A boxer who was stranded in Jamaica for ten years as a result of the Windrush scandal is suing the government in the high court.
Vernon Vanriel claims that after being wrongfully barred from entering the UK again, the Home Office refused to fully compensate him for his loss of benefits.
The 67-year-old traveled to Jamaica for two years in 2006 after arriving in London at the age of six in 1962.
He was refused permission to re-enter the country upon his return in 2008.
The government contends that he was compensated "appropriately" in response to his claim.
Mr. Vanriel, who struggled for 13 years to establish his legal right to remain in the UK while experiencing homelessness and poverty, returned in 2018.
Later, Priti Patel, a former home secretary, personally apologized to him for the "shameful" injustice and hardship he endured.
He was one of almost 100 members of the Windrush generation who were unjustly expelled from the UK, as the Home Office recently acknowledged.
After returning to the UK in December 2021, Mr. Vanriel successfully challenged the Home Office's decision to deny him British citizenship.
Prior to this decision, the Home Office determined that he qualified for an award of just over £103,500 after he submitted an application to the Windrush Compensation Scheme in July 2020.
According to his most recent legal claim, the department later provided £29,250 in relation to his homelessness after acknowledging that he would have been in social housing had the UK not denied him entry.
However, Mr. Vanriel claimed that between 2008 and 2018, he was entitled to additional compensation for "loss of access to benefits." This was according to his attorney Chris Buttler KC.
Mr. Buttler claimed that his client was qualified for benefits upon his return to the UK after years away due to a "desperate financial situation" because he had previously received disability living allowance, income support, and incapacity benefit.
According to Edward Brown KC, who spoke on behalf of the government, Mr. Vanriel's legal claim should be rejected and his human rights were not violated.
No award for lost benefits, he claimed in written arguments, was made because Mr. Vanriel "had no entitlement" to them and consequently "suffered no financial loss."