Goverment looking at compensation for WASPI women after new evidence

Of course this won't sit with many here , but times were different.Households and the balance of power was different.

Not everybody is literate and loaded.

I was born in 1958 and I knew about the changes . I received a letter from DWP and letters from my accountant as I’m self employed. Friends and family members of a similar age also knew .

I was born in 1954 and heard absolutely nothing about the increase in pension age.

Had I received my pension at 60, I would have received around £40,000 of pension between age 60 and 66 which, as a widow, would have been very helpful. I will break even on the loss around age 83, if I live that long

Exactly PaynesGrey
The enhanced pension will take about 14 years to ‘break even’ on what we’ve missed out on.

Many of us won’t see 83.
Saving the government of the day money.

A small amount (token) would go a long way in the acknowledgment that ‘goalposts were not only changed but then brought forward too’.

theworriedwell. Alleging that women affected were ignorant is offensive. I suggest you read the PHSO reports.

And why did the Pension Service send me a letter in 2007 telling me my pension age was 60 when it was actually 65?

The reason why the SP age for women was historically five year younger than for men is well documented. It is rooted in when men tended to marry women up to five years younger than themselves, when the majority of women did not work outside the home and depended on men for financial support.

Men received their SP pensions at 65 and received an additional amount when their wife reached 60. That goes back to 1940. Before that, between 1928 and 1940, men received no extra pension for a dependant wife until she also reached 65.

In post-war society, where it is rare for a woman not to work outside the home, there is no argument against pension equalisation. As I said, the UK signed the EU Directive in 1978.

The only issue is how badly this was administered.

As a woman who regularly worked a 60 hour week with a three hour commute as well as managing a home, I barely had time to sleep, let alone be aware of random leaflet and media adverts. The DWP should have notified every woman of her new state pension age but did not do so until very late if at all.

www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication/what-did-happen

The PHSO’s investigation took three years. It found maladministration in the DWP’s failure to notify and explained why. That is all anyone needs to accept.

www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication/summary

It’s pointless arguing how much we lost as a result of the changes. We were never going to get our pensions at 60 and it was wrong that we should have continued to do so five years earlier than men. Those of us who got our pensions after 60 but are still on the old scheme will never break even, instead we will fall further and further behind younger pensioners the longer we live. The simple fact is, the government messed up the implementation and should have communicated the changes better, and if any compensation is due then it will be in recognition of this and not some mythical sum that individuals lost out on. Personally I don’t want anything which will have to be paid for by younger generations who are already struggling to survive.

I think men have a far better case for compensation as it was known that forcing them to work longer was blatant discrimination and illegal yet the government continued doing this for many years.

StripeyGran

eazybee

I fail to see why a group of women who apparently never opened a newspaper, listened to the news, heard discussions at work or failed to attend pension information meetings think they are entitled to compensation because they were not able to retire five years earlier than everyone else, and nobody told them personally.
Very poor.

Is that because you are loaded?

Long established rules were changed very quickly.

It impacted and impacts many older women.

The sisterhood? Not for you then?

Well done, StripeyGran.

The promises made by Governments back then have been changed and we are having to just put up with it.

I was born early 1953.

I received my state pension, ( the old rate) when I was 62 years 10 months.

It seems if I had been born after April 1953, I would have had to wait a bit longer, but would have then received the new state pension.

Should I be annoyed? Am I classed as a WASPI?

If, and it’s a big ‘if’, the government decided to pay out, I don’t know how they would sort it, who would be entitled, how much one would get….

I had asked for pension forecasts before I retired, I realised I wouldn’t get it at 60 like my older sister did, but didn’t follow all this about old and new rates.

WASPI is a pressure group, so nobody is classed as WASPI unless they have joined. It is not an umbrella term for 50s born women.

Yes, those on the new pension get more if they have the requisite number of years' contributions, but they do not inherit spouse's pensions and have no opportunity to increase the amount with SERPs. My mum and most of her friends get far more than I do, despite their having decades out of the workplace, getting a pension at 60 and my working without a break from 16 to retirement other than two maternity leaves of 6-7 months each, and having to wait until 66 to get a SP.

I was aware of the changes, but was always in a union, and am interested in the news. Many women were neither. I didn't remember whether I got any official notification or not, so sent an FOI request and was told that no letter had been sent to me. Huge changes to people's financial circumstances should not depend on whether someone has happened to read financial news articles or had discussions at work. Not everyone has colleagues who talk about money or had access to pension information meetings. Those things are only likely to take place in large organisations where core staff are in attendance during office hours. Shift workers, cleaners, porters and people in numerous support roles that happen outside of 9-5, or people who worked in roles with few colleagues would not have those opportunities (so hairdressers, shop assistants, nursery staff and many other largely female occupations).

I fail to understand why so many women seem to think that others are lying, simply because their own experience was different. It is deeply ironic that they then criticise others for having a limited understanding of the world around them.

I recall that those all began because a woman took the UK government to the European Court as she thought it discriminatory that women retired at 60 whereas men retired at 65. The Court agreed so the UK had to equalise the retirement age. It was obviously cheaper to raise 60 to 65 and that's what they did. I'm really surprised that women at the time didn't get the message.

The Ombudsman, after a long and exhaustive trawl through all the facts of the matter, ruled that there was maladministration by the DWP and that any women adversely affected by it should be compensated, on a sliding scale going up to just under £3000.

A Government body going against the Ombudsman is a dangerous route to a slippery slope, and gives carte blanche to the powers that be to do just as they want. Those of you who seem to think you know better than the Ombudsman must be very confident that you’ll never need their services in the future.

It’s just another delaying tactic, they’re waiting for us to die.

I agree that it's all been a delaying tactic.

