The Adjudicator’s Office

WCS 4. Miss A complains about the handling of her compensation claim under the WCS. She says the WCS did not assess her evidence holistically, and instead treated different aspects of the claimed harm in isolation rather than as one connected picture of cumulative and long-term impact. She is concerned the WCS narrowed the scope of accepted harm, recognising anxiety, distress, and some emotional impact linked to her mother’s inability to demonstrate legal status, but not, in her view, the wider developmental and psychological consequences flowing from the same circumstances. She says the WCS failed to consider the evidence she sent supporting her claim, such as her character references and her clinical records. She says the clinical records were only partly uploaded to the WCS, and the WCS failed to request the missing documents.

The AO 5. Miss A complains the AO overlooked the same evidence as the WCS when reviewing the WCS decision.

6. She feels failure by the WCS and the AO to properly assess her evidence and recognise the long-term psychological impacts of her mother’s inability to demonstrate lawful status has left her feeling misunderstood and unsupported. She says the lack of clarity and consistency in decision-making, particularly around linking her harm to her mother’s immigration issues, exacerbated her distress and denied her a fair outcome. This has contributed to a deepened sense of injustice and emotional harm.

7. As an outcome she would like the WCS to reconsider its decision on her claim and for the WCS and the AO to make service improvements.

8. In December 1935 – Miss A’s mother (Mrs A) was born in Jamaica as a British subject.

9. In January 1949 Mrs A became a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force. In September 1961 Mrs A was issued with a British passport as a British subject: CUKC. In November 1961 Mrs A left Jamaica.

10. On 6 August 1962 – Jamaica gained independence from the UK. Mrs A ceased to be a CUKC and became a citizen of Jamaica. In November 1962 the records show Mrs A arrived in the UK.

11. In March 1970 Miss A was born in the UK. On 1 January 1973 Mrs A acquired indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK, when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force. In July 1980 Mrs A applied for registration as a CUKC. In November 1981 Mrs A was registered as a CUKC. On 1 January 1983 Mrs A became a British citizen, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force.

12. On 17 May 2024 Miss A registered a claim under the WCS as a close family member of her mother. On 18 August 2024 the WCS completed its consideration of Miss A’s claim, determining no award was appropriate. In January 2025 Miss A referred her complaint to the AO, who asked the WCS to reconsider its decision as it identified a discrepancy between the way it had handled Miss A and her mother’s claims. On 29 October 2025 the WCS reviewed the decision and awarded Miss A £10,000 under the impact on life category.

15. 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.

The WCS 16. Miss A feels the WCS did not assess her evidence holistically, and instead treated different aspects of the claimed harm in isolation rather than as one connected picture of cumulative and long-term impact. She is concerned the WCS narrowed the scope of accepted harm, recognising anxiety, distress, and some emotional impact linked to her mother’s inability to demonstrate legal status, but not, in her view, the wider developmental and psychological consequences flowing from the same circumstances. She says the WCS failed to consider the evidence she sent supporting her claim, such as her character references and her clinical records. She says the clinical records were only partly uploaded to the WCS, and the WCS failed to request the missing documents.

17. Miss A brought her claim to the WCS as a close family member, she described the impact she experienced because of her mother's inability to demonstrate lawful status.

18. Miss A’s claim was initially rejected by the WCS. She told the WCS her mother did not have any significant difficulties proving her lawful status between 1973 to 1981 when she was naturalised as a British citizen, however, she still feared immigration officials. The WCS was unable to gather any further evidence to suggest Miss A’s mother faced deportation. Therefore, it did not accept on balance the impacts Miss A claimed were caused by an inability to demonstrate lawful status.

19. Miss A referred the complaint to the AO for further investigation as she was unhappy with the WCS’s decision. In its review the AO reviewed the WCS’s evidence relating to her mother’s primary claim. In her mother’s case the WCS accepted that there was a period, 31 July 1980 to 9 November 1981, when Miss A’s mother was unable to demonstrate her lawful status. It made an award for Impact on life.

20. The AO felt there was an inconsistency between Miss A’s claim and her mother’s claim as to whether her mother could demonstrate her lawful status. The AO felt the WCS’s decision on Miss A’s claim was inconsistent with the WCS rules and asked the WCS to reconsider its decision.

21. During the reconsideration of her claim, Miss A asked the WCS to consider external information which she explained supported the racism, exclusion, and lack of support her mother experienced when she arrived in the UK. She also provided part of her clinical records which she explained showed the long-term impact her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status had on her. The WCS reconsidered its decision and acknowledged that during the time her mother’s application for registration as a CUKC was being processed, Miss A —at approximately 10 years of age—would likely have experienced a degree of anxiety and fear regarding her mother’s situation and its potential outcomes. The WCS felt this met the criteria for a Level 1 impact award under the Impact on Life category and offered £10,000 as compensation.

