Home Office

5. Mr A complains about the way the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) handled his ‘Close Family Member’ (CFM) claim and the delays processing his application. He says it asked for information about his mother’s legal status, which he says he had already provided, and misadvised him about what type of claim to submit.

6. As a result of this, he had to submit another claim, and this delayed his CFM application.

7. As an outcome of his complaint, he would like WCS to introduce service improvements and would like financial compensation.

Complaint background

8. Mr A’s mother, Mrs B, was born in South Africa in 1974. Mrs B was South African, and her father was a British Citizen.

9. In 1978, Mrs B and her mother came over to the UK. It is not clear from the records whether her father travelled to the UK with them, or whether he already lived here.

10. In 1983, Mrs B acquired British Citizenship by descent, through her father, under Section 11(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

11. Mr A was born in the UK in 1995 and had lawful status from birth, as Mrs B had lawful status.

12. In 2021, Mr A and Mrs B both tried to apply for a passport and Mr A says the Home Office told them that neither he nor his mother had British Citizenship. According to WCS’ claim consideration record, it acknowledged they both have their passport applications rejected because of issues demonstrating their lawful status.

13. Mr A applied for British Citizenship and paid £1225.20 for his application and £78.50 for the appointment. He says he could not afford this and had to get the money through credit and repay this with interest.

14. Despite having lawful status, Mr A and Mrs B applied for British Citizenship through the Windrush Scheme. This scheme provides lawful residents with documentation to prove their right to live and work in the UK. Mrs B’s application was rejected, as it recognised she was already a British Citizen, but the Home Office issued Mr A with a certificate of registration in 2023 to recognise and demonstrate his British Citizenship.

15. Mr A applied for compensation through WCS as both a ‘Primary Claimant’ and a ‘Close Family Member’ in 2024.

16. WCS applicants can apply for compensation as someone who was directly affected as a result of not being able to prove their lawful status, known as the ‘Primary Claimant’. Or, they can apply as someone who is, or was, a close family member of a primary claimant who was affected as a result of the primary claimant’s inability to demonstrate their lawful status.

17. Mr A first applied as a primary claimant on 22 May 2024, which he says was after WCS advised him to do so (we have not seen any record of this conversation). In support of this claim, he provided his birth certificate, driving license, a Windrush Scheme letter confirming his mother’s British Citizenship, and his Certificate of registration in support of his claim.

18. On 1 July 2024, WCS told Mr A he was not eligible to apply for compensation as a Primary Claimant. He says the person he corresponded with advised him to claim as a close family member of his mother, which he did on 15 July.

19. On 18 August, the WCS case handler referred Mr A’s case to a senior officer and noted Mr A needed to provide a ‘status letter’ (proof of his lawful status). On 9 September, the records say WCS put Mr A’s case on hold while it waited for a ‘status letter’.

20. We asked WCS to explain what this meant. It explained that it had accepted Mr A was eligible to apply as a close family member of his mother. In the eligibility record, it said he was deemed a British Citizen from birth under Section 1.1(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981. This says:

‘A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement [F1, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day,] shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—

(a)a British citizen; or

(b)settled in the United Kingdom [F2or that territory].’

21. However, there was an issue with the registration certificate he had provided as evidence of his lawful status.

22. WCS explained that the Home Office had registered him as British Citizen in 2023 in error, as he was automatically a British Citizen from birth and it had needlessly issued him with a certificate of registration (a certificate proving he had been granted citizenship). This duplicated the record of his lawful status, which caused confusion for WCS when it handled his case. However, while this was an error, it explained the decision to grant him citizenship in 2023 was correct based on the evidence Mr A had presented to the Home Office.

23. It told us he and his mother’s legal status had only become apparent after looking through the Home Office records and identifying that Mr A’s grandfather, on his mother’s side, was a British Citizen. This appears to have happened in 2024 when WCS was completing its eligibility checks, as there is no evidence it had identified this prior to Mr A’s application.

24. Therefore, WCS told us the registration certificate was not accurate evidence of Mr A’s lawful status, and it requested he return this so it could destroy the record and provide him with a status letter that confirmed his entitlement to citizenship from birth.

