. H2 sets out detrimental impacts can include:

• inconvenience, such as hardship lasting no more than a few days, small financial losses, or delays with no material impact • injury to feelings, such as distress, or traumatic and highly upsetting experiences • deterioration of physical and/or mental health • family separation and/or an inability to attend significant family occasions • an inability to work because of a deterioration in physical or mental health • an inability to return after a short period of time outside the UK.

35. H3 says the Home Office will use the available evidence provided to reach a determination. If an award is made, it will determine the amount payable by reference to the amounts set out in levels one to five. These range from short-lived impacts up to profound impacts which are likely to be irreversible. We consider levels two and three are most relevant and applicable to this case.

36. Level two (£20,000) covers moderately severe impacts on some aspects of 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 familiar activities, though should have been able to live a relatively normal life.

37. Level three (£40,000) says an ability to live a relatively normal life was substantially affected and overall impacts were significant. Cumulative impacts will have been experienced for an extended period (several months) with return to normal life taking a reasonable time. Short periods of focused medical treatment may have been needed.

What did happen

38. The Adjudicator’s Office recommended the Home Office reconsider its decision on homelessness. This was because its calculation of the award offered was not consistent with the WCS rules. When calculating the award offered, the Home Office used the date it provided Mr S with written confirmation of his ILR, not the date he secured accommodation which it was reasonable for him to reside in. This is a requirement under G5 of Annex G.

39. The Adjudicator’s Office also recommended the Home Office review its decision under the impact on life category, once it had reviewed homelessness. This was because it was not satisfied the assessment of when Mr S’s period of homelessness ended was reasonable.

40. Under G5 of Annex G of the WCS rules, the caseworker has calculated the period of homelessness as between 24 November and 15 December 1992. Their reasoning is that these are the dates Mr S wrote to the Home Office to request confirmation of legal status and received the associated letter, respectively. We consider this is an indication of a failing.

41. Our Principles say in decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all the relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately. We cannot see this has been done.

42. In the Home Office’s assessment documents, we can see Mr S described problems maintaining accommodation following release from a Young Offenders Institute (YOI) in 1992. He told the Home Office he was placed into a hostel in October 1992 but was told to leave as he was not a British citizen. He stated he was shocked and unprepared at this. He described his life ‘spiralled’. He began sleeping between different houses and left the UK for Jamaica.

43. Mr S told the Home Office he requested confirmation of status as a result of being asked to leave the hostel. He provided a copy of a confirmation of lawful status letter dated 15 December 1992 and confirmed he had no further issues with proving his status on receipt. The letter acknowledges Mr S wrote to the Home Office requesting this on 24 November 1992.

44. In his email correspondence, Mr S stated a friend helped him secure temporary accommodation after he left the hostel. In the telephone notes of 21 November 2023, the WCS caseworker asked how long Mr S was sleeping rough for. It appears Mr S was unable to provide confirmation of any dates.

45. In the absence of any further information from Mr S, we consider the Home Office should have considered the other available evidence on file. For example, there was relevant evidence in Mr S’s 2003 application for British citizenship, but this was not referred to in the primary claim assessment notes. This is an indication of a failing as it appears the Home Office had not taken everything relevant into account and balanced the evidence appropriately in line with our Principles. We discuss the impact of this in the following section.

46. In its case consideration for the impact on life category, the Home Office has referred to the supporting documents relied upon to reach a decision. This included making enquiries with the local council and probation service, which is in line with WCS guidance. We note the following impact described by Mr S as relevant for this category:

• being sent to a YOI for a crime he did not commit, his innocence plea, and release • the loss of his documents whilst in the YOI • being shocked and unprepared at being asked to leave the hostel in 1992 • that his life spiralled after these events including suffering long-term homelessness • the lack of application for government assistance as he did not feel entitled to it • and unfair treatment by the police.

47. There is sufficient evidence in the primary claim assessment to indicate the Home Office considered the impact on life category in line with H1 and H3 of the WCS. It noted the relevant period (when Mr S was unable to evidence his status) was short but that multiple cumulative impacts occurred as a result of Mr S being made homeless. Level two covers this level of impact for this timeframe.

48. The Home Office also considered whether Mr S would fall into a higher category. We can see it stated it would not be possible to link the police treatment to the lack of proof of status. It also accepted Mr S told it he had been able to prove his status since receiving the letter dated 15 December 1992, limiting the time period to consider. This was likely still the case as he still had a copy of the letter.

49. However, as the Home Office has not taken all available evidence into account under the homelessness category as per our Principles, we cannot say it has done so under the impact on life category. For this reason, we consider there is an indication of a failing under this category as well.

50. We considered whether Mr S provided any further information or evidence in his requests for a review. We note he stated he was in a precarious situation of being homeless, financially challenged, and pressured, all of which came about due to the events in 1992. He also stated he had been put out by the council because he could not prove his right of abode. We cannot say that this information was new or contrary to what Mr S had previously stated.