22. Core to making an award in the ‘Close Family Member’ category is the question of whether Miss A’s mother could demonstrate her lawful status. Section 1.5 of the WCS Rules outline what is defined by ‘lawful status’: • a right of abode in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971; or • settled status

23. And: ‘settled status’ means indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 and references to being settled in the United Kingdom should be read accordingly.

24. Miss A has described to our service the extremely difficult experiences which are attributed to her mother’s inability to demonstrate her legal status, and how they impacted her from a young age and continue to impact her today. She explains it shaped the atmosphere she grew up in, the way she developed emotionally, the way she learned to cope, the way she dealt with fear, trust, relationships, authority, and even how she saw herself as a person.

25. She described a strained relationship with her mother, which was attributed to her mother’s experiences following her arrival in the UK and the difficulties she encountered because of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status when trying to gain access to employment and other services. She also described episodes of self-harming when she was younger. She explained the WCS has failed to properly consider the cumulative impact of this when awarding the £10,000 compensation and has instead separated these into smaller injustices. She explains she submitted large amounts of evidence to support the impact, such as her character references and her medical records, which the WCS only partially reviewed.

26. We are truly sorry to hear of the experiences Miss A has described as being attributable to her mother’s difficulties.

27. We have considered whether the £10,000 award was reasonable and in line with the WCS Rules.

28. We can see in the WCS’s initial decision letter dated 18 August 2024 and in the further review decision letter dated 29 October 2025, the WCS explained it is unable to consider any impacts which occurred prior to the Immigration Act 1971 coming into force on 1 January 1973 (when Miss A would have been three years old). It explained any experiences which occurred prior to this date (January 1973) cannot be used to consider impact as prior to this date there was no requirement to hold lawful status and commonwealth citizens were awarded freedom of movement. This conclusion is reasonable as such impacts claimed by Miss A pre-date the definition of lawful status in the Immigration Act 1971, as defined at paragraph 1.5 of the WCS rules outlined above.

29. Annex H of the WCS Rules deals with impact on life awards. The WCS caseworker guidance says WCS will determine whether to make an award under this Annex based on the evidence available, it will then determine the level of award payable based on the levels outlined below. Taking into consideration all circumstances, the number, severity and duration of the impact. It will reach a decision on the balance of probabilities.

30. Annex H of the WCS Rules explains the HO will determine the amount of award payable by reference to a table with five levels. These levels allow for awards of £10,000, £20,000, £40,000, £70,000 and £100,000 (with scope to award more than £100,000 if appropriate). When deciding on the appropriate level, the HO will ‘take into account all the circumstances, the number, severity and duration of detrimental impacts and all available evidence’.

31. The WCS decided the impact of Miss A’s experiences fell within level one. The description for this level is:

• ‘an impact where there has been a 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).’

32. The Principles outline how we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately in their decision making.

33. In the WCS caseworker’s further review of her claim in October 2025, we can see they reviewed Miss A’s clinical records to try to establish what impact, if any, she suffered. Miss A feels the WCS only considered part of the clinical records available and is unhappy the WCS did not request the full records available. Miss A says the additional clinical records show the long-lasting impact she experienced as a result of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. She explains the online portal only allowed her to upload a limited amount of clinical records, she says the WCS failed to request the remaining records. She explained to our service how these records show the complete picture of the long-lasting impact she experienced as a direct result of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status.

34. In their decision rationale the WCS caseworker identified and acknowledged the range of debilitating health conditions Miss A suffers from. They considered, importantly, there was no clear link between these health issues and her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status.

35. They also acknowledged the abuse Miss A explained she suffered from her mother, which she attributed to the stress her mother was under at the time. In their rationale the WCS caseworker was not satisfied her mother’s behaviour was caused by any issues she may have been having with her status as opposed to any other factors.

36. Within the evidence provided, we can see in the claim assessment the WCS caseworker carefully considered Miss A’s claim in line with the guidance set out by Annex H of the WCS Rules. It appears the WCS applied the correct policy to consider the claim.

37. During the assessment the WCS caseworker considered whether there was sufficient evidence to say the subsequent issues Miss A described in respect of the long-standing impact on her were related to her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. They concluded that during the time her mother’s application for registration as a CUKC was being processed, Miss A —at approximately 10 years of age—would likely have experienced a degree of anxiety and fear regarding her mother’s situation and its potential outcomes. This appears reasonable and is in line with the WCS Rules which say impact on life is for non-financial impact. The WCS felt the impact under impact on life claimed by Miss A was in line with a level one award.

