Home Office

5. Ms A complains about the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) and the way it handled her Close Family Member claim and Deceased Estates claim.

6. She says WCS did not consider the evidence properly when considering both claims. She says WCS used the wrong dates for when she went into care in its consideration. She also complains it wrongly said her father had applied for housing in 1974, which she says was not the case and he was ‘sofa surfing’ during that period.

7. Ms A said she obtained evidence from social services, showing the correct dates, and complains WCS did not consider this evidence properly when given the chance. She also complains it did not consider evidence relating to 1971.

8. Finally, she complains WCS did not answer the Adjudicator Office’s report regarding the deceased estates claim appropriately.

9. Ms A says the experience has negatively affected her mental health.

10. As an outcome of her complaint, she would like PHSO to make WCS correct its decision and award financial compensation.

Complaint background

• The history behind Ms A’s claims

11. Mr C was born in Jamaica on 20 June 1946 and would have been a Citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies (CUKC). This is a historical British nationality status that was invented by the British Nationality Act 1948 to give British nationality status to people from the United Kingdom and its remaining colonies.

12. Mr C moved to the UK in 1962. That same year, Jamaica became independent, and he would have lost CUKC status.

13. Ms A was born on 29 August 1971. She says Mr C was homeless during this time and was ‘sofa surfing’ (a phrase used to describe someone who temporarily lives with different people, as they have no permanent home). He was unable to get housing, a job, or benefits to support himself and Ms A. As a result of these difficulties, she says he gave her up to social services.

14. Ms A was in the private foster care system between 1971 and 1973.

15. On 1 January 1973, the Immigration Act 1971 was introduced, and CUKC who were living in the UK were provided with settled/’indefinite leave to remain’ status (lawful status). This allows the holder to live, work, study, and use public services, with no time limit.

16. In 1973, Ms A was taken into the care of the local authority, and it recorded she was a ‘looked after child’ (which is a legal term that means she was in the care of the local authority). She was under the care of local authorities until 1986.

17. On 26 October 1982, Mr C successfully applied for and gained citizenship.

18. On 22 July 1998, Mr C died.

• Ms A’s claim

19. On 22 November 2022, Ms A made two separate claims for compensation through WCS: • ‘Deceased Estates’ (DE) claim, which is a claim for people representing an estate of someone who has died who would have met the conditions for the WCS and whose life was affected because they could not prove their lawful status in the UK.

• ‘Close family member (CFM)’ claim, which is where someone applies as a close family member of someone who had issues demonstrating their lawful status and experienced an injustice because of this.

20. Ms A applied for compensation under the following categories for both claims: • Detention, • Employment, • Loss of Access to Child Benefit, • Denial of access to housing, • Homelessness, and, • Impact on life.

21. In her claim form, Ms A said Mr C had difficulties proving his lawful status in the UK as soon as he arrived in 1962 and was homeless from that point. She said he was not eligible for any public funds, which meant he ended up sleeping on the street and ‘sofa surfing’ for around 20 years (presumably between the 1960s and 1980s). She said Mr C gave her up for care in 1971, as he had no adequate housing.

22. Ms A acknowledged she cannot remember what kind of benefits Mr C received, if he worked, or if he applied for any support, as she was just a child at the time.

23. Ms A has been through social services, care, and prison. All of this was difficult and has affected her in many ways and continues to affect her to this day. She now has depression and anxiety. Had she been under the care of Mr C, she believes the described impact on her life could have been avoided.

24. As for Mr C, she said he had multiple strokes, kidney problems, depression, and anxiety.

• Ms A’s experience going through WCS’s claim process

25. Ms A contacted the local authority for further information to support her claim on 6 December 2022 and 27 February 2023. On 29 December 2022, the local authority provided her with dates showing when she was in private foster care and when she went to the local authority. On 27 March 2023, it explained the records indicated the local authority learned about Ms A as her mother was absent and Mr C was unable to care for her at that time.

26. Ms A spoke to WCS case handlers over the phone on 14 and 18 May to discuss her two separate claims. During the first call, the call handler asked Ms A about Mr C’s difficulty getting employment, and whether she could provide information about his attempts to find employment. Ms A said she does not have this information, as she was just a child at the time. She said she does know for sure that Mr C did not have anywhere to live, which she believes was because he could not prove his lawful status, and that was why she ended up in care. She referred to the discrimination people of colour experienced at that time, such as signs saying, “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish”.

• WCS’s consideration of Ms A’s claim

27. WCS decided it would not award Ms A with any compensation for any of her claims. It recognised how unfortunate Mr C and Ms A were with respect to what they went through. However, it did not take the view the impacts were because of his issues proving his lawful status.

28. Regarding Ms A’s claim that Mr C could not get any benefits, it highlighted that Ms A had acknowledged herself that she does not recall what kind of benefits Mr C received or if he had applied for any, as she was just a child at the time. It had not checked the records for its first consideration, as it did not have a national insurance number for Mr C (and it did not request this).

