Thread by @WindrushLives

🚨 alert, 🧵 alert: one of our members received a letter containing this little kicker today, in response to their application to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Join me on a journey of rage. [1/14]

This appears at the end of a letter requesting more information, which is something caseworkers can do according to the Casework Guidance, currently on version 7. The rules on requesting more evidence begin on p 89. [2/14] assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

The claimant in question hasn't received any other demands or requests for evidence. They haven't even been told of an assigned caseworker. This is the first time they've seen a request for further evidence.

Note the procedure set out below. [3/14]

Caught off guard by this sudden dedication to timeframes, the claimant called @ukhomeoffice. They were told that if they failed to meet the 2-week deadline, their claim would be assessed on the evidence already provided. [4/14]

The caseworker wldn't have sent this letter unless preparing to argue the existing evidence is insufficient.

This amounts to "if you don't give me some arbitrary extra material by a deadline I've just made up, I will make as low an award as I can get away with." [5/14]

The process set by @ukhomeoffice makes clear that a second request *should* be made, and a further, third request can also be made.

(This is also in the context of a Scheme run so poorly that as of date, a mere 817 of 2761 claims have been paid or part-paid - about 30%.) [6/14]

This caseworker has decided (or been told) that the way to speed up this dead-end process is to transfer the burden of working faster onto claimants, enforced w the suggestion that failure to comply, therefore get the correct payment, wld be the claimant's fault. [7/14]

The request is itself bizarre in this particular case as the claimant's parent has been through the system in full, and they claim now as a close family member.

*Extensive* evidence has been submitted and undergone both tiers of the review process. Reams of the stuff. [8/14]

You wld think the fact it's a linked claim wld allow the HO to zip through the process at speed. Instead, the claimant receives this - warning? threat? - neatly setting the stage for a bad award.

The claimant has already gone through hell resolving their parent's claim. [9/14]

This is @ukhomeoffice in a nutshell. All the burden, all of the responsibility, all the onus, falls on *victims* of the hostile environment; if you're not getting compensated correctly or fast enough, well, that's your fault b/c INSERT [you didn't stick to the deadline]. [10/14]

This isn't about compassion or humanity (which tbc are also MIA).

It's proof of @ukhomeoffice trying to dodge procedural rules and re-victimise claimants, weaselling out of its *own* responsibilities whilst claiming for all the world that it is "righting the wrongs". [11/14]

And while this brand of conduct pervades all facets of @ukhomeoffice interaction with humans, it is especially sharp in Windrush cases.

Can't think why that might be. [12/14]

We say this a lot, and will continue to do so, b/c it will never not be relevant to this ongoing trauma: this is how govt treats people it has already comprehensively ruined, in the name of compensation for that comprehensive ruination. It's wilful torture, at this point. [13/14]

Regardless of whether @pritipatel keeps her job, this will continue, b/c it goes well beyond her - @ukhomeoffice's contempt for Black and brown people is a poison that has seeped into every crevice of the operational structure. It must end. #WindrushInjustice #BreakTheHE [14/14]

🚨 UPDATE: Just in case anyone thought this could be a request for genuinely required evidence, see below.

It’s a fair question, @ukhomeoffice. Thoughts? [15/14]

Erratum: the rules require only a second request in writing; there is no provision for a third. It doesn’t affect the substance of the case above, nor the bull**** the claimant was told over the phone, but accuracy is important. Apologies. [16/14]