Claimed impact

51. During our correspondence, Mr S told us he feels unhappy the Home Office has not considered the impact its decision has had. He told us he has been treated unfairly since he arrived in the UK. He has also faced difficulty with his son, and that his son’s circumstances have been affected by his unfair treatment. We were very sorry to hear this is the case.

52. In its reconsideration, the Home Office relied on Mr S’s 2003 application for British citizenship as its primary evidence. We consider this is in line with WCS guidance and our Principles. While it is not contemporaneous, the application was completed by Mr S closer to the time of the events than his WCS application of 2023.

53. The Home Office noted the period of loss had been miscalculated. It referred to Mr S’s original claim, in which he stated he was asked to leave the hostel in November or December 1992. However, Mr S had stated he was sentenced to 18 months on 6 March 1992 but released six months later. Had it relied on this exact wording, the earliest date of release would have been 6 September 1992.

54. On the balance of probabilities, the Home Office noted Mr S would have been asked to provide documentation when he arrived at the hostel. It would have been in September 1992 he realised he could not find his passport. It amended the period of loss to reflect this.

55. We consider this reasoning is in line with WCS rules and guidance, as well as our Principles. The Home Office acted in line with WCS guidance in not continuing to ask Mr S for further information about when he became homeless. It has instead recalculated the dates using the balance of probabilities approach outlined in the WCS rules.

56. In his 2003 application for citizenship, Mr S stated he lived at the same address between 4 October 1992 and 30 November 2002. The Home Office noted this contradicted the previous period of loss. It felt the dates provided in the 2003 application were correct as they were written on official documentation closer to the relevant time period. We consider this reasoning is in line with WCS rules and guidance.

57. The Home Office noted the letter of 15 December 1992 was sent to the same address as listed on the 2003 application, showing Mr S had moved out of the hostel and secured new accommodation by that date. According to the application, Mr S lived at the address for a further nine years. This assessment is in line with G5 of the WCS rules and our Principles.

58. In their reconsideration, the reviewing caseworker agreed with the previous reasoning that any further issues faced by Mr S in regard to his homelessness after 15 December 1992 would not be due to an inability to demonstrate his status. Based on the evidence reviewed, we can see Mr S confirmed himself this was the case.

59. The Home Office noted, whilst the relevant dates changed, the period of loss totalled 28 days (one month) – from 6 September, which was his earliest possible release date, to 4 October, by which point the evidence showed he had secured new accommodation. In line with the tariffs for the categories G5 to G7, the Home Office awarded £250. This is the same as the previous amount awarded.

60. We understand Mr S feels the amount should be higher. During our review, we found no evidence to support this to be the case. The period of loss is limited as being no earlier than 6 September 1992 and no later than 4 October 1992. It has been calculated relying on information and evidence supplied by Mr S.

61. Based on this, we consider the Home Office has reconsidered the homelessness category in line with WCS rules and guidance, as well as our Principles, and there is no indication of injustice.

62. Under their reconsideration of the impact on life category, the caseworker compared the level two and three descriptions. They noted:

• despite reassessing the period of loss, the time period remained the same (one month) • whilst Mr S stated his life remained unstable for the last 30 years, it could not be attributed to an inability to demonstrate status as shown by Mr S’s own evidence • they had been unable to identify other areas of Mr S’s life that had been affected based on the information provided, for example, he had not advised he received any medical treatment due to issues related to his lawful status • they noted Mr S stated he had been denied citizenship; however, a review of the application shows this was because he spent too much time outside of the UK.

63. We consider this to be sufficient evidence the Home Office considered the impact on life category in line with WCS rules and guidance, took everything relevant into account and balanced the evidence appropriately. Although significant, without further supporting information or evidence from Mr S, the impact is limited to one calendar month. In line with WCS guidance, it would not have been appropriate for the Home Office to continue to request Mr S share information outside of that which he provided.

64. We understand Mr S has faced, and continues to face, extreme hardship and instability. We are very sorry to hear this. We hope he is reassured we have seen sufficient evidence the Home Office has appropriately reconsidered the homeless and impact on life categories.

Categories: denial of access to housing services and higher education

65. 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.

66. Mr S complains about the amount of compensation calculated under the housing and education categories. He says the awarded amounts should be higher or at least more representative of the struggles he has faced.

What should have happened

Housing

67. The WCS guidance says caseworkers should make enquiries with the relevant local authority to establish any necessary facts in the majority of cases.

68. Annex F of the WCS rules provides the framework for caseworkers to assess whether the claimant meets the criteria for denial of access to services. F3 of Annex F covers housing. It says an award may be made if the following conditions are met:

(a) the primary claimant was denied access to social housing, emergency or temporary accommodation, the private rented sector, and/or the right to buy scheme.

(b) the primary claimant would have accessed housing services during the relevant period had they not been denied access.

(c) the reason the primary claimant was denied access was their inability to demonstrate lawful status.

69. F4 says the primary claimant will be awarded if the Home Office is satisfied they meet the conditions above. For this category, there is a one-off award of £1,000. No additional awards are payable for multiple instances of denial of access to housing services.

Education

70. The WCS guidance defines the education category as ‘post-secondary education at a university or similar establishment usually to degree level’. It says ‘home student’ refers to those who are eligible to pay university tuition fees at a lower rate than overseas students.