38. We can see the WCS also considered whether there was any justification for increasing this to a Level 2 award, given the long duration of the impact claimed by Miss A, as evidenced by the substantial evidence she provided and the clinical records available.

39. The evidence shows the WCS caseworker approached Miss A throughout the investigation to enable her to provide the relevant evidence she felt supported her claim. As we explain above, during the claim assessment the WCS felt that while she had debilitating health conditions they considered there was no clear link between these health issues and her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. The WCS caseworker also felt it could not be satisfied her mother’s behaviour towards her was caused by any issues her mother may have had demonstrating her lawful status as opposed to any other factors in place at the time.

40. Miss A feels the WCS failed to reach a robust view on the balance of probabilities regarding the long-term impact of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. She feels strongly the WCS Caseworker should have considered all her clinical records, instead of only viewing part of these. She says without viewing the full evidence, it could not possibly reach a fair and balanced view.

41. Miss A feels these records show how her chronic anxiety, emotional distress, and developmental impacts were connected and cumulative over many years. She believes this missing evidence demonstrates the link between her claimed impact and her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status, she feels if this was considered properly it would lead to a fairer and more comprehensive assessment of her claim.

42. Miss A considers her complete clinical records, including the 131 pages which she believes were not reviewed by the WCS, provide comprehensive evidence of the long-term emotional and psychological harm she experienced. She explains that the records document chronic anxiety, emotional shutdown, hypervigilance, self-harming behaviours, and other mental health struggles. She explains these developed over time because of the unstable environment caused by her mother’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. She believes these records, when reviewed in full, would provide vital corroboration of her claims, showing the continuity and cumulative nature of her emotional and psychological harm, which was not adequately recognised in the previous assessments by the WCS.

43. She also provided character references which she feels show independent observations of the long-term changes in her emotional well-being, mental health, and behaviour. These references describe how she experienced anxiety, emotional withdrawal, stress, isolation, and difficulty coping over many years. She emphasises that the character references corroborate the emotional harm and behavioural patterns she described in her submissions, showing consistent evidence of the lasting psychological impact of growing up in an emotionally unstable environment shaped by her mother’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. She says these references back up her claims and demonstrate the cumulative nature of the harm she experienced.

44. The WCS Caseworker Guidance outlines how 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. In relation to lower-level impacts, such as inconvenience or distress, information and evidence may just be circumstantial, for instance, distress and upset caused by the inability to demonstrate their lawful status. They (the WCS Caseworker) may take at face value a statement that the claimant has experienced inconvenience or distress when the facts of the claim are considered in the round. Impacts that have a greater effect on a claimant might be accompanied by directly relevant supporting information. A claim for impacts on mental or physical health can be supported by medical evidence of the detriment suffered and an opinion that this was caused by, or exacerbated by, uncertainty over lawful status.

45. It is clear from reading the evidence provided how much Miss A has gone through.

46. Miss A explains how when she initially submitted her claim, the online portal only allowed her to upload 50 pages of her clinical records. She explains there were still 131 pages outstanding. We have not seen that she highlighted this to WCS at the time, so it is not clear at this stage if the WCS was aware there was outstanding information.

47. We would have expected Miss A to have told the WCS about this issue during the initial assessment, and we do not think it would be reasonable to hold the WCS responsible for this, as it could only make a decision based on the evidence Miss A provided.

48. We have seen that she emailed the full records to WCS on 8 January 2025. This means they were available to the WCS caseworker who completed their reconsideration of her claim in October 2025 and we can see that they took them into account in their consideration of the evidence.

49. Ultimately after considering Miss A’s clinical records during its final review, the WCS caseworker felt there was no evidence Miss A’s health conditions could be linked, even on the balance of probabilities, to her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status in the UK. As we explain above, it identified the impact here to be the anxiety and fear Miss A would have experienced as a 10 year-old, regarding her mother’s situation and its potential outcomes, including deportation.

50. It was not possible for WCS to establish a direct link between the inability of Miss A’s mother to demonstrate her lawful status and the health impacts being claimed by Miss A – we have not seen any evidence which shows the health conditions Miss A suffered were caused by her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status through either her clinical records or character references. It therefore appears the WCS’s consideration of the evidence was in line with the WCS Caseworker Guidance.

51. Overall the evidence does suggest the WCS considered each piece of evidence fairly, taking a balanced and proportionate approach to determine what level of impact there was from her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. This is in line with the WCS caseworker rules.

