Unfairness in rules for close family member eligibility
The complaint
Beverley’s* partner was given a deportation order while he was in prison. Beverley said she tried to stop him being deported because it was important for their son to have his father in his life. She said this was a prolonged and challenging struggle that lasted 21 months. While her partner was still being held in an immigration prison, the Windrush Scheme granted him British citizenship. Beverley applied to the Compensation Scheme due to the loss of her family life, unnecessary legal expenses and worrying about the constant threat of her partner being deported.
Beverley complained about the Compensation Scheme’s decision that she was not eligible for compensation as a close family member. She said its reason – that she was not married to or living with her partner - was unfair because he was in prison. She said the Compensation Scheme knew this and had not suggested any other criteria that it could accept as proof she was a close family member.
“I struggled to raise my son as a lone parent while his father was in prison; I carried them both and the Windrush Compensation Scheme failed to see the strength in that. It made me feel deflated. I was left to feel ashamed that I could not live with my partner. Their logic has tremendously affected my mindset, happiness and family life.” – Beverley
Beverley wanted the Compensation Scheme to recognise her as a close relative and partner and consider her eligible for compensation. She also wanted it to apologise for the stigma of its earlier decision not to recognise her as a partner.
What we saw in our investigation
We looked at the evidence and saw that the Compensation Scheme accepted Beverley’s relationship with her partner, as she had a child with him and they visited him regularly in prison. But the rules meant she was not eligible to apply to the scheme.
Our ‘Principles of good administration’ say public bodies should act fairly. If applying the rules strictly would lead to an unfair result for someone, the public body should look for ways to address the unfairness. We saw signs that the Compensation Scheme’s decision was not in line with these principles.
Putting things right
When we discussed this with the Compensation Scheme it agreed to review its rules. This could have a wider impact for other people applying to the scheme.
In April 2024, it completed this review and changed its guidance to recognise that there may be circumstances where one person in a relationship was away from the family home for reasons outside of their control, including being in prison, hospital or a nursing home. The Compensation Scheme told Beverley her claim was now eligible to be considered.
“Thank you so much for advocating on my behalf… I finally feel like I am getting the closure I need to move on from this ordeal.” – Beverley