A victim of child sex abuse denied compensation by a Government agency because it said he "consented" has now received an apology.

The young man, who was abused from the age of 13, was told by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority that he would not receive any money because he had not been the victim of a crime.

He was groomed online and abused by 23 men, 21 of whom have been convicted of offences including sexual activity with a child, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and meeting a child after sexual grooming.

His family's appeal for compensation was rejected and an appeal was due to be heard later this month.

But the agency has now revised its position just days ahead of the planned appeal.

The young man, who cannot be named, had already prepared to give evidence in order to prove he was a victim.

Liberty, who was supporting the case, said CICA’s CEO Carole Oatway wrote to him apologising for the way his case was handled.

The letter said: “I am firmly of the view that you are eligible for compensation. It is clear that advantage was taken of your age and vulnerability for the purpose of sexual abuse.”

His father said: "We are thankful CICA has changed its stance – but it should never have come to this.

"Having spent years coming to terms with what happened to him and that it was not his fault, my son was told by a state body that it was."

Debaleena Dasgupta, a lawyer for Liberty, who was supporting the appeal, said: "It was only at the 11th hour they conceded these appeals."

In July five charities criticised the Government agency for denying compensation to child sex abuse victims who they said had consented.

Under the law children under 16 cannot be deemed to have consented, unless they are over 13 and the defendant could reasonably have believed they were 16.

But the agency used different guidelines, allowing it to argue that some victims had consented in fact and were therefore not victims of crime.

Last month CICA said it would alter its guidelines to tell staff that children who appeared to have consented could have been subject to coercion.