Home Office

4. Miss J complains about WCS’s consideration of her Close Family Member (CFM) claim under the category ‘Impact on Life’. She says WCS did not properly reconsider her claim under this category, despite recommendations from the Adjudicator’s Office to do so.

5. Miss J says WCS applied their rules too narrowly and did not fully consider her lived experience of growing up with her father’s uncertainty and anxiety surrounding his lawful status. Because of this, she says they reached the wrong decision with regards to the level of compensation she is entitled to under the category of ‘Impact on Life’.

6. As an outcome of this complaint, Miss J would like WCS to reconsider its decision not to award her under this category.

7. Miss J told WCS her father, Mr K, was born in 1959 in Jamaica and arrived in the UK in 1969. Mr K arrived after Jamaica gained independence from the UK on 6 August 1962, so when he arrived in the UK, he was a citizen of Jamaica and the Commonwealth. On 1 January 1973, because of the introduction of the Immigration Act 1971, Mr K automatically gained indefinite leave to remain in the UK as he was a Commonwealth citizen, residing and settled in the UK at the time.

8. Mr K obtained a Jamaican passport in 1994 as he wished to travel, but due to concerns regarding his legal status and whether this may affect him returning to the UK, he applied for his British citizenship in 1995. Mr K was granted naturalisation as a British citizen in 1995.

9. Miss J was born in the UK in 1981. She provided information to WCS about her childhood and the impact she explained her father's status issues had on her.

10. Miss J made a CFM application to WCS on in March 2025, following her father’s Primary claim. In May 2025, WCS sent their initial decision confirming they could not award Miss J under the categories of ‘Impact on Life’ or ‘Living Costs’. On the same date, Miss J requested a tier 1 review of this decision under the ‘Impact on Life’ category. The tier 1 review was returned in June 2025 and found WCS made the correct decision – no award.

11. In July 2025, Miss J applied for a tier 2 review, and in February 2026, the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) recommended WCS reconsider their decision as they felt they had not fully considered Miss J’s emotional impact, due to the fear and anxiety her father faced surrounding his lawful status before 1995, under the ‘Impact on Life’ category. WCS reviewed their decision but in March 2026 decided to uphold the initial decision and offer no award under this category. As Miss J remained dissatisfied with this outcome, she made a complaint to us in March 2026.

14. At this stage in our process, we do not review all evidence but consider whether there are indications something has gone wrong. If we consider there are indications something has gone wrong, we may decide to investigate a complaint. If not, we will decline to investigate. At this point we may also try to find a resolution to the complaint if we think we can help achieve a fair outcome.

15. Miss J has concerns about WCS’s consideration of her CFM claim under the category ‘Impact on Life’. She says WCS did not properly reconsider her claim under this category, despite recommendations from the AO to do so. She believes WCS applied their rules too narrowly and did not fully consider her lived experience of growing up with her father’s uncertainty and anxiety surrounding his lawful status. Because of this, she tells us WCS reached the wrong decision with regards to the level of compensation she is entitled to under the category of ‘Impact on Life’.

16. Following our consideration of the information provided by Miss J, we requested and reviewed WCS’s file.

17. We contacted WCS to discuss Miss J’s complaint with them, so we were able to better understand the reasons for their decision not to award Miss J under the Impact on Life category. WCS told us they were willing to withdraw their most recent decision and offer Miss J a reconsideration of the claim.

18. After carefully reviewing Miss J’s complaint, we understand she was looking for WCS to reconsider her claim and fully address the concerns raised about the emotional impact of her father’s lawful status under the ‘Impact on Life’ category. WCS has offered to revisit its decision, which directly resolves the issue Miss J brought to us. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration, as WCS has acted fairly by agreeing to review their decision and take steps to put things right. Their response supports a fair outcome for Miss J and aligns with what she hoped to achieve when she made her complaint.

19. We shared this outcome with Miss J, and she did not indicate any reasons why we should continue reviewing the case further. As WCS’s offer of reconsideration meets the resolution Miss J was seeking, we believe it is the right and fair outcome for her complaint.

20. We recognise this has likely been a frustrating process for Miss J, and we hope WCS’s decision to revisit her claim will help address the concerns she raised. Based on the steps taken so far, we have decided to close this case to allow WCS to reconsider Miss J’s claim.

1. We have carefully considered Miss J’s complaint about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS).

2. We have now completed our consideration of Miss J’s complaint about WCS. To reach our decision, we have reviewed the information Miss J and WCS provided. Having done this, we have decided not to consider her complaint further. This is because WCS have agreed to reconsider their review of Miss J’s claim.

3. We explain the reasons for our decision below.