Thread by @WindrushLives

It's quite disappointing to see Martin Forde QC imply that most/all criticism of the Scheme is unfair/incorrect.

Seriously, we set up a whole Twitter account. It is categorically untrue that the Scheme is good by design. #AJC #AdministrativeJusticeCouncil

He is however deeply correct that "mitigation" - as we've banged on about at length - is not a useful concept in this concept.

https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1287329697655934976?s=20

(We're live-tweeting this AJC @ajc_justice Windrush Webinar, in case you're wondering what all this is about.)

Martin Forde QC: A lot of payment so far are interim payments of the "easy stuff", i.e. repayments of fees etc.

"Thoroughly" and "wilfully misreported", which is apparently *the* reason people are put off claiming. *EYEROLL*

It's easy to dismiss all arguments when you pick the easily and obviously defective arguments to oppose. There are lots of relevant and accurate criticisms of the Scheme [dies of boredom looking for links to previous threads to insert]

MFQC's comments on quantum of what you *could* or *should* be paid is fair, and also delightfully out of touch with what @ukhomeoffice considers its obligation. You don't design a scheme for @ukhomeoffice thinking these imaginary best cases will play out. That's duplicitous, sir.

[Please excuse ongoing typos and grammatical errors]

An important point made by both @JacquiMckenzie6 and Mr Forde QC that we don't mention often enough - the hostile environment is by no means a purely Conservative invention, though they've certainly put the bile in it. But Labour and the Lib Dems do not have clean hands.

"People most affected by the scandal are those... at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale", who receive "very little regard" in general. @JacquiMckenzie6 is right.

Twitter ads, 18 page form 46 pages of notes - it's all too much for prospective claimants, as @JacquiMckenzie6 states. This is what we hear too, and maybe it's part of the reason people aren't all rushing to claim, Mr Forde QC - not just the unfair bad press?

(And before any reply guys weigh in with "well you've got to do the forms how else is it fair" - an argument MFQC himself fleetingly appeared to endorse when discussing evidentiary burden - no Windrush victims asked for this. You created the problem. You create the solution.)

The Impact of Life tariffs are woefully inadequate and the chief area most people will be able to claim under, says @JacquiMckenzie6 - a point she has made previously, and appears to bear out, in the (admittedly small number of) cases of which we're aware.

Props! @JacquiMckenzie6 produces a 30 bullet-point letter from @ukhomeoffice demanding more evidencing from a claimant she says has given them absolutely everything they have, PLUS a lawyer drafted witness statement explaining everything else.

The HO apparently asked for a receipt for under £20 for a biometric permit app - even though the app was made to them.

Would love to hear some replies from MFQC to some of this...

Our sizzling take so far is that the actual practitioner is a much better reflection of the reality than the architect of the Scheme. @_hollystow is up now, and says she agrees with much of what @JacquiMckenzie6 has said re practical reality.

A catty side-observation (it's our account, we're allowed): MFQC is burning up the Q&A box with, in a couple of cases, quite sharp replies to people querying the speed of the Scheme. CICA is referenced, which is an interesting cross-ref in the circumstances

Something that insults them, when it's meant to help them = @_hollystow's characterisation. IoL is low, £3k for someone separated from his father for THIRTY years (one of the middle parts of that execrable table)

The "one year's earnings" point made by @_hollystow is a great one - this is what the 'general' employment award works out to (and that one year is capped per the Scheme Rules, as we've discussed previously)

Here's that thread again, with the IoL tariff table (a short form we had to make to fit it in) and the employment awards issues:

https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1287329697655934976?s=20

MFQC has just said that @ukhomeoffice is apparently encouraging people to "say how bad they've really had it" by way of the rounds of incessant, puerile additional questioning.
Might be one of the more staggering things we've seen a QC argue in recent times.

Helen Megarry, the independent reviewer of the Scheme, is up now.

Ms Megarry is NOT a @ukhomeoffice employee. That is true. She is a long serving HMRC employee and spent 18 years at the Housing Ombudsman though. It's fair to say people think she might be part of the "system". Here's her bio: gov.uk/government/peo…

Peoples' rage at her apparent lack of independence may be a little excessive; but why not a non-govt-lackey altogether? This town is overflowing with qualified lawyers, barristers, immigration judges..

Also worth noting that one of the reasons people get upset about her independence is that her role by definition allows very little meaningful appeal (in the real world sense, not in the style of a legal appeal process - remember, treating this like civil court is unfair)

As she reads out what sounds like the advert for her job, it's quite obvious why people aren't getting much help from her. She can't do much, although there is a limited scope for irrationality to be addressed (and boy does irrationality abound!)

