Home Office

5. Miss B complains about the outcome of her WCS application as a close family member. She applied under the impact on life and living cost categories. Miss B complains the Home Office did not properly engage with her to obtain further information when considering her application. She says she made multiple requests for contact via telephone and email but did not receive replies and felt she had not been listened to.

6. As a result, Miss B says she has suffered financial loss totalling £2,636 from supporting her mother between 2016 and 2019. Miss B also says she has suffered stress and frustration during this process. She says her mental health has been impacted to the extent she has sought support from a psychiatric nurse. She says this impact is ongoing.

7. Miss B is seeking a review of the Home Office’s decision making as an outcome to her complaint, so that she can receive the maximum award of compensation for her claim. If we find failings in how the Home Office reached its decision, Miss B would like an apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

8. Miss B’s mother entered the UK from Jamaica as a minor in 1972. She was granted citizenship on 9 February 2019 under the Windrush Scheme.

9. Miss B was born in the UK in 1975.

10. On 16 August 2021, Miss B’s mother made a claim under the WCS as a primary claimant. The Home Office considered this claim but declined to offer an award under any of the categories claimed for on 25 November 2022. This was because it had not been able to conclude Miss B’s mother experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being unable to demonstrate her lawful status.

11. On 6 May 2022, the Home Office offered Miss B the opportunity to complete a close family member claim. It acknowledged receipt of this on 10 May.

12. On 1 September, the Home Office wrote to Miss B to explain it had introduced a new ‘living costs’ category for close family member claims.

13. On 19 October, the Home Office completed its preliminary award assessment. It did not offer a preliminary award. It noted it was not currently satisfied Miss B experienced detrimental impacts as direct consequence of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. It passed the claim onto a casework team for full consideration.

14. On 14 March 2023, Miss B completed the claim form to be considered for the living costs category. The Home Office confirmed receipt of the claim on 30 March and requested consent from the primary claimant. On 9 May, Miss B’s mother signed the consent form.

15. On 2 June, the Home Office wrote to Miss B with the outcome of her WCS claim. It declined to offer an award. It explained it could not be satisfied the detrimental impacts she described were as a direct result of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status. It also explained it had been unable to determine any financial support was given as a direct consequence of her mother’s inability to evidence her status.

16. Miss B requested her claim be reviewed under both categories. The Home Office wrote to Miss B with its outcome of its Tier 1 Review on 27 March 2024. It maintained its decision.

17. On 15 April, Miss B requested her claim be reviewed by the Adjudicator’s Office. The Home Office referred the claim on 24 April.

18. On 4 July, the Adjudicator’s office wrote to Miss B with the outcome of its Tier 2 Review. It found the Home Office’s decision was consistent with WCS rules and guidance. The Home Office acknowledged these findings on 22 July.

21. 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.

Categories: impact on life and living costs

22. Miss B complains about the outcome of her WCS application as a close family member. She applied under the impact on life and living cost categories.

What should have happened

23. 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.

24. 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.

Impact on life

25. 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.

26. Annex H provides the framework for the impact on life category. H1 sets out the conditions which should be met for close family members. H1(b) says, in respect of the close family member, the close family member experienced detrimental impacts as a direct consequence of being adversely affected by the primary claimant’s inability to demonstrate lawful status. H1(c) says the detrimental impacts are of the type described in H2.

27. 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 • an inability to work because of a deterioration in physical or mental health.

28. 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.

Living costs

29. Annex J provides the framework for the living costs category. J1 sets out the conditions which should be met for close family members. J1(a) says the close family member incurred significant living costs paid to, or on behalf of, the primary claimant, as a direct result of the primary claimant being unable to demonstrate their lawful status.

30. J2 sets out that living costs are financial impacts of the following:

• rent • utilities (gas, water and electricity) • contributions towards food and household essentials • travel • prescription fees • and council tax.

31. J3 says the Home Office will compensate for losses up to the full amount of the living costs incurred by the close family member, if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities they meet the conditions in paragraphs J1 to J2. Under J4, it says the Home Office may award less than the full amount claimed.

What did happen

32. In her claim for the impact on life category, Miss B described:

• the circumstances of her parents’ arrival and early years in the UK • her mother’s individual experience and her mental health and learning difficulties • the impact this had on her (Miss B’s) upbringing and the abuse and instability she suffered • her (Miss B’s) ongoing anxiety and fears around the lack of documentation and fear of deportation despite bring born in the UK • missing out on normal life experiences • and her own health conditions of diabetes and high blood pressure.

