Why redress schemes
Whilst civil litigation remains an important means of obtaining compensation and accountability for claimants, the process is often contentious and drawn-out.
Redress schemes typically operate within a more flexible evidential framework, removing barriers such as limitation which can apply in a civil claim. As such, some applicants may qualify for redress where a traditional civil claim may ultimately fail. Personal details are not a matter of public record in such schemes as they are for claimants in civil claims, absent an anonymity order, which can pose privacy concerns with regards to sensitive personal information.
From a defendant’s perspective, redress schemes should be considered where a large group of individuals allege similar harm against the same organisation. Large-scale litigation can create substantial financial, operational and reputational pressure. Redress schemes generally offer a faster, less adversarial and cost-effective route to resolution in appropriate cases. Legal costs in the context of a redress scheme will usually be set at lower levels than on a court assessment, to reflect the straightforward nature and scale of such schemes.
Should multiple similar claims proceed via the civil route, they will often be subject to a Group Litigation Order (GLO), where the resolution of specific issues is unlikely to resolve the litigation as a whole. The GLO process is expensive, often attracting ‘generic costs’, time consuming and not always as definitive as outcomes achieved through a defined cohort of applicants within a scheme. GLO’s are also reliant on the Courts and judicial representatives. This, again, can lead to delay.
Defendants should however be mindful that, as the evidential burden is generally lower within a scheme, more applicants are likely to apply and potentially be successful than if they pursued a claim through the traditional civil route. However, this is often balanced out by the overall cost savings. Costs in a standalone civil claim can often be significantly disproportionate to the damages paid.
Importantly the redress offering can be entirely bespoke, providing individual non-financial redress in addition to monetary compensation, such as the provision of a written apology, a meeting with a senior representative to discuss experiences and understand improvements and access to other support services. This is often as important to applicants, if not more so, than financial compensation.
How to approach setting up a redress scheme
A successful redress scheme requires careful planning and a clear understanding of what all parties are seeking to achieve from the outset, to include a defined purpose and scope, eligibility criteria, adjudication and, ideally, an independent review/appeal process.
There are various examples of redress schemes which have operated over the last three decades, including:
- The Vibration White Finger Compensation Scheme, established following litigation concerning hand injuries suffered by former miners, received 175,000 claims.
- Jersey's Historic Abuse Redress Scheme, launched in 2012 for individuals who suffered abuse in residential care, received 132 applications and paid £2.28 million in redress and therapy support.
- Windrush Compensation Scheme - as of March 2026, the scheme paid £127 million to almost 4,000 claims.
- Post Office Horizon redress schemes have paid approximately £1.519 million to more than 12,000 claimants.
- Infected Blood Compensation Scheme established following the Infected Blood Inquiry, made 3,554 compensation offers and paid £2.231 billion to 3,460 people as of August 2026, demonstrating the scale at which modern national redress programmes can operate.
A key challenge in designing any redress scheme is ensuring it is unambiguous and accessible while maintaining effective checks and balances. Schemes must be accessible enough to encourage participation and avoid unnecessary barriers. At the same time, defendants need assurance that available funds are distributed fairly and consistently. Clear eligibility criteria, a transparent assessment processes, specialist input and appropriate governance are essential.
Kennedys handled the design and operation of the Lambeth Children’s Homes Redress Scheme and sought to address these issues by developing parameters informed by common law principles and the Judicial College Guidance. Although the local authority accepted a more flexible approach than would have applied in contested litigation, the scheme still operated within a structured framework designed to promote consistency and fairness.
Over the four years that the Lambeth Children’s Homes Redress Scheme was open to applications, more than 2,200 survivors accessed the scheme. Nearly £16 million was paid through ex gratia awards, while over £89 million was paid in individual compensation. Third-party legal costs represented less than 11.4% of total scheme expenditure and the local authority's own legal costs represented less than 5.7%. These outcomes demonstrate how a carefully designed scheme can provide large-scale compensation while maintaining control over costs and administration.
Lessons learnt and looking ahead
Redress schemes will not be appropriate in every situation. They require significant planning, funding and governance, often attracting significant media attention. However, as defendants continue to consider how best to respond to large scale institutional failings, such schemes do offer a valuable alternative to traditional litigation.
Funding a redress scheme can present significant challenges. Although organisations may look to insurers for support, they will not always contribute, particularly where coverage is disputed or the scheme provides compensation beyond liabilities that would ordinarily fall within the scope of insurance cover.
The experience of many schemes already implemented demonstrates that, where circumstances justify, a carefully structured redress process can provide meaningful outcomes for applicants while delivering greater certainty, consistency and cost-effective efficiency for the organisations responsible for administering them.