25. Between October and February, we can see WCS was also processing Mr A’s appeal in relation to its decision on his first claim, where he applied as a Primary Claimant. Despite his appeal, WCS refused his application, as it said he was not eligible to apply as a primary claimant (he did not meet any of the criteria).

26. On 4 February, WCS requested Mr A return his certificate of registration.

27. On 26 February, WCS wrote to Mr A to confirm he was eligible to apply for compensation as a close family member of his mother.

28. On 24 March, WCS upheld Mr A’s claim, under ‘Impact on life’, and awarded him £20,000. According to the claim consideration record, this was in recognition of the fact that Mrs B was unable to demonstrate her lawful status, and this had an impact on Mr A.

29. It recognised the difficulties she had demonstrating her lawful status, and that Mr A had British Passport applications rejected because of this. Off the back of this, it recognised Mr A then had to pay for a British Citizenship application, and this put him into debt. It recognised this would have also caused him inconvenience and stress and caused a breakdown in his relationship with his mother.

Administrative background

30. When applying for WCS compensation, the applicant must complete a claim form to explain their claim and demonstrate why they are eligible. They may also submit supporting documentation to help their claim, e.g. to prove their eligibility. WCS caseworkers will use this information to decide whether the applicant is eligible for and entitled to compensation.

31. According to section 1 of WCS guidance, ‘Close family member: Windrush compensation claim guidance’, an applicant must demonstrate they: • are related to the Primary Claimant (i.e. they are a parent, sibling, child, or partner) • are related to a Primary Claimant who has lawful status in the UK • must be a commonwealth citizen • must have lawful status in the UK

32. If the applicant cannot demonstrate they are eligible, the scheme will not go on to consider if they are entitled to compensation.

33. According to WCS’ factsheet, published in February 2024, it said it was taking four months to complete eligibility checks. However, WCS guidance for ‘Close Family Member’ claims says that processing times can vary, depending on the complexity of the claim and it will take longer if WCS need to request further information or if the claim is complex.

Mr A complains WCS took too long to process his WCS compensation claim

36. Mr A says his CFM application took too long to process, and WCS delayed it by requesting information it had already received from him for his Primary Claimant claim.

37. He also complains about the advice WCS gave him about which claim to make, and its request for information. We decided to cover all the issues together, as Mr A said they all relate to delays processing his application.

38. As we can see from the administrative background, there is not a strict timeline that WCS must meet when processing a WCS claim. However, in February 2024 it was taking four months on average to establish whether an applicant was eligible. Our principles of good administration say for a public body to be customer focused they should deal with people promptly within reasonable timescales. They also say public bodies should tell people if things take longer than the public body has stated, or than people can reasonably expect them to take. As such, four months would have been a reasonable timescale had the case been straightforward, as it was the average time taken for cases to be processed.

• WCS’ advice about what application to make

39. Mr A says a WCS call handler misinformed him that he should submit a ‘Primary Claimant’ application, which delayed his overall claim.

40. Mr A’s initial ‘Primary Claimant’ application would have delayed him submitting the correct claim. He applied as a ‘Primary Claimant’ on 22 May 2024, WCS advised him to submit a ‘Close family member’ claim on 1 July, and he submitted this on 8 July. Therefore, his ‘Primary Claimant’ application would have delayed his ‘Close Family Member’ application by approximately seven weeks.

41. We have seen no evidence to show WCS advised him to submit a ‘Primary Claimant’ application.

42. Our expectation here is set out in our principles of good administration, under our principle for ‘Being customer focused’. Under this principle, we expect public bodies, like WCS, to make sure service users are clear about their entitlements. Had Mr A explained his intention to apply, WCS should have provided him with the correct advice about what claim to apply for based on the information available at the time.

43. Questions around eligibility can be complicated, which was the case here. As such, sometimes WCS needs more information, such as the information Mr A provided in his ‘Primary Claimant’ application, to determine the best way for him to apply for compensation. We can see that once it reviewed his ‘primary claimant’ application, it received the information it needed to make him clear about his entitlements and correctly advised him on 1 July that he needed to apply as a ‘Close Family Member’. There is no evidence to show it was in a position to tell him this prior to receiving his ‘Primary Claimant’ application.

44. After Mr A submitted his application to claim as a close family member of Mrs B on 15 July, WCS began to assess his eligibility. According to the records, it started to assess this on 2 August.

