IBCA Responds With Speed, Compassion and Clarity After Family Concerns Raised

By The Unheard Voice

After The Unheard Voice raised concerns surrounding Susan and Ian’s circumstances, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has responded quickly, providing both direct reassurance for the family and wider clarification that may be important for others navigating the compensation scheme.

David Foley responded to The Unheard Voice with what we felt was a notably human approach — acknowledging the challenges facing the family, explaining what IBCA could and could not do, and confirming that contact had been made with Ian.

He told us:

“While I cannot comment publicly on an individual’s case, I understand we have reached out to Ian to understand their circumstances and assess any further compensation that may be owed.”

For a family already dealing with considerable pressure, that contact has helped ease some of the tension surrounding their situation.

The Unheard Voice believes it is important to acknowledge that.

Our role is not to automatically criticise IBCA, nor is it to defend it.

We are a neutral and independent platform.

Where something appears not to be working, we will ask questions. Where concerns are addressed quickly and compassionately, we will report that with the same clarity.

Important clarification for people living with Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C

David also provided information that may be significant for other infected people.

He confirmed that where someone with Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C experiences a change in their condition which moves them into a higher severity level, IBCA can reconsider their compensation.

The underlying regulations support the principle that a further infected core payment can become available where, after an original award has been accepted, an infected person is diagnosed with an increase in the severity of Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C which places them in a higher severity category. (Legislation.gov.uk)

David advised anyone who believes this may apply to them to contact their Claim Manager directly.

This is potentially important information for people whose health has deteriorated since their original compensation assessment.

There are, however, detailed rules surrounding further applications, including time limits and procedural requirements, so individuals should discuss their own circumstances directly with IBCA rather than assuming an automatic entitlement. (Legislation.gov.uk)

What happens with supplementary awards?

We also asked about supplementary awards.

David told The Unheard Voice that IBCA is currently considering how best to prioritise these claims as that cohort opens.

That means there is not yet a final prioritisation framework we can report.

For people waiting for supplementary compensation, that question will clearly remain important.

The Unheard Voice will continue to seek clarity as more information becomes available.

What support can IBCA offer carers?

Another issue raised concerned the considerable caring pressures facing some families.

David explained that IBCA does not have the statutory powers or remit to provide direct care services beyond compensation.

However, he said IBCA may be able to help support a referral for a carer’s assessment through the relevant local authority and that the organisation is considering how it can provide better signposting towards practical support.

He also confirmed that IBCA would speak directly with the family regarding the safeguarding concerns that had been raised.

That distinction matters.

IBCA cannot become a replacement for health or social care services, but where vulnerable people are going through the compensation process, effective signposting and communication may still make a significant difference.

The estate question — and where responsibility actually sits

The response also clarified an issue surrounding the estate of Ian’s late father.

David explained that IBCA must work within the regulations established for the compensation scheme and cannot independently change eligibility rules.

The current rules allow the estate representative of an eligible affected person who dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031, before receiving compensation, to make an application. Government guidance confirms that same date range. (GOV.UK)

The 2025 amendment regulations themselves state that an affected person must either still be alive or have died within that period for the relevant estate provisions to apply. (Legislation.gov.uk)

This means an important distinction needs to be made.

IBCA administers the scheme.

It does not have the authority to rewrite the regulations.

Questions about why the cutoff begins on 21 May 2024, whether the effect on families outside that period is justified, and whether the regulations should change are therefore wider policy questions.

Government documentation says the dates were extended following recommendations from the Infected Blood Inquiry, with the Government ultimately choosing 31 March 2031 as the closing point. (GOV.UK)

Those policy questions remain legitimate areas for scrutiny.

But it would not be accurate to present the cutoff simply as a discretionary decision taken by an individual IBCA Claim Manager or by David Foley.

A response worth acknowledging

There is a wider point here.

Trust between parts of the infected blood community and the institutions administering compensation has been badly strained.

That will not be repaired through statements alone.

It is built through communication, transparency and how people are treated when they raise genuine concerns.

In this case, David Foley responded quickly.

His response addressed the questions put to him, recognised the human circumstances involved and provided information that may help others within the community.

We thank him for that.

Acknowledging a constructive response does not prevent The Unheard Voice from asking difficult questions tomorrow.

Quite the opposite.

Neutral reporting means applying the same standard in both directions.

If something is failing, we will report it.

If something remains unanswered, we will pursue it.

If information needs correcting, we will correct it.

And when someone responds with empathy, compassion and practical action that helps ease a family’s anxiety, we will report that too.

The Unheard Voice remains independent and neutral.

Our responsibility is to the evidence, to fair reporting and, above all, to ensuring that the experiences of people affected by the infected blood scandal continue to be heard.

— The Unheard Voice