Why Infected Blood Victims Face Strict Rules for Compensation

Victims and relatives of the UK contaminated blood scandal are struggling to get compensation through the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) because of strict evidence rules.

Reporting published on 21 September 2026 says applicants are being asked to produce medical records from decades ago to prove infection, and to document family relationships with paperwork stretching back years The Guardian. The burden falls on families. Suzanne Morgan's mother Mari died after being given infected blood in a routine transfusion during hospital treatment for gallstones, a case cited as an example of the problems facing bereaved relatives seeking redress.

Applicants have been asked to prove cohabitation with a deceased spouse or sibling using old school records, tenancy agreements, utility bills or family photos. Infected applicants have been asked to locate medical records from treatments that took place decades ago. This applies despite a public inquiry recommendation that eligibility should be decided on the balance of probability, a legal test meaning more likely true than not.

Hepatitis C Trust chief executive Rachel Halford and policy specialist Rosie McKearney described a claims process that requires detailed proof of infection and exposure. The process is slow. Research by the Haemophilia Society suggests that two years since IBCA's inception, just 15% of projected compensation claims have been dealt with.

Haemophilia Society chief executive Kate Burt is calling for regulatory change to shift the burden of evidence from applicants to the state. Under the plan, all applicants with a bleeding disorder, a condition where blood does not clot properly, would be entitled to compensation unless proved otherwise. The proposal would reverse the current presumption. Claimants would not need to reconstruct clinical histories from incomplete archives, like rebuilding a lost file from scattered pages.

The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme was set up in August 2024 to provide compensation for people infected and affected House of Commons Library. The IBCA, led by chief executive David Foley, will deliver the scheme on a UK-wide basis. The scheme responds to recommendations made by the Infected Blood Inquiry in its second interim report and to the earlier study into compensation by Sir Robert Francis KC.

Sir Robert Francis's compensation framework proposed an evidence-based claim scheme requiring proof of residency and medical evidence of injury. The Infected Blood Inquiry Response Expert Group Final Report states that all those registered with current or previous support schemes will be eligible. The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 allow affected carers to be eligible for compensation without records in some circumstances by providing written statements. The IBCA has stated it looks for other ways to help find evidence needed for claims and has asked the Infected Blood Inquiry for assistance.

The financial plan was built for large awards. The UK government planned to spend more than £10 billion ($12.7 billion) compensating victims Reuters. Victims could receive more than £2.5m under the scheme. Living infected beneficiaries were to receive payments of £210,000. Interim compensation payments of £100,000 have been made to some infected victims and bereaved partners. Children and siblings of victims are eligible for compensation. More than 30,000 people contracted hepatitis and HIV in the scandal. The first 10 victims were offered a total of over £13 million ($16.54 million) in compensation. In April 2026 the government set aside an extra £1bn, increasing compensation payments, with former pupils affected to receive an extra £35,000 each.

Andy Burnham is UK prime minister as of September 2026. Under Burnham, responsibility for the scandal was moved from a cabinet-level secretary of state to a junior minister.

The broader context here is a common trade-off in redress schemes between fiscal control and accessibility. A scheme designed around individual proof of residency, clinical injury and family relationship guards against ineligible awards but imposes archive work on elderly claimants, bereaved partners and children. For policymakers, the choice is whether to retain an evidence-based model supplemented by assistance with records, or to legislate a presumption of eligibility for defined cohorts such as people with bleeding disorders. The pace of awards, the handling of missing records and ministerial ownership will determine whether the additional funding translates into settled claims.