71. F11 of Annex F covers education. It says an award may be made if the following is met:

(a) the primary claimant was denied access as a home student in the UK and, as a result, did not attend any higher education institution during the relevant period (b) the claimant would have taken up an opportunity at a higher education institution had they not been denied access (c) the reason the primary claimant was denied access was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status.

72. F12 says the primary claimant will be awarded if the Home Office is satisfied they meet the conditions above. For this category, there is a one-off award of £500.

What did happen

73. Following receipt of the claim, the Home Office wrote to Mr S to request further information on 2 November 2023. This included an explanation of why and when he was denied social housing, whether he was given housing once his lawful status had been confirmed in December 1992, and what tuition he paid for his education.

74. In the preliminary award assessment documents dated 9 November 2023, the Home Office noted Mr S’s claims he could not access housing as he was unable to provide lawful status in the winter of 1992. Specifically, it noted Mr S was given social housing but was told to leave it as he was not a British citizen.

75. Regarding the inability to access higher education, the Home Office documented Mr S’s claim he could not return to school after release from the YOI. It noted he stated he was told he would have to pay as he did not qualify for funding due to his citizenship status.

76. In the call of 30 November 2023, it was confirmed Mr S had obtained a letter from the Home Office as a result of being removed from social housing accommodation. This was after he realised he did not have his original passport with his no time limit stamp in it.

77. The call also discussed Mr S’s educational background prior to his sentence. We note Mr S confirmed he provided his proof of status letter from the Home Office and the passport in use at the time when he tried to enrol in college. According to the call notes, Mr S confirmed, even when shown the letter, the college told him he did not qualify for funding.

78. Mr S provided the names of at least two of the colleges he approached. These named local colleges are further education (vocational) colleges rather than higher education (offering academic qualifications) colleges.

79. On 5 and 7 December 2023, the Home Office wrote to a local probation office and a council, respectively, to request further information to support Mr S’s claim. This included his parole conditions, placement at the hostel, and loss of the placement in 1992.

80. We consider the information documented under the housing and education categories reflects the information provided by Mr S in his claim and during the call. The Home Office has referred to the supporting documents relied upon to reach a decision. This included contact with the probation office and local council. This is in line with WCS guidance.

81. Under case consideration, the Home Office documented Mr S met conditions F3(a), (b) and (c). Despite not receiving confirmation from the authorities for the reason of Mr S’s removal from the hostel in 1992, the Home Office noted Mr S submitted a letter confirming his status dated around this time. It made a balance of probabilities decision that, based on this letter, Mr S would have been experiencing issues with his lawful status.

82. We consider this is in line with WCS guidance. This is because the scheme operates on the balance of probabilities. This means caseworkers should not expect claimants to provide detailed documentary evidence to support every aspect of their claim.

83. As Mr S had met all F3 categories, the caseworker awarded £1,000 under F4. This is in line with WCS rules and guidance. We understand Mr S feels this amount should be higher. The WCS guidelines do not allow for this. There is a one-off amount for the housing category, which has been awarded. There are no indications of failings in this consideration.

84. Under case consideration for the education category, the Home Office noted Mr S did not meet the conditions under F11(a). We consider this decision is in line with WCS rules and guidance. This is because, based on the information provided by Mr S, the further education colleges knew he had lawful status. Mr S told the caseworker he had been able to show proof of status when he tried to enrol by showing his ILR letter and passport.

85. Further, we note the colleges, named by Mr S, were not higher education institutions and therefore F11(c) had not been met. In line with WCS rules and guidance, as Mr S had not met the F11 conditions, the Home Office did not award under F12.

86. We cannot see any indications of failings in this consideration. The Home Office sought further information from Mr S in November 2023. This confirmed he had provided proof of status at the time and had tried to enrol in further education colleges.

87. In his first request for a review, we cannot see Mr S provided any specific information regarding these categories. We note in the second request, Mr S stated he was put out by the local council because he could not prove his right of abode. He stated he was denied education for the same reason. We considered if this information was new and therefore required further consideration by the Home Office. We cannot see that it was.

88. We appreciate this decision may cause additional distress to Mr S who, as far as we understand, has had very difficult circumstances throughout much of his life. We are very sorry that our primary investigation may not have resulted in the outcome sought. We hope he is reassured we fully considered the concerns he brought to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr S’s complaint about the Home Office. We were sorry to hear about the circumstances that led Mr S to approach us and of the difficulties he told us he has experienced throughout his life. He told us he has been homeless for a long time.

2. Having looked at the evidence available to us, we have not seen any indication that anything went wrong regarding the Home Office’s consideration of Mr S’s claim to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) under the housing and education categories.

3. We have seen an indication the Home Office did not act in line with the relevant guidance in reaching its earlier decisions under the homelessness and impact on life categories. In this case, we have reviewed the Home Office’s reconsideration. We feel the Home Office has appropriately reconsidered these categories. As such, we consider it has now put things right.

4. For these reasons, we have decided not to take any further action on the complaint. We hope Mr S is reassured by our explanation below.