Home Office

4. Mr A complains about the service he received from the Home Office. He complains that:

• The Home Office initially rejected his application for recognition as a British citizen under the Windrush Scheme and advised him that as a result he does not have the Right of Abode in the UK. His application was later accepted, but the Home Office refused to backdate this to 1971 • The Home Office wrongly advised him that he became a citizen of St. Lucia after the country gained independence from the UK in 1979 • The Home Office has refused to provide a visa for his wife and mother-in-law, which he believes would be granted if his citizenship status has not been refused

5. Mr A says he was effectively left stateless because he is also not a citizen of St Lucia, and his family have not been allowed to follow him to the UK. Although his status has now been granted, he explained these events have caused many years of stress for him and his family and resulted in them being unable to join him in the UK.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr A is seeking for us to recommend that the Home Office backdate his citizenship status to 1971. He also wants them to provide a visa for his wife and her mother.

7. He also believes that financial compensation would be appropriate for the stress he has suffered and the time he has had to spend fighting his case.

8. Mr A was born in St. Lucia in 1956, which he says granted him British Subject Status under the British Nationality Act 1948. This is a piece of UK government legislation that established the concept of British citizenship. The Act aimed to formalise British citizenship by providing a unified legal framework that recognised people who were born, naturalised or registered either in the UK or one of its colonies.

9. In 1959, aged three, he moved to England and began school here aged four. He grew up in England and held various employment until he moved to Cananda in 1980.

10. Mr A explained he never held a St. Lucian passport and obtained a British passport in London in 1977 (which was valid for 10 years).

11. In 2010 he went to the passport office in London and was given a new British passport. Shortly after he received a letter from the Home Office to say it had been issued in error. He was informed that as St Lucia had gained independence in 1979, he was now a St Lucian citizen. As a result, his British status was removed.

12. Mr A says his father registered him in 1995 but that the Home Office has refused to accept this as it cannot find any information about this. Mr A was unable to confirm who or where this registration was with, or what was meant by ‘registered’.

13. Mr A maintains that the Home Office has not correctly followed its own guidance or that of the St Lucian government with regard to who should be considered a St Lucian citizen following its independence.

Application for Citizenship

16. Mr A complains that the Home Office rejected his application for recognition as a British citizen under the Windrush Scheme and advised him that as a result he does not have the Right of Abode in the UK. The original decision was made on 3 June 2023, and a review was later carried out, with the decision being upheld on 4 September 2023.

17. Since the complaint was brought to PHSO, the Home Office has reviewed its decision again, and Mr A had his citizenship status approved on 15 December 2025. However, he still wishes to pursue the point that it was rejected in the first instance. He also feels that his citizenship should be backdated to 1971, but the Home Office refused to do this.

18. The Home Office provided a response to Mr A on 21 January 2025. It explained that the decision had been reviewed again, and the decision remained that Mr A’s application would be refused. It advised that he did not qualify for recognition as a British citizen under the Windrush Scheme, and he did not have Right of Abode (ROA) in the UK. It advised that he did retain his Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

19. The Home Office gave its reasons for the decision as:

20. “Reasons why you have not been recognised as already British • you were not a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies (CUKC) following the independence of St Lucia on 22 February 1979

21. Reasons why you have not been granted British citizenship • you were not born in the UK • you need to have been in the UK on the date five years before you made your application to the Windrush Scheme, but you were outside the UK on 13 October 2017 • you have spent 1795 days outside of the UK between 13 October 2017 and 12 October 2022 which is more than the 450 days allowed during the Qualifying Period.

22. Right of abode • you are not a British citizen.

• you ceased to be a British Subject: CUKC following the independence of St Lucia on 22 February 1979

23. Mr A challenged this on the basis that he held ROA before St Lucia gained its independence, and he was born under the ‘British Nationality Act 1948’ which granted him the status of a British citizen.

24. The Home Office again rejected this, citing the reasons it had already given. It noted that Mr A had referred them to section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1948, which he claimed backed his position, and explained that the British Nationality Act 1981 superseded this. It explained the 1981 Act states that those with CUKC status and the entitlement to the right of abode automatically became British Citizens on 1 January 1983. As Mr A’s CUKC status ceased on 22 February 1979, he therefore did not automatically acquire British Citizenship.

25. Mr A maintained that Section 9 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 meant that in circumstances such as his own the Home Secretary must exercise discretion to waive the five year rule and grant his status. The Home Office however pointed out that the guidance he referred to allows the Secretary of State to exercise discretion, rather than mandate that they must do so. The Home Office quoted its guidance document ‘Guidance on registering as a British citizen’, which states:

26. “You may feel you missed out if you were originally a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and lost that status when the country you were born in became independent. However, changes on independence applied to all those connected to a territory and reflected the intention of Parliament and the government of that country. We do not consider the introduction of the British Nationality Act 1981 itself, or the independence of a territory, to constitute historical legislative unfairness.”

