IBCA’s Recruitment Gap: Who Is Waiting to Help Those Still Waiting?

A reader has sent The Unheard Voice something worth looking at closely: an official staffing disclosure alongside public accounts from people who say they applied to help deliver infected blood compensation — and were then left waiting.

Together, they raise a straightforward question.

**How many claim managers are actually in place, trained and handling claims?**

IBCA previously told community groups that it was recruiting more claim managers each month, with an aim of around 500 in total. It said that figure would remain under review as the service developed. That was a recruitment ambition, rather than confirmation that 500 were already working.

In FOI 0093, requested on 16 February 2026 and answered on 6 March, IBCA disclosed **338 claim managers in post**, **232 planned vacancies**, and confirmed that onboarding was continuing. The response was published on 8 June. Although the request asked about Newcastle and Glasgow, the published answer gave no separate breakdown for the two sites.

Those dates matter. The disclosure does not establish today’s headcount. Planned vacancies also do not necessarily mean every position was immediately available to fill.

And “in post” does not tell us how many staff had completed training and were actively handling claims.

What the response provides is a dated snapshot — and a reason to ask for a clear, updated explanation of IBCA’s capacity.

Alongside that official record are accounts from applicants.

In one Reddit discussion, a person identifying themselves as an IBCA claim manager applicant said they received a provisional offer in October 2025. They described their initial start date being delayed because of checks, followed by further uncertainty even after those checks had reportedly been completed. Their post described waiting more than seven months to start. Another commenter said they were in the same position.

A longer recruitment thread contains accounts of delayed responses, changing expectations and uncertainty about offers and start dates. It also includes messages describing placement on a merit list without a guaranteed offer. Passing an assessment, receiving a provisional offer and having a confirmed appointment are different stages, and we should not blur them together.

These are anonymous online accounts that we have not independently verified. They do not establish how many applicants were affected, or prove that recruitment delays caused compensation delays. They do raise questions that deserve an answer.

**There is also an official record of recruitment spending.**

In a separate response, FOI 0081, IBCA reported **£164,000 in recorded expenditure with Reed between July and November 2025**. It also stated that **213 claim managers had been recruited through its campaign with Reed**. These figures concern that earlier reporting period; they are not today’s spending total, and the 213 should not be added to the later headcount.

Recruitment spending is not, by itself, evidence of waste. A compensation authority needs people capable of doing demanding and sensitive work.

But it is reasonable to ask what that spending delivered, how many recruits actually started, and how quickly they became able to progress claims.

IBCA should explain:

* How many claim managers are currently in post, and how many are trained and actively handling claims? * What is the current staffing target, and when is it expected to be reached? * How many people with provisional offers are still awaiting start dates? * What explains the waits described by applicants? * What has recruitment through Reed cost to date, and how many recruits have started work? * Is staffing capacity restricting the number or types of claims that can move forward?

These questions concern management, planning and accountability. Individual claim managers deserve the training, resources and support to do their jobs properly.

For the community, the difference between a recruitment target and a functioning service matters enormously.

**A planned vacancy cannot pick up a file. An applicant waiting for a start date cannot help someone through their claim.**

People should be able to understand how the authority’s recruitment plans translate into practical help. That means publishing clear figures, explaining what they measure, and being honest about any barriers still preventing staff from starting or claims from progressing.

Our reader took the time to find these documents and bring them forward. That contribution matters. Community scrutiny can begin with one person noticing a gap and asking a question that has not been properly answered.

The question here is simple enough.

**How many people are doing the work, what capacity is still missing, and when will that change?**

IBCA and Reed are welcome to provide clarification or a response to the questions raised here.

— The Unheard Voice