29. Regarding Ms A’s claim that Mr C could not get housing, it said the Home Office files show he did have access to housing and accommodation. The citizenship application record shows he had housing from 1974 to 1982, it said this evidence proved he had a ‘permanent address’ from 1974 until he applied for citizenship in 1982. Also, it said there is no evidence to show he was unable to access housing status, or was homeless, as a result of issues proving his lawful status. It recognised he may have had issues with homelessness between 1962 and 1974, but this may have been due to racial discrimination.

30. WCS said there was no obligation for public bodies to check immigration status for housing or benefits until the Asylum and Immigrations Act 1996, and Mr C received citizenship prior to this in 1982. As such, there was no legal requirement for public bodies to check his lawful status and WCS concluded this was not the cause of his housing difficulties.

• Ms A’s response to WCS’ position

31. Ms A responded to WCS’s reports and reiterated that Mr C’s issues were caused by his inability to demonstrate his legal status. She said that as her mother had abandoned her and Mr C, this meant he could have been housed, and the local authority would have been obligated to help them. That did not happen, and she suggested WCS contact social services to get all the material information.

32. Ms A acknowledged WCS’ point that, prior to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, public bodies did not need to consider lawful status when providing benefits or housing. However, in the absence of any other reason, she concluded Mr C must have been refused housing because he could not prove his lawful status.

33. Ms A said there was no way for her to provide further evidence, as the Home Office did not keep any records regarding her father’s lawful status. She argued this was deceitful by WCS and the Home Office, as it was asking her to provide evidence that did not exist.

34. Finally, she highlighted discrepancies with WCS’ communication. She said it had got the dates wrong for when she went into care.

• The Adjudicator’s Office

35. Ms A requested a tier 2 review, which is where the Adjudicator’s Office (AO), the Home Office’s second tier complaint handler, looks at the case. The AO shared a report relating to both claims in April 2025.

36. While the AO was not of the view that WCS’ decision was unreasonable, it said WCS should have sent Ms A’s claim about ‘Loss of access to benefits’ to HMRC so it could check its records. It said WCS should have requested Mr C’s national insurance number to do this, and there was no recorded explanation to explain why it did not do this.

37. The AO also highlighted WCS had not taken into account when Ms A first entered the care system, which was evidenced in the letter from the local authority that she had provided. As such, it concluded WCS had not properly considered her period of foster care before 1986.

38. The AO asked WCS to review its decisions for both of Ms A’s claims, while highlighting this may not result in it changing its decisions.

• WCS’s reconsideration of Ms A’s claims

39. WCS reconsidered Ms A’s CFM claim on 16 May 2025, provided further explanation, and stood by its original decision.

40. It explained that impacts before 1 January 1973 cannot be linked to lawful status, as the Immigration Act 1971 did not come into force before this time (meaning there was no lawful status to evidence prior to this). For this reason, it could not link Ms A’s placement into care with Mr C’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status.

41. It explained social services typically remove a child from their parents’ care when there is a risk of significant harm or neglect, and the child’s safety or well-being is compromised. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, it concluded that the social services in charge of Ms A’s care deemed it was appropriate for other reasons, not relating to Mr C’s immigration status.

42. It contacted HMRC to request Mr C’s records, which we can see dated back to 1972. It said the records contained no information to suggest he had made any applications or claimed any HMRC benefits between 1972 and 1983. It recognised these records could not confirm whether he had applied for, or was denied access to benefits, but it highlighted the controls on this did not come into force until 1996 anyway.

43. On 1 September, WCS wrote to Ms A to explain that its decision had not changed as a result of checking Mr C’s HMRC records.

Administrative background

44. The WCS is designed to compensate individuals who have suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. As such, WCS can only consider compensation where the primary claimant had lawful status but was unable to demonstrate that lawful status. Lawful status was not introduced in the UK until the Immigration Act 1971, which came into force on 1 January 1973.

45. The WCS rules, available to see online, explain in the introduction that its purpose is to compensate individuals who suffered loss in connection with being unable to demonstrate their lawful status in the UK. It explains that the lawful right to stay in the UK derives directly from the Immigration Act 1971.

46. There is no single or consistent picture of the loss suffered by those affected. The scheme has been designed to address potential losses under a range of categories and to take into account the impact of the losses in each case, as far as possible.

47. Each category of claim under the WCS sets out specific criteria that the claimant must meet to be entitled to an award. All categories of claim, however, share the common requirement that the claimant experienced the impact because they were unable to demonstrate that they held lawful status when in fact they did.

48. The WCS caseworker guidance says that when they consider ‘Loss of access to benefits’ claims, they must send these claims to HMRC and ask it to confirm whether the primary claimant had any issues with benefits because of their immigration status.

WCS’ did not properly consider the dates Ms A went into the care system

52. Ms A says the dates WCS referred to in its correspondence do not match up with the dates she has, and it has contradicted itself.