• WCS’ request for information

45. Mr A believes WCS delayed the case by requesting information it already had, which it suggested in its complaint response.

46. However, we have seen no indication it failed to identify the documents he had previously submitted with his original ‘Primary Claimant’ claim. The cause of delay appears to have been an issue with the evidence of his lawful status.

47. We can see the case handler referred Mr A’s application to a senior staff member on 9 September to resolve the issue with his evidence of legal status. However, they did not contact Mr A to update him that he was eligible.

48. WCS told us the registration certificate he had was not an accurate record of his lawful status, as he already had lawful status in the UK from birth through his mother (as explained in the background). Therefore, it told us it had to request the certificate on 4 February 2025 and destroy it so it could replace it with a ‘status letter’, which confirmed he was a British Citizen from birth. This was so the record of his lawful status was accurate, which was also required to apply for WCS compensation. WCS corrected his record on 26 February, and it was able to consider his claim from that point.

49. While it meant WCS took longer than its four-month average, we consider this timeframe was reasonable as the application was not straightforward. WCS’s guidance for claims, highlighted in the ‘administrative background’, says applications may take longer if it needs to request further information or if it is complex. This case was evidently complex due to the issue around Mr A’s evidence of lawful status, and we can see the case handler had to involve senior staff to support them.

50. However, WCS knew Mr A was eligible and that there was an issue with Mr A’s evidence of legal status on 9 September 2024, yet it did not inform him of this until 4 February 2025. This was not line with the above referenced principle, relating to reasonable timeframes. It recognises it should have contacted him sooner to tell him he was eligible and it has fed back this matter to its staff.

• The impact

51. Mr A said the impact of the delay was extremely stressful, impacted his mental health, and he felt WCS had brushed him aside. He felt his lawful status was in question until the matter of compensation was resolved through WCS, and the five-month period of silence made him uncertain about his own status, as well as his claim. He said the impact would have been relieved had WCS requested his status document in September 2024.

52. To put right his complaint, Mr A is seeking service improvements and financial compensation.

53. Our guidance, ‘Financial remedy’, sets out how we consider requests for financial compensation. We consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy when the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice, such as annoyance, frustration or worry. These impacts typically arise from a single, one-off, incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of a short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact. We class this as a level one injustice.

54. During our correspondence with Mr A, we shared the view WCS had acknowledged it had taken too long to notify him that he was eligible to apply for compensation as a CFM. While Mr A did say he was not happy about not knowing he was eligible, he also said he was unhappy with the length of time he had to wait and this makes up the main part of his complaint. This suggests that if WCS had told him he was eligible sooner, he would have likely still been unhappy with the length of time his case took to reach a decision, which was reasonable under the circumstances due to the complexity of the case.

55. This suggests his distress would not have been alleviated had WCS notified him sooner that he was eligible, and his impact would only have been avoided had he received a decision sooner. As already highlighted above, the evidence does not suggest WCS should have given him the compensation decision sooner in light of the complexity of his case and the evidence suggests the case would always have taken as long as it did. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to say that WCS’s delayed communication about his eligibility caused Mr A an impact that surpassed level one on our scale of injustice.

56. To put this matter right, WCS told Mr A in its complaint response that it acknowledged that it had taken too long to tell him he was eligible, apologised for this, and fed back the matter to its staff. This response was in line with our principles of remedy. Under our principle, ‘Getting it right’, we recognise compensation is not always appropriate, and in many cases, it can benefit both the complainant and public body to recognise its mistake, apologise, and put things right through learning.

57. We can appreciate, in light of everything that had happened around his lawful status between 2021 and 2024, that it would have been stressful for Mr A not to know what was going on for five months. However, it is worth highlighting that his application for compensation took longer because WCS was being helpful by correcting his record of lawful status. The certificate of registration he received in 2023 was an inaccurate record of his lawful status, suggesting he had lawful status from 2023 when he actually had lawful status from birth. The status letter WCS issued corrected this and potentially saves Mr A from any future issues.

58. There is no indication the impact Mr A experienced as a result of WCS’ delay was so bad as to require compensation. As such, we are satisfied WCS has put right this matter, in line with our principles of remedy and there are no indications of an unremedied injustice.