A former Afghan interpreter who suffered life-changing injuries while serving alongside British forces has been denied a review of his compensation claim because the Ministry of Defence would not accept a council tax bill as proof of address.
The case of Mohammed Rafi Hottak, reported by Larisa Brown in The Times, raises questions about the administration of a government compensation scheme for former Afghan locally employed staff.
Hottak was severely injured by a Taliban improvised explosive device in Helmand province in November 2007. The explosion killed British Army officer Captain John McDermid, a highly-regarded Royal Highland Fusilier serving on attachment to 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment. Hottak was treated at the British military hospital at Camp Bastion, where he required approximately 160 stitches. A British surgeon reportedly warned that his injuries and trauma would have lifelong consequences.
Hottak subsequently resumed work with British forces, eventually supervising interpreters at the British base in Kabul. Having received Taliban death threats, he fled to Britain in 2011 and sought asylum. His initial application was refused, but the decision was reversed after The Times publicised his circumstances.
Now a British citizen working as an accountant in the Midlands, Hottak applied for compensation through the government's Ex-Gratia Medical Payments review. His initial claim was reportedly rejected on the grounds that his injuries were not lifelong.
He sought a review, providing medical evidence and photographs of his treatment at Camp Bastion. However, the MoD refused to refer his case to the review panel because he supplied a council tax bill rather than the specified utility bill as proof of his current address.
According to The Times, the MoD's email gave no other reason for refusing to consider his review request. Hottak pointed out that council tax bills are widely accepted as evidence of address and that his driving licence also recorded his address.
Professor Sara de Jong, a founder of the Sulha Alliance, which supports former Afghan interpreters and their families, strongly criticised the decision, highlighting Hottak's service, injuries and subsequent advocacy for his former colleagues.
In response to The Times, the MoD said:
“While the scheme has closed to new review requests, we are aware of this case and considering whether it can be resolved.”
The MoD's published guidance confirms that the Ex-Gratia Medical Payments review closed to new applications on 23 July 2026. It expressly required a passport or driving licence and a recent utility bill. Applications lacking the specified documents were to be treated as invalid, without a right of appeal.
This means that the decision in Hottak's case appears consistent with the published documentation rules. Outright, final rejection may not however have been the correct disposal.
The scheme was intended, among other things, to reconsider cases involving deterioration beyond the original medical prognosis or later-developing conditions. It was therefore particularly relevant to former interpreters whose injuries continued to affect them years after their service.
There must be proper safeguards against fraudulent claims, but equally there ought to be reasonable arrangements for correcting straightforward documentary deficiencies. The bureaucratic handling of Hottack's case seems particularly hard to justify if, as the story seems to imply, his application could not be resubmitted because the scheme had now closed.
Despite the well-known administrative hiccups with various schemes, the United Kingdom has sought to act honourably towards our deserving former local staff like Hottak, and it is good to know that he found safety here and is in employment. It is also welcome that the MoD is considering whether his case can be resolved, although the outcome remains to be seen.
Times 5.11.2026: Injured Afghan interpreter denied compensation over paperwork error