33. From the documents reviewed, we can see Miss B submitted her driving license, passport, and a letter from her GP Surgery dated 16 June 2021, as supporting evidence. The GP letter discusses Miss B’s diabetes, high blood pressure, and history of mental health problems including schizophrenia. She also submitted a support letter from her care coordinator dated 9 December 2021.

34. Briefly, the support letter discusses Miss B’s need for long term mental health support. It says this is due to her parents not seeking help for her mental health at a young age. It also says she would have difficulty seeking employment in the future as she missed a lot of education in her younger years. It outlines this has had a detrimental impact on Miss B’s life. The support letter also says her parents were alleged to have been unable to secure work and denied access to medical treatment due to being from the Windrush times.

35. Miss B also submitted a council tax bill for the year 2022/23 and a final notice energy bill dated 15 April 2022.

36. In her claim form for the living costs category, Miss B wrote she had paid additional living costs as her mother lost access to employment due to being unable to prove her lawful status in the UK. She stated she paid in cash for general expenses (food, clothes, travel, and takeaways). She calculated she had paid £2,636 between 2016 and 2019.

37. Miss B’s mother enclosed a letter with her consent form to advise she had received money from her daughter for her expenses between 2016 and 2023.

38. We have reviewed the Home Office’s close family member claim assessment document. We consider the information documented under the impact on life category reflects the information provided by Miss B in her claim. The Home Office has referred to the supporting documents relied upon to reach a decision: the primary and close family member claim forms, a telephone call with Miss B, and the clinical letters of June and December 2021.

39. We consider this is in line with WCS rules and guidance, which says the Home Office will use the available evidence provided to reach a decision. It is also in line with our Principles. Our Principles say, when making decisions, organisations should take account of all relevant considerations and balance the evidence appropriately.

40. In its case consideration for the impact on life category, the Home Office documented Miss B had not met the conditions in H1(b). It noted Miss B had stated she was the one to question her mother’s status. It referred to the decision on Miss B’s mother’s claim.

41. Specifically, it noted it had been unable to determine, on the balance of probabilities, Miss B’s mother’s lifelong difficulties were caused by an inability to demonstrate her lawful status. As such, this meant the WCS was unable to determine Miss B’s difficulties were as a direct result of her mother’s inability to demonstrate her own status. We consider this rationale is in line with WCS rules and guidance (paragraph 25), as well as our Principles of ‘Getting it right’.

42. We have also reviewed the Home Office’s consideration of Miss B’s claim under the living costs category. We consider the information documented in the assessment accurately reflects the information provided by Miss B. This is in line with our Principles.

43. The Home Office has referred to the supporting information submitted by Miss B (the claim form, bank statements dated between August 2016 and December 2017 and between May 2016 and September 2019, and her mother’s statement). It noted the bank statements listed several cash withdrawals circled by Miss B, which totalled £2,654.13. We consider this is in line with WCS rules and guidance.

44. The Home Office stated J1(a) had not been satisfied (paragraph 28). It could not determine Miss B’s mother suffered any detriment as a direct result of being unable to demonstrate her lawful status based on the available evidence. Consequently, it could not determine Miss B provided financial support for this reason. We consider this is reasonable and in line with WCS rules and guidance. The Home Office had been unable to offer an award on the QPC. It therefore acted consistently and in line with WCS rules and guidance by declining an award for Miss B.

45. In her first request for a review, we can see Miss B stated she was finding the process stressful. She stated she had been treated with a high level of racism, and that her mother had been through a tough process by losing her bank accounts, job and benefits. She noted she would enclose letters from medical staff with her request; however, we cannot see these were provided. Miss B did not write anything further in her second request for a review.

46. We considered if this information was new and therefore required further consideration by the Home Office. We cannot see that it was.

47. Overall, we cannot see any indications of failings in the Home Office’s consideration of Miss B’s claim as a close family member. We appreciate this decision may cause distress to Miss B. We hope she is reassured by our explanation that the Home Office considered her claim in line with WCS rules and guidance.

Communication

48. Miss B says the Home Office did not properly engage with her to obtain further information when considering her application. She says she made multiple requests for contact but did not receive replies. She felt she had not been listened to.

49. As a result, Miss B told us she felt stressed and frustrated, and her mental health had been impacted to the extent she sought help from a psychiatrist nurse. She told us she has felt traumatised by the process. She told us she has lost trust due to the lack of engagement by the Home Office during the assessment of her claim.

What should have happened

50. To assist our consideration of Miss B’s concerns, we asked the Home Office whether there were any policies or guidelines on communicating with WCS claimants. The Home Office told us it would have been following Version 3 of its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) at the time of Miss B’s Final Decision and Version 8 at the time of the Tier 1 Review.

