By Monica Charsley
A man has shared how a "cold and cruel" rejection from the Home Office regarding his father's Windrush application has severely impacted "future generations" of his family.
Rafer Simon-Thompson, 50, from Trinidad, says his family struggled with huge financial hardship after his dad Reynold, 87, was rejected as a returning resident under the Windrush Scheme which gives people the chance to live and work in Britain - despite him spending years in employment in England in the 1960s.
And while The Home Office even admits that elderly Reynold's rejection may have been down to an error, officials insist he should have pursued the matter himself and navigated complex immigration laws to resolve his case.
Rafer, who is now fundraising to fight on his dad's behalf assisted by Windrush legal experts, said generations of his family faced being cheated of their rightful opportunities by the "cruel" decision. He said: "I thought and was hoping one of my sons could probably go to university in the UK. But that's been shot. It's very disheartening and frustrating. The choices that were made for us then have impacted both my generation and the next."
Reynold first arrived in England in 1959 and worked as a draftsman while studying at Hatfield Technical College. He first entered the country with his brother Kenneth as the pair planned to meet their sister who was working for the NHS at the time. Both have since died.
Reynold studied and worked in the UK until May 1965, when he travelled back to Trinidad after receiving a job offer from oil firm Shell he felt unable to turn down. Reynold married his wife Noreen in 1967 and they started a life and family together. But they endured immense hardship after he was made redundant during when a recession hit in the late 1980s.
His son told The Mirror: "Life was a struggle for us because only my mum was working as a teacher. My father still had young children to support. He tried to get employment.
"The economy was really really bad in the 80s and the late 90s. Things were really really rough. We had to cut back. I was still a young boy. My sisters were already in university, and his ability to pay for my university was affected by that. It was a struggle, that's why he thought he could get back to the UK to get re-employed.
"During the 80s Trinidad was going through the recession so his brother asked him 'why don't you come back?' He was hoping that when he came back he would be let in with his British passport."
On July 20, 1988, Rafer, who was 14 at the time, and his older twin sisters, landed at Heathrow Airport with Reynold and Noreen. They were hoping to reunite with their family in the UK. But the family's plans to start a new life were halted after they were only granted a single-entry ordinary visitor visa for 6 months with conditions, instead of the indefinite leave they had expected - and returned to Trinidad after two weeks with their hopes dashed.
However, in 2018 the Windrush Scandal hit headlines - as stories emerged of countless injustices visited on immigrant families, left facing deportation or denied re-entry to the UK due to the absence of proper records. The affair took its name from the Empire Windrush liner that in 1948 brought some of the earliest Caribbean immigrants to start new lives in a UK desperate for help rebuilding its economy after World War Two.
In the wake of government pledges to right the wrongs of the scandal, in January 2023 Rafer helped his father apply to try and move back to the UK under the Windrush scheme but his application was denied in September. The Home Office cited the reasons as Reynold's indefinite leave having lapsed and argued that he doesn't have strong family ties, despite still having nieces and nephews in the UK.
Rafer slammed the "cruel" decision and said: "But if they had assessed us in 1988 as returning residents, that's when the ties would have been stronger. Because my uncle was still alive then, we still had more family connections. You are trying to assess him now as a returning resident, but the time to do that would have been then."
Reynold's case is being supported by the Windrush Legal Advice Clinic. Its co-founder, solicitor Maureen Mitchell, said: "There was a period of time that there were a lot of returnee residents were coming back to the UK before 1998 because the government was saying if you've been out the country and get back here before 1988, your indefinite leave to remain wouldn't lapse.
"When Mr Rafer came back in 1988 with all of his family, he came here with the intention for them to start a new life because of the struggle and the hardship that was happening in Trinidad at the time. And him believing to be British thought he could come back and just begin as British citizens. But his indefinite leave to remain wasn't granted to him. And as a result of that, his family have suffered. This process is a continuation of separation."
Maureen and Rafer believe Reynold has been "discriminated" against and is entitled indefinite leave under the 1971 Immigration Act, which should have been granted at Heathrow in 1988. The Home Office disputed this and said in the letter: "At worst, based on your client’s account, the leave given on his entry might have been the result of an error by a border official. It is noted as above that your client was aware at the time of the possible error. But it seems your client, who had anticipated indefinite leave, and had wished to reside in the UK, chose not to pursue the matter."
Maureen said: "Reynold would not have known how to navigate the intricacies of the Immigration Act and we are appalled that the Home Office has suggested this. Reynold and his family have lost the chance to grasp the opportunities that would have been afforded to them had they had the chance to return to the UK in 1988."
In the wake of the Home Office response, Rafer is trying to have the family's case brought before a judge. Maureen says a win could have a groundbreaking impact on other Windrush cases - but the action carries a huge financial risk.
She explained: "If Rafer goes to court with this, the potential of the loss that the Home Office could leave him with is up to £100,000 if he loses. It is daunting and frightening. This family have carried the burden of this injustice for 36 years. It's really time for this family to have a positive outcome to all of this."
Rafer says his father has to "risk his life's money to fight the case" but added: "It would mean a whole lot to our family to get this sorted. To get this weight off of his shoulders, would really mean a lot to us as a family. We were never able to return to the UK on a permanent basis. It was always something he looked back on and regretted that he couldn't make that return."
Rafer who has two children, Andres, 18, and Lucas, 14, said: "I have a son who's about to go to university to study environmental management and I was hoping that he could probably go to university in the UK. But that's been shot. He just turned 18 in December. It's very disheartening and frustrating to have to go through this. The choices that were made for us then have impacted both my generation and the next generation."
The Home Office told The Mirror they cannot comment on individual cases. To donate to the fundraiser visit here.
