Sajid Javid, the home secretary, promised to make things right by the victims of the so-called Windrush scandal. He now has his chance to live up to the promise – but the much-needed and welcome compensation scheme announced on Wednesday has some potentially serious flaws.

Guidance, which runs to 45 pages, details all the documents that the people affected will have to present to apply for compensation for the hardships they have endured over many years: loss of jobs and income, debt, homelessness, stress, physical and mental health problems, detention and even deportation.

The fundamental problems within the Home Office that contributed to the Windrush scandal in the first place – the disproportionate amount of evidence required, the difficulties of application processes and the lack of support for completing applications – appear to be reflected once again in this scheme. Not to mention the continuing “hostile environment” that generates a culture of disbelief and antagonism towards applicants.

There is no legal aid being made available to provide specialist support to fill in the lengthy application form, help people quantify their losses or track down the evidence required. The burden of proof is still disproportionately placed on the individual. To access compensation, people are again required to provide evidence that might not exist – for example, to prove their attempts to contact the Home Office to resolve the problems that the Home Office was itself responsible for creating. The cost of applications to the Home Office to secure some form of evidence of status – in the face of its refusal to recognise their existing rights – will not be reimbursed, though they can cost individuals hundreds or even thousands of pounds in fees (and debt).

Q&A What is the Windrush deportation crisis? Show Who are the Windrush generation? They are people who arrived in the UK after the second world war from Caribbean countries at the invitation of the British government. The first group arrived on the ship MV Empire Windrush in June 1948. What happened to them? An estimated 50,000 people faced the risk of deportation if they had never formalised their residency status and did not have the required documentation to prove it. Why now? It stems from a policy, set out by Theresa May when she was home secretary, to make the UK 'a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants'. It requires employers, NHS staff, private landlords and other bodies to demand evidence of people’s citizenship or immigration status. Why do they not have the correct paperwork and status? Some children, often travelling on their parents’ passports, were never formally naturalised and many moved to the UK before the countries in which they were born became independent, so they assumed they were British. In some cases, they did not apply for passports. The Home Office did not keep a record of people entering the country and granted leave to remain, which was conferred on anyone living continuously in the country since before 1 January 1973. What did the government try and do to resolve the problem? A Home Office team was set up to ensure Commonwealth-born long-term UK residents would no longer find themselves classified as being in the UK illegally. But a month after one minister promised the cases would be resolved within two weeks, many remained destitute. In November 2018 home secretary Sajid Javid revealed that at least 11 Britons who had been wrongly deported had died. In April 2019 the government agreed to pay up to £200m in compensation. Photograph: Douglas Miller/Hulton Archive

In some cases, the level of compensation will be capped – it appears that £10,000 is the fixed sum for having been deported, despite the enormous impact that would have had on someone’s life. In the case of young people born in the UK who were denied the opportunity to take up a university place because of questions about their parents’ status, the direct compensation could be as little as £500 – how is this supposed to compensate for the long-term impact of that denial in terms of potential lost career, life experience, social status and earning potential? There are other worrying omissions and caveats in the detail and, most worrying of all, there is no proper appeal process.

In order to finally right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal, a profound change in Home Office policy and working culture is needed. The operation of the interim hardship scheme – accessed by only nine people, despite the thousands of people in continuing need – is an example that good intentions can fail abjectly in the implementation.

While the compensation scheme is welcome overall, the process must be fair and accessible. As it stands, the new compensation scheme for victims of the Windrush scandal risks adding serious insult to serious injury.

• Sally Daghlian is CEO of Praxis Community Projects