Millions in infected blood compensation handed to ‘strangers'

Telegraph

07-04-2025

Thousands of families who lost loved ones to the infected blood scandal could be locked out of the Government's £11.8bn compensation scheme, The Telegraph can reveal.
In one shocking case, the child of someone who died of AIDS in the 1990s could receive nothing. Meanwhile, the children of an old family friend get a taxpayer-funded payout of over £1m.
More than 30,000 people contracted hepatitis C and HIV after being given contaminated blood samples in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Government has earmarked £11.8bn for the victims of the biggest scandal in NHS history, which resulted in the deaths of at least 3,000 people.
Compensation amounts are assessed on a case-by-case basis but a person infected with HIV could expect to get over £1m.
According to the rules of the scheme, if an infected person has died, then payment will be made into their estate and distributed according to their will.
But many infected people died without wills, while others wrote down their wishes up to four decades ago – often with very little in assets and with no hope for compensation.
As a result, family members who were not named as beneficiaries could lose compensation after decades of campaigning.
The Telegraph has spoken to one individual whose father died of AIDS when they were young. Their solicitor has told them they might not receive any compensation because their father left a small estate to a friend who has since died. As a result, that friend's children now stand to inherit at least £1m.
The individual, who asked to remain anonymous, said: 'They didn't even know him.'
Campaigners have hit out at the Government for its handling of the scheme.
Kate Burt, of the Haemophilia Society, said: 'The Government utterly failed to grasp the complexities of interim compensation payments on behalf of estates when it opened applications last year.
'The result is that many bereaved families at the centre of the infected blood scandal are being re traumatised by an unaccountable and insensitive process.'
It recently emerged that families could have to wait until 2029 to receive compensation.
Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, said: 'The pace at which compensation has been paid out to date is unacceptable and has to improve. Too many people are dying before they get justice.'
'People will die, and their claim dies with them'
Julian Miller was 22 years old when he was diagnosed with HIV.
In 1971 doctors began giving him Factor VIII, a blood clotting protein used to treat haemophilia. It later emerged that many Factor VII products had been tainted with viruses because they were made from the commercially donated plasma of thousands including US prisoners and drug addicts.
Mr Miller died at the age of 29, leaving behind his parents and two brothers.
His brother, Rupert, 67, who now lives in Poland, said the impact on the family had been devastating.
'I was sacked from my job because I was caring for him as my parents couldn't cope. We all knew he was going to die.
'He went from a 6 foot, 15 stone guy down to someone who weighed four stone. My parents and I were watching this happen – and the effect was catastrophic.
'Julian's death destroyed our parents and I went off the rails.'
But Rupert said his brother 'did not die in vain'. In his final years, Julian threw himself behind the Haemophilia Society's campaign for compensation, speaking openly about his HIV diagnosis in the press.
He was one of three victims who met John Moore, the then-health secretary, in 1987 in what was considered a pivotal moment for the campaign that helped to secure £10m in financial support for the infected.
According to the inquiry report, a civil servant later said: 'I've never really seen any meeting that's kind of changed direction so quickly or to such a great effect as that.'
Rupert said: 'He was a remarkable, very brave young man, who should be alive today. I do not doubt in my mind that without his input at the very beginning, and continuing up until very shortly before his death, we all may well be in a very different place.'
Decades after his death, Julian's family are finally on the verge of getting compensation. His parents have since passed away, leaving his two brothers. You might expect this to be divided up equally between them.
But Rupert has been told by the probate office that he will receive only one third while his brother will get the rest.
Julian died without a will. When this happens, the deceased person's estate is distributed according to the rules of intestacy, prioritising the closest of a kin.
These rules state that if the deceased had siblings but no living spouse, parents or children, then those siblings will share the estate equally.
However, Julian died years before his parents. So technically, his mother inherited his estate.
The probate office has said that therefore the compensation must be distributed according to her will – and Rupert's mother decided to leave a larger share of her estate to his older brother.
He said: 'I've asked quite a few solicitors to look into this and many have said, 'It's not for us, it's too complicated'. But I cannot be the only person affected.
'The Government is hoping if they delay it as long as they can so that people will die and their claim dies with them.'
If an 'affected person' like Rupert passes away before they receive compensation, then their own relatives cannot make a claim.
'They're putting us through all these hoops. There's so many complicated situations – but people aren't dealing with it because they can't afford to.'
'We all saw this coming'
Adam Fleming, of BTMK Solicitors, who was infected with Hepatitis C in the 1980s and has since been cleared of the virus, said he had come across a number of cases like Rupert's.
'We all saw this issue coming as soon as the Government said compensation would be attributed to people with a grant of probate.
'A lot of the people who passed away didn't have a lot because they were ill and out of work, so many didn't have a will – or they did but they never thought this would happen.'
A grant of probate is a legal document used to distribute the estate to the beneficiaries after a death.
Mr Fleming said using probate to distribute compensation was the 'easiest way to get the money into the community' but 'not the right solution'.
He said: 'The compensation is going to the people who stand to inherit the estate and that's not the ethos of the scheme.'
He said the scheme had likely been 'rushed' without sufficient engagement with charities because the Government felt under pressure to act.
'It deserved so much more thought and consideration,' he added.
One person the Telegraph spoke to, who asked to remain anonymous, lost their dad to AIDS when they were young.
His dad had a very small estate and chose to leave this to his friend. Since that friend has now died, their children are in line for potentially millions of pounds in taxpayer-funded compensation.
The bereaved person said this would be a 'catastrophe'.
They said: 'It's stressful because I don't know where I stand in my dad's estate as his child. So we've had to fork out for solicitors to try and get a better understanding to try and get his estate back within the family where it should be.
'It opens up old wounds. You leave a room, you shut the door behind you. That's what I want to do with my childhood. But I can't. I keep having to open the door to delve into my past which makes me very anxious and want to just shut down.'
Thousands in legal costs
Some families are having to fork out hundreds or even thousands of pounds in legal fees just to apply for compensation. In some cases they may also have to go through the courts. The Government has said it will only cover a maximum of £1,500.
Gary Rycroft, legal expert of the Ask a Lawyer Telegraph column, said a restitution claim was one possibility for Rupert.
'You would argue that when mum made her will with an unequal split, she was doing so with her own estate in mind, which was of course fine for her to do. But she did not do so with the £1m compensation now being offered in mind – so on that basis it could be argued it is unfair for the unexpected windfall cash to be split the same way.'
Ms Burt, of the Haemophilia Society, said: 'Many people infected through contaminated blood died without a will, yet the process for making a claim in these circumstances is complex and unclear, especially if the applicant is not the parent.
'To many it feels as if the goalposts are constantly moving as they try to navigate a system which is being updated on the hoof as problems arise.
'This isn't good enough. Applicants should have their own dedicated caseworker who takes responsibility for decisions. It should be clear what documentation is needed to make a claim. We hope lessons are being learned.'
So far, over 400 interim payments have been paid to the estates of deceased infected people, totalling more than £40m. The Government said it could not comment on individual cases.
The Ministry of Justice – which oversees the probate office – said contaminated blood compensation is distributed through standard probate and intestacy rules.
The Cabinet Office said it was not for the Government to intervene with the wishes of a deceased person. It said affected persons are able to make claims in their own right.
However the awards for affected persons are much smaller than those for infected persons. Generally the compensation for someone who died young without dependents will also be less than for someone still living with HIV today.