Windrush compensation scheme receives significant overhaul

28 Oct 2025News

Victims of the Windrush scandal will receive compensation quickly, with advance payments and priority given to the elderly

In a significant revamp, the Windrush compensation scheme aims to provide quicker justice to victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal. Under the new measures, victims will now receive advance payments of up to 75% of their final compensation award. Additionally, for the first time, compensation will also cover lost contributions to work and personal pensions, a long-awaited development for many affected individuals.

To ensure that vulnerable groups are supported, the scheme will prioritise claims from people aged 75 and over, along with those with serious health conditions, thereby fast-tracking the process for those who need it most. The changes come in response to deep-rooted concerns raised by the Windrush community regarding excessive bureaucracy that has delayed the compensation claims for far too long.

Advance payments are also set to be available for claimants who are dissatisfied with their compensation decision and have requested a review, allowing them to alleviate immediate financial strain. Many members of the Windrush generations lost essential retirement savings due to their inability to prove lawful immigration status, and the new measures will also provide compensation for those who had to withdraw pension funds to support themselves during this difficult period.

Furthermore, the scheme will reimburse any immigration fees paid by individuals who couldn’t demonstrate their lawful status. Acknowledging the impact of wage inflation, the compensation will consider the challenges individuals face when trying to return to work after extended unemployment.

These transformative changes are expected to assist thousands of victims, with the adjustments being applied retrospectively, thereby preventing additional financial hardships for the Windrush generations. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood emphasised the importance of these reforms by stating that “the Home Office Windrush scandal was a shameful stain on our history. People who gave so much to our country were treated as illegal immigrants in their own home.” She continued, “It is unacceptable that many victims are still waiting for compensation all these years later. That changes today.”

The announcement of these changes will be made by Migration and Citizenship Minister Mike Tapp at the Windrush National Organisation conference in Birmingham on 24 October. These reforms are part of the ongoing efforts led by the independent Windrush Commissioner, Reverend Clive Foster, who began his role in June to drive improvements within the compensation scheme.

Originally launched in April 2019, the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) was designed to provide redress to members of the Windrush generation and their families for the losses they faced due to the scandal. Currently, preliminary payments of up to £10,000 are available to help prevent hardship, and the new advance payment system will supplement existing measures, ensuring victims can receive substantial financial support while their compensation reviews are processed.

Occupational and personal pensions will now also qualify for compensation, further enhancing the scheme. The existing framework already safeguards victims’ state pensions from being negatively impacted by time spent out of work. Earlier this year, the Home Office initiated the £1.5 million Windrush Advocacy Support Fund, which aims to aid victims throughout the compensation process. As of the end of August 2025, the WCS has disbursed £116 million across 3,501 claims, with over 93% of claims receiving final decisions

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...