Trust in IBCA
Trust in IBCA remains stable, although many members of the public have yet to form a view
While a third (30%) think IBCA is trustworthy (either very or fairly trustworthy), nearly two thirds (64%) didn’t express an opinion (either choosing neither trustworthy or untrustworthy or saying they don’t know). Those in social grade ABC1 were more likely to view IBCA as trustworthy than those in C2DE (33% vs 27%).
5% see IBCA as untrustworthy – with levels of distrust in IBCA being lower than that of comparator organisations such as the NHS (11%), the Department for Health and Social Care (17%), and the UK Government (42%).
This continues to differ by level of knowledge of IBCA.
To what extent, if at all, do you consider the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be trustworthy or untrustworthy?
|
|
December 2025
|
August 2026
|
|
Very trustworthy
|
6%
|
6%
|
|
Fairly trustworthy
|
23%
|
24%
|
|
Neither
|
24%
|
25%
|
|
Fairy untrustworthy
|
6%
|
4%
|
|
Very untrustworthy
|
3%
|
2%
|
|
Don’t know
|
38%
|
39%
|
|
% Net: Trust
|
29%
|
30%
|
To what extent, if at all, do you consider the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be trustworthy or untrustworthy?
|
|
All
|
Awareness of IBCA
|
Awareness of IBCA
|
Understanding of IBCA role
|
Understanding of IBCA role
|
|
|
|
Know a lot / fair amount
|
Heard of
|
Very / fairly well
|
Not very / not a all
|
|
Trustworthy (very / fairly)
|
30%
|
63%
|
40%
|
63%
|
29%
|
|
Neither
|
25%
|
24%
|
30%
|
25%
|
32%
|
|
Untrustworthy (very / fairly)
|
5%
|
6%
|
8%
|
4%
|
11%
|
|
Don’t know
|
39%
|
7%
|
23%
|
39%
|
30%
|
To what extent, if at all, do you consider ... to be trustworthy or untrustworthy?
|
|
IBCA (December 2025)
|
IBCA (August 2026)
|
The NHS (August 2026)
|
The Department of Health and Social Care (August 2026)
|
The UK government (August 2026)
|
|
Very trustworthy
|
6%
|
6%
|
23%
|
9%
|
5%
|
|
Fairly trustworthy
|
23%
|
24%
|
48%
|
40%
|
24%
|
|
Neither
|
24%
|
25%
|
16%
|
27%
|
26%
|
|
Fairly untrustworthy
|
6%
|
4%
|
7%
|
11%
|
21%
|
|
Very untrustworthy
|
3%
|
2%
|
4%
|
7%
|
22%
|
|
Don’t know
|
38%
|
39%
|
2%
|
6%
|
2%
|
|
% Net: Trust
|
29%
|
30%
|
71%
|
49%
|
29%
|
|
% Net: Distrust
|
9%
|
5%
|
11%
|
17%
|
42%
|
To what extent do you agree or disagree with “The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it, without exception”?
|
|
December 2025
|
August 2026
|
|
Strongly agree
|
8%
|
8%
|
|
Tend to agree
|
27%
|
26%
|
|
Neither
|
23%
|
25%
|
|
Tend to disagree
|
16%
|
15%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
3%
|
3%
|
|
Don’t know
|
23%
|
23%
|
|
% Net: Agree
|
34%
|
33%
|
Responses were very similar to the previous survey, with just under half not expressing an opinion on IBCA being able to fulfil its aim – 23% say they don’t know and 25% neither agree nor disagree.
More than a third (33%) agree that IBCA will fulfil its aims however almost one in five (17%) disagree.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with “The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it, without exception?”
|
|
Agree (strong or tend to)
|
Neither
|
Disagree (strongly or tend to)
|
Don’t know
|
|
All
|
33%
|
25%
|
17%
|
23%
|
|
Know a lot or a fair amount about the Infected Blood Scandal
|
46%
|
22%
|
21%
|
11%
|
|
Heard of the Infected Blood Scandal
|
37%
|
26%
|
19%
|
18%
|
|
Know a lot or a fair amount about IBCA
|
63%
|
19%
|
12%
|
6%
|
|
Understand IBCA’s role very or fairly well
|
63%
|
19%
|
12%
|
6%
|
|
Do not understand IBCA’s role very or at all well
|
41%
|
28%
|
18%
|
13%
|
|
IBCA is trustworthy
|
61%
|
18%
|
13%
|
8%
|
|
IBCA is untrustworthy
|
31%
|
15%
|
45%
|
9%
|
You mentioned that you agree (strongly / tend to) that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it, without exception. Why do you say that?