She notes her decisions aren't binding/ do not override @ukhomeoffice. And there you have it. THAT, MFQC, and Ms Megarry, with great respect, is why people don't think this is independent.
Because you can't actually overturn anything the HO does.

[We might be a little tired ourselves but we could've sworn Ms Megarry just half-sighed whilst reading out her own job description..? Anyone else watching catch something like this?]

Our fave @GlendaCaesar has gone rogue - although we've been told to "keep your questions to the Q&A box" Glenda has popped up in the chat panel making the point from our previous tweet.
STAN.
(Follow @GlendaCaesar if you don't already - a longstanding campaigner.)

Shamefully, we haven't caught the name of the current speaker, who makes the very good point that the Ombudsman is too remote from lay claimants, i.e. they have to go to their MP first, and a lot of people don't do that.

That would be Rob Behrens, the head of the Parliamentary and Health Standards Ombudsman. We should really have googled that, sorry.

It sounds like there is an interesting side battle for significant reforms to the @PHSOmbudsman's office, and specifically, access to that office. Possibly something to watch.

Anna Steiner, a legal academic, is up now. She has been working on the Windrush Justice Clinic. westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-p…

The Clinic - which is made up of university law clinics + @NorthKenLC + @SouthwarkLawCen and some community groups - is intended to support claimants with their forms. This is important work; prospective claimants take note.

This project is about to launch - 5th October. We'll remind you and post links at the time. If you're flush, they are fundraising - this would be a very worthwhile cause to support, given the unbelievable demand it is likely to face. Full time staff would definitely help. Donate!

Ms Steiner notes that not everyone in the class will have computer/internet access, which is the first blessed time we've heard someone mention this particularly frustrating barrier to access of the Scheme. Part of our fundraiser was to help Anthony secure these vital tools.

The Chair is opening up to questions. 🍿🍿🍿👀👀👀

MFQC is up to bat for the review process. He insisted on the independent adjudicator. He is disturbed that people report fear and HMRC repercussions. He asked HO to make clear that comp data is on a separate server to Border Force data -

so Border Force won't come knocking in your door if your claim is found ineligible (by extension of the logic). That's a good point to bear in mind. Your compensation application does not (well, should not) have deportation related consequences.

Mr Behrens is lining up to criticise MFQC and Ms Megarry...

"It is not credible for the ombudsman to be the fourth stage of the process", it pushes the ombudsman out of the frame in an unacceptable way. It marginalises @PHSOmbudsman in a wasteful way, he says.

Ms Megarry says its very difficult to convince people of your independence when you do a role like hers.

Chicken and egg problem, it seems to us. Like, you've answered your question.

We are independent to the extent we've been given independence by @ukhomeoffice, says Ms Megarry.

SHUT THE FRIDGE

So not independent then, really.

MFQC says its unfair on HO to go back to April 2018 because consultation process didn't end till November, and scheme didn't open till April 2019. Resourcing, staffing etc. He's right of course. In a reasonable world this wouldn't be a big wait...

...but @ukhomeoffice made this an unreasonable world by finding and victimising people apropos of nothing.

I suppose what we're really saying is, TOUGH. You made the bed (by which we mean @ukhomeoffice, not MFQC himself, and to complain about lying in it is a bit rich.)

Mr Behrens is on FIRE
"At no point during any stage of this at all did I hear from anyone at the Home Office... and that's not just discourteous, it's incompetent!"
Very good indeed from @PHSOmbudsman

MFQC is talking through a litigation timeline (and Group Litigation has already been mentioned). Effective JR would take 12-14 months to result in an award, he says. Compelling point - fighting this in Court isn't necessarily the fastest/best way to fight.

"How do we make the HO effective in terms of the implementation," asks @JacquiMckenzie6, rather sweetly.

Sky-writing? No, interpretive dance!

In seriousness, MFQC notes, and @_hollystow concurs, that an interface is needed for practitioners such as @JacquiMckenzie6 and @_hollystow. That clearly should be the case and the fact that one doesn't already exist is quite telling about the bona fides of @ukhomeoffice...

The Chair notes @Meg_HillierMP as chair of @CommonsPAC and @YvetteCooperMP as chair of @CommonsHomeAffs are scrutinising the issue.

We agree. We're in the process of writing to them about @MatthewRycroft1's abysmal evidence session. Coming really soon.

The session is still running, but we've got to log off now.

The webinar has been recorded; we're not sure if it will be made publicly accessible at any point, but if it is, we'll post a link.

FIN