53. The local authority records, which Ms A requested on 6 December 2022 and 27 February 2023, show Ms A was placed into private fostering care between 1971 and 1972, and she was placed into the care of the local authority in 1973. However, both the WCS and Adjudicator’s report say she went into public foster care from 1974. As such, what they said clashed with the local authority’s correspondence with Ms A.

54. Our principles of good administration, under our principle ‘Being open and accountable’, says public bodies should give information that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant, and timely. They should handle and process information properly and appropriately. They should create and maintain reliable and usable records. Applied to this case, WCS should have referred to correct dates, which would have been sourced by the local authority.

55. As WCS appears to have used the wrong year, there are indications it did not handle information in line with our principles. Despite the incorrect year, the decisions WCS made on Mrs A’s separate claims were robust.

56. Ms A’s overall argument is that it is more likely than not that Mr C gave her up for social services because public bodies refused to give him housing and benefits because he lacked evidence of his lawful status. However, there is no indication that the issues he faced were because of issues demonstrating his lawful status, for the reasons WCS has already explained.

57. Had WCS referred to the correct dates, we cannot say this would have made any difference to the decision. We would not consider it proportionate for WCS to reconsider Ms A’s claims on the basis of this or award any compensation.

58. Under our principles of remedy, we say that a sufficient explanation, where appropriate, will often put right an injustice, depending on the severity of the injustice. By providing a robust and reasonable decision, WCS put Ms A back into the right position by providing a justified decision for refusing compensation.

WCS mishandled the evidence relating to Mr C’s inability to get housing or housing benefits

59. Ms A complains WCS incorrectly said Mr C was expecting a house in 1974. She says this was not true, and he was ‘sofa surfing’ for twenty years from when he arrived in the UK.

60. Our principle of good administration, under our principle of ‘Getting it right’. We expect public bodies, in their decision making, to balance the evidence appropriately and take account of all relevant considerations. Applied to this case, we would have expected WCS to consider the citizenship application evidence and balance this properly against the WCS rules.

61. Annex F of the WCS rules, ‘Denial of access to services’, says WCS will award under this category if the evidence shows the primary claimant was denied access to housing services during the relevant period, would have had access had they not been denied access, and the reason they were denied was their inability to demonstrate their lawful status.

62. Annex G, ‘Homelessness’, says WCS will consider that a primary claimant did not have access to accommodation in which it was reasonable for them to reside if they were: rough sleeping, staying temporarily in a hostel, night shelter or bed and breakfast; squatting; or staying temporarily in other accommodation (including with friends and family) where they were not a tenant, with poor conditions.

63. WCS’ Tier 1 deceased estates claim assessment record, completed on 1 August 2024, says the following regarding its consideration of Ms A’s ‘Denial of Access to Housing’ claim:

‘The Tier 1 review is satisfied the claims made by [Ms A] cannot be linked to her father’s inability to demonstrate his lawful status in the UK. There is no information to suggest [Mr C] was ever unable to access housing services as a result of his lawful status. Evidence provided within [Mr C’s] application for Citizenship shows he had a permanent address from 1974 until his successful application in 1982.’

64. WCS communicated this to Ms A in its Tier 1 decision letter, dated 11 September 2024.

65. The citizenship application shows previous addresses Mr C said he lived at, so it could not say he did not have access to a house between 1974 and 1982.

66. WCS later explained in its later Tier 2 response (following the AO report), dated 1 September 2025, that there were no immigration provisions on access to housing until the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. This was a better, more robust, explanation for why Mr C’s issues with the housing service were not related to his lawful status.

67. Overall, we cannot see that WCS ever said Mr C was expecting a house. However, we can see supporting evidence for WCS’s claim that he lived at houses between 1974 and 1982. Its position, therefore, appears to have been in line with our principles.

WCS did not view all the relevant records

68. During a phone call, Ms A questioned why WCS had not reviewed records relating to 1971, as it only referred to records after this point in time.

69. Under our principle, ‘Getting it right’, we expect public bodies, like WCS, to take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately. Applied to this case, if the records prior to 1972 were relevant to WCS’ consideration of Ms A’s WCS claim, then it should have considered this.

70. We asked WCS to explain why it did not check records before 1972. It explained that ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ status, which was the lawful status given to CUKC members who lived in the UK prior to 1 January 1973, was not applicable in 1971 and Mr C’s lawful status would not have been something he needed to prove at that point in time. It said that an issue with lawful status could not have been a reason for him not being able to access housing or benefits.

71. This is further supported by the fact that legislation did not request public bodies to check a person’s lawful status before giving them housing or benefits until the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

72. As such, we cannot say it was unreasonable for WCS not to request older records. This is because there is no indication this evidence would have been relevant, as Mr C’s lawful status was not a factor that could, or should, have been considered when he applied for housing and benefits in 1971.