27. Following further challenges by Mr A, the Home Office continued to maintain its decision until March 2025.

28. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. During the process of the complaint coming to PHSO and the early stages of the investigation, the Home Office reconsidered its decision and subsequently granted Mr A’s application following a pre-action protocol letter. He has now been granted British Citizenship.

29. This development greatly limits what PHSO can look at here. Mr A has sought legal advice to challenge the Windrush Scheme decision and obtained part of his goal – to obtain British Citizenship. The remaining sticking point is that the Home Office has advised his status is active as of 15 December 2025, and Mr A wishes for it to be backdated to 1971.

30. Mr A explained that he wishes it to be backdated to recognise that he has been a British citizen throughout all this time. He says the law stated he was a British Subject in 1971 because of the BNA of 1948 and again in 1971, and he held Right of Abode plus 5 five years of settlement. He is also seeking compensation.

31. These do not appear to be outcomes that we could recommend, as citizenship is not something that is backdated. Further the Windrush Scheme does not award compensation – it was set up to help eligible individuals to obtain proof of their legal status – something which Mr A has obtained. A separate scheme – the Windrush Compensation Scheme offers eligible individuals the opportunity to make a claim for compensation if they have suffered losses or impacts as a result of difficulties evidencing their legal status in the UK. If Mr A believes that this applies to him, then it is open to him to pursue this.

32. With no mechanism in place to provide the outcomes Mr A is seeking (beyond the one already achieved), we must end consideration of this point here.

St Lucian Citizenship

33. Mr A says that when his application was rejected, the Home Office wrongly advised him as part of the reason for the rejection was that it was because he became a citizen of St. Lucia after the country gained independence from the UK in 1979. He explained that not all people born in St Lucia prior to this time, including himself, were granted automatic citizenship. He says that the Home Office made an incorrect assumption and has refused to accept his challenge to this.

34. In its response of 21 January 2025, the Home Office advised that when St Lucia gained independence (on 22 February 1979) it ceased to be a colony of the UK, and that all citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies (CUKC) who obtained St Lucian nationality lost their CUKC status (unless their specific circumstances meant that they had an exception).

35. The HO advised that Mr A’s CUKC status was therefore withdrawn at that time as he acquired citizenship of St Lucia. It said there is no evidence to suggest that he (or his parents) had an exception to loss.

36. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances.

37. As noted above the HO have now decided to grant Mr A’s citizenship after his solicitor issued them with a pre-action protocol letter with a view to taking the matter to court.

38. Mr A is seeking compensation for what happened. It would perhaps be helpful here to explain the difference between the Windrush Scheme and the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

39. The Windrush Scheme (WS) – whose decisions Mr A has complained to us about in this complaint - is a UK government initiative to help members of the Windrush generation prove their legal right to live and work in the UK. Mr A is already able to prove this.

40. In contrast, the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) is designed to compensate people who have been impacted because of an inability to prove their status.

41. We have confirmed with the Home Office that as well as the WS claim we are investigating, Mr A has also made a WCS claim. The Home Office advised it provided its Tier 1 Decision, which found that no compensation was due. It explained it had advised Mr A that he had the right to a Tier 2 review, but it has not received a request from him to pursue this.

42. It therefore appears Mr A has applied for compensation via the Windrush Compensation Scheme but has not completed this process. The Windrush Scheme does not award compensation.

43. It appears that there has some conflation here between the desired outcomes of the two schemes..

44. It appears Mr A’s complaint about the WS decision on his citizenship has been resolved following legal challenge. The other outcomes he is seeking are not available through the Windrush Scheme as it does not award compensation. If Mr A completes the WCS review process, he would be able to bring a complaint about that to us if he is not satisfied with the outcome.

Rejected visas

45. The Home Office has refused to provide a visa for his wife and mother-in-law, meaning that they cannot join him in the UK.

46. We could see no reference to this matter in any of the complaint documents from the Home Office. We contacted the Home Office directly to request any information, and the HO confirmed that it has no record of Mr A raising any complaint about the matter.

47. We have advised Mr A that if he wishes to pursue this, he needs to raise the matter directly with the HO. PHSO cannot consider a complaint until the HO has first been given the opportunity to investigate the matter itself, and to provide a response. We passed on to Mr A the details from the HO of what information they will need from him in order to consider this complaint.

48. PHSO will end consideration of this matter here.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Home Office (HO). We were very sorry to read of the events which led to Mr A bringing this complaint to PHSO. We recognise that he encountered many very difficult issues over a prolonged period of time, and that this has had a significant effect on him.

2. Mr A complains about the Home Office’s decisions in relation to an application he made to the Windrush Scheme to be recognised as a British Citizen. Mr A has successfully pursued a legal remedy in relation to this decision and has now been granted citizenship. We consider the other outcomes he is seeking in relation to this decision are not ones we would be able to achieve.

3. For the complaint about a refusal by the Home Office to grant visas for Mr A’s wife and mother-in-law, we found this matter to be premature and not yet ready for PHSO to consider.