|
Accountability
|
25%
|
|
Responsibility to victims
|
33%
|
|
Concerns about delivering compensation
|
7%
|
|
Other mentions
|
2%
|
Comments from respondents included:
- I trust that they are accountable to their actions and they would comply with the rules and regulations effectively.
- I think IBCA will try to be fair to everyone who deserves a compensation and try its best to fulfil its duty.
- Everyone infected by this deserves compensation, because it is a huge error and they deserve to see people held accountable.
- I believe that this is the moral way to do it, so I trust that all the people who were affected should receive compensation without exception.
- Because there must be certain laws set up to make sure the right people receive the funds.
- The Infected Blood Compensation Authority are not biased when it turns to issue of compensation.
- As the infected blood compensation authority is made under the UK government, so I would rely on them that they would provide justice to the victims.
- It's government funded, so it will drag its heels and delay payment and make it so difficult people will literally die in the attempt to achieve the compensation they are due.
- I think it is very difficult to do this; you would have to trace absolutely everyone, this is unlikely to be achieved despite best intentions.
You mentioned that you disagree (strongly / tend to) that the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme will bring compensation to each and every one who is entitled to it, without exception. Why do you say that?
|
How compensation is delivered
|
66%
|
|
Distrust in IBCA / Government
|
12%
|
|
Difficulties in reaching victims
|
18%
|
|
Accountability
|
27%
|
Comments from respondents included:
- I worry that some that are entitled to compensation won't get it. Based on other compensation schemes not everyone entitled gets it, and it seems a long, drawn out process.
- They may miss people. The assessment of these things are often long and drawn out. People affected may die before they get a resolution. This has been going on for years already.
- Stories in the press and on TV stating that people have struggled to be paid any compensation. Some have died before receiving any money at all. It's almost as if they would rather sit on the money and wait for all the claimants to die, than pay out what they are entitled to.
- The history is not on their side - by that I mean the precedent of the Post Office compensation scheme is disastrous and I fear this scheme will go the same way.
- Because I have a deep mistrust of how governments and their compensation schemes work.
- Due to the poor record keeping within hospitals prior to digitalisation, inevitably some people will be missed. In addition, there will be some that do not want to relive the trauma of the experience.
- They will try their best but I am sure some people will be missed - some will have died, some may not be contactable for other reasons, some may not engage due to fear of scams.
- I am sure they will find a way of drawing the claim out as long as possible. Then find a way of not paying.
While the public continues to mostly trust IBCA to act respectfully and safely while delivering compensation, there remain concerns around the speed of the compensation process.
Please rate your level of trust, if any, in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme in the following ways? (1 = do not trust at all and 10 = completely trust)
|
|
Average scale 1-10 (Dec 25)
|
Average scale 1-10 (Aug 26)
|
Trust (8-10)
|
Distrust (1-3)
|
|
Respectfully
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
20%
|
9%
|
|
Safely
|
6.2
|
6.2
|
20%
|
7%
|
|
Compassionately
|
5.9
|
5.9
|
17%
|
9%
|
|
In a way that is free from stigma
|
6.0
|
5.9
|
17%
|
10%
|
|
Fairly
|
5.8
|
5.8
|
15%
|
10%
|
|
Transparently
|
5.5
|
5.5
|
15%
|
14%
|
|
Accesibly
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
15%
|
9%
|
|
Independent of government
|
5.2
|
5.3
|
14%
|
15%
|
|
Effectively
|
5.6
|
5.6
|
12%
|
11%
|
|
Efficiently
|
5.3
|
5.3
|
12%
|
15%
|
|
Quickly
|
4.6
|
4.4
|
8%
|
27%
|