51. We reviewed the relevant SOPs to see if we could identify any requirement to engage with WCS claimants. Ultimately, there is no requirement for WCS caseworkers to proactively contact claimants in all cases unless further information is required.

52. Under ‘engagement with customers and claimants’, Version 3 of the SOP says casework will involve a significant amount of engagement with customers, claimants, and representatives for the Home Office to fully understand each individual’s circumstances.

53. There are requirements to tailor engagement with the individual customer or claimant and to ensure any verbal or written correspondence is necessary. Caseworkers should be aware of previous requests and correspondence. They should check the information has not already been requested or is not already available elsewhere.

54. The SOP recognises a phone call to the claimant is the quickest way to obtain further information, if a caseworker establishes it is required. All calls should be reflected in the relevant sections on the assessment document. Timeline notes should be clear and concise. They should include the reason for the call, what was discussed and whether the query was resolved or if are follow-up actions, and the disclosure of new information to help the claim.

55. We note the only reference to communicating with claimants in Version 8 of the SOP is that customers should be notified of the review outcomes in writing.

56. We also consider our Principles are relevant. Our Principles say public bodies should behave helpfully and deal with people promptly within reasonable timescales. They should treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. Where appropriate, they should deal with customers in a coordinated way to ensure their needs are met.

What did happen

57. We have reviewed the complaint file, as well as the information provided by Miss B, to identify any instances of communication between her and the Home Office. Miss B told us she contacted the Windrush Helpline in June and August 2021, and April and May 2022. She told us she had confirmed with the Helpline she called a total of 15 times.

58. The Home Office provided us with copies of 13 call recordings from calls between its Helpline, its Vulnerable Persons Team (VPT), and Miss B. These took place between 27 October 2022 and 23 July 2026. It also provided us with case notes referencing a further 12 calls from Miss A to the Helpline dated between 7 June 2021 and 16 April 2026.

59. We have reviewed these calls. Many of the calls from Miss A were to request an update on her claim. We have focused on the calls in which Miss B made a request for a call back or where there was further action to be taken by the Home Office.

60. On 7 June 2021, Miss B requested the Helpline send eight paper application forms. The notes indicate the forms were sent out on 10 June.

61. On 27 October 2022, Miss B contacted the Helpline and disclosed a history of abuse at the hands of her parents. During the call, she asked to speak with her caseworker. At this stage, her claim was awaiting allocation. The Helpline advise her to provide the information she wishes to share in writing.

62. In its primary assessment document, the Home Office referred to this call, along with an email Miss B sent on 8 November. According to her email, Miss B intended to send evidence in regarding being abused whilst in care. The Home Office note it received no further information from Miss B between November 2022 and 2 June 2023 (when it wrote to Miss B with the outcome of its decision). As per WCS rules and guidance, there was no requirement for it to follow up.

63. Miss B returned a call to the Helpline on 18 November. The Helpline transfer the call to the WCS caseworker considering Miss A’s mother’s claim (the primary claimant).

64. In the file sent to us, there is an email from the Home Office’s technical specialist team. It notes Miss A’s case was reliant on the decision made on her mum’s claim. Two calls took place with Miss A on 24 June and 18 November 2022 to gather information.

65. We have listened to these calls. We note the WCS caseworker explained the purpose of the call was to request further information to assist with their conversation of the primary claim. They also explored whether there was any additional evidence they could obtain.

66. We consider the reference to these calls on Miss B’s claim is in line with WCS rules and guidance. The SOP says caseworkers should be aware of previous requests and communication. They should check information has not already been requested or available elsewhere. In this case, the caseworker assessing Miss B’s claim identified there was information already available. They referred to these calls during their consideration.

67. On 4 January 2023, the Helpline left a note on Miss B’s case to advise she called as she, again, wished to send further information. The Helpline directed Miss B to email this information. It confirmed receipt of the email when Miss A called back on 5 January and added the emails to Miss B’s case file via its Workflow Team on 13 January.

68. On 3 February, Miss B’s WCS caseworker referred her to the Home Office’s VPT. Miss B was allocated to a VPT staff member on 6 February. We can see the VPT staff member called Miss B on 6, 7 and 8 February, 13 March, and 2, 5, and 31 May. We have noted any questions, call backs or actions requested by Miss B in these calls:

• to share that she would be going to the independent adjudicator, regardless of the Home Office’s outcome, which the VPT staff member says it will make a note of this • to email her to confirm their identity as a VPT staff member and to contact her the day after, which they do as they call the following day • to provide information about the WCS claim process and to confirm the VPT staff member would be the person Miss B could reach out to, which is confirmed • to discuss the new living costs category on the close family member claim form, and for these forms to be resent via post and email, which happens as per the case notes to the WCS caseworker • to confirm receipt of the living costs claim form, which the VPT staff member does • to provide information about the WCS review process, which is given on the call.

