LSBU Windrush Compensation report finds the dedicated compensation scheme “retraumatises” survivors and family

Researchers from London South Bank University (LSBU) have published a report which finds that the compensation scheme following the Home Office Windrush Scandal has extended the injustice and suffering for survivors and family members.

An estimated 80% of Windrush scandal victims are yet to be compensated five years on since the launch of the Scheme.

Published on 7th November, the report, The Windrush Justice Clinic Policy Briefing: Time for Justice, is an analysis of governmental and non-governmental reports on the Windrush Compensation Scheme. All the evidence describes a scheme which was poorly designed from the outset and has failed to secure justice to the victims.

The report was written by Samantha Hunt, a visiting senior lecturer and a supervising solicitor at LSBU University Legal Advice Clinic, London and Catherine Evans, the director and senior lecturer at LSBU's Legal Advice Clinic.

Catherine Evans, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director and one of the founders of the Windrush Justice Clinic says: "The time to act is now, the community is ageing, many victims have died before receiving adequate redress. Report after report has demonstrated that the Scheme is fundamentally flawed. The appointment of a Windrush Commissioner, as recently announced by the government, to oversee the Scheme and be a voice for the families and communities will not ensure justice. None of the changes proposed, although welcome, go far enough: they will not remove the trauma and lack of trust which exist whilst the Home Office is in charge of the Scheme, and the victims remain without legal representation.

"The victims need more than just their voices to be heard by a Windrush Commissioner, the Scheme needs to be remodelled with agency given to victims in the new design.

Glenda Caesar, Director of the Windrush National Organisation said: "The report reflects the actual issues faced by claimants where the victims feel more traumatised having to relive the problems they faced over and over again having to face being portrayed as if they are lying about their life and the injustices they faced. Claims that are rejected or even submitted need the help of a legal representative.

"Many of the claimants do not understand the legislation passed by the government which they have been entangled into. In contrast, the victims are being truthful about their feelings. No empathy is shown by caseworkers or even reflected in the outcome of a claim. The people affected did not ask for this to happen to them they were 'put into' this situation. The scheme should be handed to an organisation with a clear understanding of trauma, immigration, and compensation procedures."
The recommendations in this report need to be implemented without delay so that the victims can reach some recompense, though, nothing of course, will truly compensate for their suffering."

The researchers reviewed the extensive governmental and non-government evidence on the Windrush Compensation Scheme and concluded that the low number of claimants is due to deficiencies in the design of the redress scheme.

The report describes a poorly designed, complex and unfair scheme which has led to survivors and family members being "retraumatised" and having to endure suffering and injustice made worse by flawed assessments and rejection of claims. A recent report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found mistakes in 46 cases leading to just under half a million pounds of extra compensation for victims.

The researchers found that the main weaknesses of the Scheme are the lack of independence: the Home Office is the sole assessor and decision maker, and the failure to provide funding for legal representation. When designing the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme the importance of independence and the provision of free legal representation was recognised as fundamental to a fair redress scheme.

Recommendations have been continually made for:
1.Removal of the Scheme from the Home Office to an independent neutral body
2.The provision of funding for legal representation

The bodies making these recommendations include The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Action for Race Equality, Human Rights Watch, JUSTICE, Justice4Windrush, TUC, UNISON, Windrush Justice Clinic and Windrush Lives.

Researchers at LSBU's Legal Advice Clinic, have first-hand knowledge of the compensation scheme through their work for the Windrush Justice Clinic.

In 2020, LSBU's Legal Advice Clinic joined a network of University Clinics, Law Centres and community organisations to form the Windrush Justice Clinic (WJC). Set up following the unfolding of the Windrush Scandal in 2018 the network provided legal advice on the Windrush Compensation Scheme, a scheme which aimed to compensate effected individuals and their families for the financial losses and detriment caused by the wrongful treatment by the Home Office.

The evidence that was analysed includes reports by several parliamentary committees, the National Audit Office, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, independent Home Office reports, research by JUSTICE, Age UK, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and by academics at the University of Westminster Legal Advice Clinic and King's Legal Clinic.

The WJC advises anyone who is a survivor-victim of the Home Office Windrush scandal regarding their eligibility to make a claim to the Windrush Compensation Scheme, and if eligible, provides free advice and representation with making a claim for compensation, including representation with Tier 1 and Tier 2 reviews, judicial reviews and complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Read the report here.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.