When Families Compare Notes: Why IBCA’s Invitation Queue Still Needs More Clarity

IBCA does have a published system for deciding which compensation claims should be prioritised.

For living infected people, it lists those nearing the end of life first, followed by people with advanced liver disease, those aged 75 or over, people who did not receive interim compensation and then, broadly, age with the oldest first.

For claims made on behalf of deceased infected people, priority includes beneficiaries nearing end of life, beneficiaries aged 75 or over, cases where the infected person did not receive an interim payment, and then the age of the oldest beneficiary.

On paper, that gives families a framework.

The difficulty begins when people start comparing what is actually happening.

Across the community, people routinely speak to others who registered at different times, are different ages, fall into different claim categories and have very different medical or family circumstances.

That inevitably creates questions when one person receives an invitation and another — who believes they fall within the same published priority group — is still waiting.

That does not necessarily mean the published rules are being ignored.

There may be important differences between individual registrations that are not visible to other families. IBCA also says that where someone has more than one claim, claims may sometimes be processed together or another related claim may need to be assessed first.

But that is exactly why communication matters.

In its September update, IBCA said that living infected people who had never previously been compensated and who had registered by the middle of August had been invited where they were nearing end of life, had advanced liver disease or were aged over 75.

It also said that people acting for deceased infected people who had registered by the middle of August had been invited where they were nearing end of life or aged over 75.

Those statements give the community useful milestones.

What they do not always give an individual family is an answer to the question they are actually asking:

Where am I in the process?

After years — and in many cases decades — of uncertainty surrounding the infected blood scandal, asking people simply to wait without understanding roughly how their claim fits into the published sequence can create additional anxiety.

IBCA has previously acknowledged that it is developing the claims service while processing cases and that individual claims can progress differently, particularly where medical evidence or additional documentation is needed.

That is understandable.

But transparency does not require IBCA to promise an exact invitation date.

It could mean giving clearer information about which priority groups are currently being worked through, the registration dates reached within each group and why apparently similar claims may sometimes move differently.

That would also help reduce another problem: families relying on comparisons with individual cases to work out when their own invitation might arrive.

One person's experience can never guarantee another person's timetable.

Community conversations are valuable, but they should not have to become an unofficial tracking system for a national compensation scheme.

Families need authoritative information from the organisation actually administering it.

IBCA has set an ambition of bringing 5,000 claims to decision between April 2026 and March 2027, while prioritising infected groups.

As that work accelerates, clearer sequencing information could make a significant difference.

Because the problem is no longer simply whether a queue exists.

People know there is a queue.

They want to understand how it is moving.