The Windrush compensation scheme still leaves many survivors feeling confused and retraumatized, and funded legal support is needed to reduce costly reviews, the Windrush commissioner has told a powerful committee of lawmakers.
The public accounts committee is investigating how the government designs and runs compensation programs. It wants to know what makes them effective, timely, and fair for claimants.
In written evidence ahead of his appearance on June 1, Reverend Clive Foster said the Windrush scandal compensation program has improved but remains “confusing, overwhelming and retraumatising” for many survivors.
Related: FCA review targets law firms over claims
Changes expose poor design, commissioner says
Foster welcomed recent changes that followed his recommendations — priority processing for people over 75, advanced payments, and compensation for lost pensions. But he said those changes also showed the scheme was poorly designed from the start.
The process is still too complex for survivors to handle without expert legal help, he added.
“Until the introduction of the Windrush Compensation Scheme Advocacy Support Fund, support for claimants to navigate the complex application process was almost entirely reliant on volunteers and community/charitable organisations,” Foster wrote.
He pointed out that comparable government compensation programs have funded legal support. “I believe targeted support would benefit survivors, improve application quality, reduce nil awards, and limit costly reviews.”
Related: Court backs SRA over firm shutdown
Nil awards erode trust and efficiency
Nearly six in 10 decisions under the Windrush scheme result in nil awards. Foster said that “continues to retraumatise survivors and undermine trust in the scheme as well as raising concerns about the efficiency and cost effectiveness.”
On lessons for future programs, Foster said compensation schemes should be governed independently from the department responsible for the original harm. That recommendation was echoed by Hackney Council in its own written submission to the committee.
Schemes should be designed using “trauma-informed principles,” he added. Where past government failures have caused missing evidence, the burden of proof should not fall heavily on survivors.
Related: Lammy vows to tackle lawsuits threat
Apologies and ombudsman findings
The University of Leicester’s Legal Advice Clinic, which has helped Windrush compensation claimants, said an apology from the relevant government department is a “valuable aspect of the redress” and should be considered in every case.
The Parliamentary Health and Service Ombudsman also submitted evidence to the committee, highlighting the “shocking findings” of its own investigation into the Windrush scheme.
Foster’s evidence comes as the public accounts committee continues its broader inquiry into how the government handles compensation across multiple programs. The committee is expected to release its findings later this year.