69. We consider the handling of these calls are in line with our Principles. Specifically, on one of the earlier calls that Miss B says it made her feel better to know the VPT staff member would act as a liaison between her and the WCS caseworker. We note, during the call, Miss B described the difficulty she felt in not having an allocated person to talk to.

70. There are case notes documenting updates between the VPT and the WCS caseworker about what is discussed with Miss B on the calls, as well as the actions to be taken. We consider this is evidence the Home Office responded sensitively, mindful of Miss B’s individual needs, and in a coordinated way.

71. On 5 May, Miss B called the Helpline to request assistance with the living costs claim form. The Helpline provided relevant advice and confirmed it would ask the VPT staff member to return the call as per Miss B’s request. A WCS caseworker called Miss B around an hour later. They attempted unsuccessfully to put her through to the VPT.

72. Around three hours after Miss B’s initial contact, the VPT staff member called her back. Records show they told Miss B what is required on the claim forms. This is in line with our Principles of ‘Being customer focused’. The VPT staff member dealt with Miss B’s request promptly.

73. On review, the Home Office responded to Miss B’s requests either during the calls or shortly thereafter. This is evidenced through the call recordings ending amicably with no further questions from Miss B, as well as the case notes updating the WCS caseworker. The Home Office has acted in line with our Principles in how it communicated with Miss B.

74. We only identified two occasions in which Miss B requested a call back. On the first occasion, she is still waiting for a WCS caseworker to be allocated to her case and is advised to send her information in writing for review on allocation. On the second, two call backs are made within a few hours on the same day. This is in line with our Principles.

75. Based on this, we cannot see any indications the Home Office did not communicate with Miss B. We did not see any evidence that she had made multiple requests for contact, nor that the Home Office had failed to get back to her.

76. We understand Miss B feels it did not properly engage with her. We asked Miss B what she felt should have happened instead. Miss B told us the Home Office could have listened and spoken more to her. She told us she had the opportunity to discuss her claim early on in the assessment but was unable to speak to anyone between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Reviews.

77. The Home Office confirmed there is no evidence that either the WCS caseworker or Tier 1 Reviewer made telephone contact with Miss B during their considerations. It explained this may be because sufficient information had been provided to enable a decision without further engagement. It may also have been because they did not identify a period during which Miss B was affected by her mother’s status issues that required further clarification.

78. We asked Miss B what information she wished to share with the Home Office. We asked whether this was anything new or not previously shared. Miss B told us she had already given the Home Office all the evidence she had available. She told us she wanted it to better understand how the process had impacted her, in light of her medical history. She told us she wanted to add in more information about how she felt when her claim was declined.

79. We acknowledge Miss B says going through the WCS claim process has affected her mental and physical health. We were very sorry to hear this.

80. Based on what she has told us, Miss B wanted to tell the Home Office how she was negatively impacted by the WCS process. We do not consider this would have any bearing on its decision making on her claim as a close family member. This is because, as per WCS rules, it was not measuring the impact of the WCS process. Rather, the WCS were considering if Miss B was negatively impacted by her mother’s inability to demonstrate her lawful status to live and work in the UK.

81. As per the WCS guidance and SOP, there is no requirement for caseworkers to regularly contact claimants unless they establish further information is needed to reach a decision. In this case, there was information available on the primary claim. Further, the evidence shows WCS gave Miss B eight months to provide additional information (between November 2022 and June 2023). The WCS caseworker deemed this sufficient to reach a decision on Miss B’s claim. Further, Miss B has confirmed she had provided all her relevant evidence to the Home Office prior to the Tier 1 Review.

82. Overall, we do not consider there are any failings in the Home Office’s communication with Miss B. Based on the evidence, she had regular contact with the VPT and the Windrush Helpline which resolved her concerns at the time. We cannot see there were any unresolved queries following any of the calls we have listened to.

83. We have not seen any evidence to support that Miss B made multiple requests for contact but did not receive replies, nor that she was not listened to. We identified one call back request, which was responded to on the same day. Ultimately, the evidence suggests the Home Office communicated with Miss B in line with our Principles of ‘Getting it right’ and ‘Being customer focused’.

84. For these reasons, we have not seen that the Home Office has done anything wrong. We will not take any further action on this matter. We understand Miss B has faced very difficult circumstances and instability throughout her life. We were very sorry to hear about this. We hope she is reassured we fully considered the concerns she brought to us.