Wrong decision made even with supporting evidence
The complaint
Veronica* came to the UK from Jamaica in 1967 to join her parents and gave birth to her daughter here in 1995. She applied for British citizenship in 1998 and it was granted two years later. Her grandson applied for a passport in 2018, but it was refused because there was no proof that Veronica was resident in the UK when her daughter was born.
Veronica said having her right to live in the UK questioned made her feel “extremely angry, confused and upset” and was “totally humiliating”. She said the process made her health problems worse. Her MP suggested she should apply to the Compensation Scheme. She applied in 2019 with support from a charitable advocacy organisation.
Veronica complained that in September 2020 the Compensation Scheme wrongly decided that she was not entitled to compensation. She said its rules are too narrow and should be changed to allow her, and others, to get compensation.
What we saw in our investigation
We looked at why the Compensation Scheme refused Veronica’s compensation claim.
It decided that the difficulty Veronica had experienced was caused by HM Passport Office’s processes in terms of its requirements as to proof of residency. The problem was not that Veronica was unable to show her right to live in the UK. But we saw that the Compensation Scheme did have evidence at the time from HM Passport Office that Veronica was unable to show her right to live in the UK. This shows she was eligible to apply for compensation from the scheme.
Putting things right
We discussed this evidence with the Compensation Scheme. It decided to withdraw its original decision on Veronica’s claim and reconsider it. It awarded Veronica £20,000 in September 2023.