These case summaries show some of the themes we have seen in complaints people have brought to us about the Compensation Scheme.
Where we saw signs that something had gone wrong, we looked at how these affected the individuals and what the Compensation Scheme needed to do to put things right.
These examples are all cases where we did not have to carry out a detailed, longer investigation. We wanted to get the best outcomes for complainants in the shortest time possible, as many people who come to us have already been going through the Compensation Scheme’s process for a long time.
We cannot decide on levels of compensation - only the Compensation Scheme can do that. We can look at errors in its decision-making process and ask the Compensation Scheme to look again at the decision. We were able to talk to people at the Compensation Scheme about the problems and agree how they could address them to make sure we achieved the best possible outcomes for the individuals affected. We were also able to agree ongoing improvements.
* We have not used the complainants' real names in this report, apart from in Rachelle's case.
Guidance and facts not properly considered
The complaint
Samuel* came to the UK from Jamaica as a child in the 1960s, to join his parents. His right to live and work in the UK was recorded by a stamp in his passport. Unfortunately, he later lost the passport. He left school when he was 16 and started work. He had no problems getting employment and gave his National Insurance number to new employers.
In 1997, the Government tightened the law to address the problem of illegal migration. These changes included making it an offence for employers to offer a job to someone who did not have the right to work in the UK. Employers had a valid defence if they had seen evidence of the person’s right to work.
Samuel took time out from work in 2002 when his son was born. When he started applying for jobs later that year, he could not get one because he was unable to prove his right to work in the UK. Samuel has remained unemployed and in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance ever since.
Samuel made a claim to the Compensation Scheme for loss of access to employment for 17 years and the impact on his life.
Samuel complained that the Compensation Scheme and then the Adjudicator’s Office made the wrong decision on his claim in 2021. He said they should have made an award for loss of access to employment based on the evidence he provided. He said their actions meant he did not get the compensation he deserved.
What we saw in our investigation
We saw signs of mistakes in the Compensation Scheme’s decision on Samuel’s compensation claim. Samuel provided evidence from a prospective employer that said: “Unfortunately, the documentation you provided did not meet our regulations of evidence to support your right to work in the UK. Based on this information provided we are sorry to say your application is rejected.”
In 2002, the Home Office’s guidance for employers said evidence of a National Insurance number should be acceptable as proof of right to work, such as an official tax document (a P45 or P60). The Compensation Scheme told us it thought Samuel’s difficulties from 2002 were caused by being unable to provide photo identification, such as a passport or photo driver’s licence. But Samuel told us he had provided official tax documents showing his National Insurance number to prospective employers, which appeared to meet the Home Office guidance. The Compensation Scheme agreed to consider Samuel’s compensation claim again.
We saw similar signs of mistakes by the Adjudicator’s Office. It had not identified that the Compensation Scheme’s decision was not following the guidance or recommended that the Compensation Scheme should reconsider its decision on Samuel’s case.
Putting things right
Because of our investigation, the Compensation Scheme agreed to reconsider Samuel’s compensation claim about loss of access to employment. After looking again at the details of the case, the Compensation Scheme said: “we are satisfied you had an offer of employment withdrawn because you were unable to demonstrate your right to work”. It awarded Samuel compensation of £292,593.