52. We acknowledge the difficulties Miss A has encountered during her life and it is clear how much of an impact this subsequently continues to have on her. We are truly sorry to hear of the hardships she has experienced.

53. The evidence indicates the WCS fairly balanced the evidence in respect of Miss A’s impact when reaching a decision on the award. It appears to have followed the WCS Rules and acted in line with the Principles, as we can see the WCS has taken account of the relevant evidence and balanced the evidence appropriately in their decision making. Therefore, there are no indications anything has gone seriously wrong here.

54. Miss A came to us because she believed the WCS had made mistakes when calculating her award. We have carefully considered the matter and hope Miss A has found the information and explanations we have provided helpful as to why we do not think there are signs anything has gone wrong.

The AO

55. Miss A is unhappy with the AO’s role in considering her WCS claim. She says the AO failed to assess the evidence she provided in a holistic way, she says they separated her harm into different parts rather than as a continuous and cumulative impact. She says the AO did not fully engage with the extensive evidence she provided, she was unhappy they AO also failed to request the missing medical records. She feels the AO’s approach overlooked the long-term psychological effects linked to their mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status, which resulted in an unfair decision and failure to understand the total impact she experienced.

56. The role of the AO in considering complaints about the WCS is to provide an independent review of complaints made by individuals who are dissatisfied with the service they have received from the WCS. This includes complaints about delays, poor communication, administrative errors, and other issues relating to how their compensation claims have been handled under the WCS.

57. The AO guidance outlines the scope of the complaints it considers. It says the AO can investigate complaints about maladministration such as errors, unreasonable delays, or failure to follow processes, relating to the WCS team. Importantly the AO cannot make decisions itself about entitlement to compensation. The AO can make recommendations to the Home Office if it finds evidence of maladministration or poor service. This could include issuing an apology, reviewing the claim, or awarding financial redress for hurt feelings and inconvenience.

58. From reviewing the evidence we can see Miss A was unhappy with the initial decision by the WCS not to award any compensation. She referred the complaint onto the AO in January 2025 expressing her dissatisfaction with the decision and requesting a further review. Between January and August 2025, Miss A submitted a significant amount of additional evidence to the AO in which she outlined the reasons she felt the decision was wrong and reiterated the impact of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. The AO reviewed the additional evidence and wrote to Miss A on 24 September 2025, outlining its decision.

59. The AO felt there was an inconsistency in the WCS’s handling of Miss A and her mother’s claims for compensation. While her mother’s primary claim was accepted, acknowledging a period (1980–1981) when she could not demonstrate her lawful status, this was not reflected in Miss A’s claim as a close family member.

60. The AO asked the WCS to review the decision on Miss A’s claim again, ensuring it considered the new information submitted and provided a clear explanation of its decision.

61. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint.

62. In its acknowledgement letter to Miss A dated 15 January 2025, it provided Miss A with a link to its website, in which its role is clearly defined. We can see the AO reviewed Miss A’s claim and identified a discrepancy between the way in which the WCS handled her and her mother’s compensation claims. The AO then recommended the WCS reconsider this decision, which it did and Miss A was subsequently awarded £10,000. As we outline above, this is in line with the purpose of the AO, which does not make it’s own decisions regarding suitability or compensation. Instead it can recommend the WCS reconsider its decision on claims.

63. We are satisfied the AO properly considered the evidence available, in line with its guidance. As the AO does not make its own decisions on suitability or compensation, there would be no requirement for the AO to consider the long-term impact in the way Miss A feels they should have done. This would be for the WCS to determine when it reconsidered her claim.

64. Overall we have seen no indications to suggest the AO failed to consider the evidence in a fair way, we think this is further evidenced by the outcome of the AO’s review in which it requested the WCS reconsider this case again.

65. Miss A has clearly suffered hardship during her life and we are sorry to hear of the long-lasting distress this continues to cause her. Miss A came to us because she believed both the WCS and the AO had made mistakes when calculating her award. While we have not seen indications that anything went wrong, we have carefully considered her concerns and hope Miss A finds the information and explanations we have provided helpful.

1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS). We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong in respect of the compensation awarded under the impact on life aspect of the WCS’s decision.

2. We have also seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong in respect of the AO’s handling of Miss A’s complaint.

3. Miss A has clearly suffered hardship during her life and we are sorry to hear of the long-lasting distress this continues to cause her. Miss A came to us because she believed both the WCS and the AO had made mistakes when calculating her award. We have carefully considered her concerns and hope Miss A finds the information and explanations we have provided helpful to understand why we haven’t seen anything to suggest something went wrong.