I did know - but it's only because I'd taken a look at the size of the house of the businessman boyfriend I had at the time (big!) and decided I'd buy the same paper as him and read the business pages in it. Yep....I did pick up some useful info. too from that...

I was never told personally as far as I recollect - but, very fortunately, I saw the table in that newspaper giving the timeline for the first lot of WASPI women and swore visibly at the fact they were going to do that to me despite the fact I'd got noticeably into my 40's by then (ie too old to reasonably impose such a major change on someone). I try not to think of just how much money they've stolen off me doing that and the amount of effort I had to put in personally to still be able to manage to retire at my retirement age.

I still want my money back/have got a copy put away somewhere of the WASPI letter I sent off - but I'm not holding my breath about getting any of what I'm owed back and, even if I do, the last time I read suggested figures = I realised it was absolute peanuts and nothing remotely like I'm owed. So - if we manage to get those "peanuts" after all = I'll take that teeny little bit of my money and stick it into my savings....but it will feel like an insult (after having to wait so long for it and then getting such a tiny bit of it).

Indigo8

Please correct me if I am wrong. Women born before April 1950 were the last to receive the full pension at 60. Women born after that date had to wait until they were 65.

I was born during the war. I have worked all my life including weekend and saturday jobs as a teenager. and 30 years self employed . I still only get half the OAP that my OH gets { £540}
It is not just WASPI women who have been short changed

I was aware of the changes to age in 1999. No idea how other than the media and work. Wouldn't hold my breath!

Indigo8

Please correct me if I am wrong. Women born before April 1950 were the last to receive the full pension at 60. Women born after that date had to wait until they were 65.

No, my friend was born in 1953 got hers at 63 because they gradually increased the age you qualify at. I’ve got mine at 66 but brother in law who reaches 66 in October of next year has to wait until May of the following year, it went up to 67 for some and then 68 which I believe it is now.

eazybee

I fail to see why a group of women who apparently never opened a newspaper, listened to the news, heard discussions at work or failed to attend pension information meetings think they are entitled to compensation because they were not able to retire five years earlier than everyone else, and nobody told them personally.
Very poor.

Exactly what I think. When I reached age 60 I went on the government website and found out about the current age of entitlement to pension and checked it regularly thereafter until I was eligible. I also received letters regarding this from the DWP from time to time. Of course, the subject was also discussed in the media from time to time. This must have been the same for all these women.

I can remember various letters being sent about pension changes but like most young women with young families. I think pension ages now should be the same but there are a generation of women who were forced to stop working when they had children.
However I might have amnesia if asked I got a letter

eazybee

I fail to see why a group of women who apparently never opened a newspaper, listened to the news, heard discussions at work or failed to attend pension information meetings think they are entitled to compensation because they were not able to retire five years earlier than everyone else, and nobody told them personally.
Very poor.

I completely agree. Plenty of notice was given. This country can't afford to waste money on ridiculous compensation claims like this

I received the same letter as PaynesGrey stating my retirement age was 60 which of coarse became 65. Women in age were previously employed 5 years less then men before getting their state pension but I can honestly say that most women never stopped working as they had a home to run. My husband on retirement put his feet up and disappeared into the digital world, I still have a home to look after.

Daisycuddles

eazybee

I fail to see why a group of women who apparently never opened a newspaper, listened to the news, heard discussions at work or failed to attend pension information meetings think they are entitled to compensation because they were not able to retire five years earlier than everyone else, and nobody told them personally.
Very poor.

I completely agree. Plenty of notice was given. This country can't afford to waste money on ridiculous compensation claims like this

But it wasn't "personal" notice. We didnt get letters personally and it was very very well-known by all that womens retirement age was 60th birthday. So - if they were going to change it against us - then it was obvious and correct that they would tell each of us personally in writing.

I'm only too glad personally that I was already aware the DHSS (now DWP) could be inefficient - because they'd darn well tried to be when I got made unemployed back in the 1980s and I went to put in my claim for benefit and got told by the clerk behind the counter "£x per week" was my due. Fortunately I'd already developed a degree of cynicism and said "You've forgotten my rent and my Council Tax (both of which were completely covered in that era)" and "You seem to have got it that I only get it for 6 months!". Fortunately one of us (me) knew I was supposed to be paid the single person rate and not the married woman rate she quoted me as my due! The form must have included asking for my title - which would not have been "Mrs". She was sitting right opposite me and should have spotted my ringless left hand. But I had to put her right - "Benefit continues indefinitely. You do cover all my rent and Council Tax (as it was before all those cuts)". They did get away with not paying me benefit for my first few days back in work - which none of them mentioned to me - as I didnt find out that fact until later and so that money did go missing on me (again - claimants were never told there was a little bit of "crossover money"). So I just assumed they paid me up to and including last day on the dole and my employer paid me from my first day in the job. So- yep.....I'm owed around £200-£300 I should think from back then....that I've dipped out on - because they didnt tell me I was due it.

So yep there can be inefficiency (sometimes deliberate) by Government departments.

Many of us have been far too trusting of them to do their job correctly.

If people say they were unaware of the changes to the state pension, we have to believe them, even if many of us can well remember it being widely discussed in newspapers, along with tv announcements.
I can also remember older family members talking decades ago about these changes.

I am in one of the last age groups to have received the old state pension, and my regret now is that I didn’t take advantage of the very generous offer to defer claiming , and thereafter to be entitled to a higher rate. I think it was in the region of 10% for every year not claimed.
We could have managed but at the time I was just excited at the thought of a few hundred pounds dropping into my account each month to do with as I wished!

Oh well, we’ve all missed out one way or another.

nightowl

The cutoff date of 6th April 1953 meant that women born after that date received the new pension. Those born before that date received the old pension but still didn’t get it at age 60. The age at which it was paid increased gradually to bring it in line with men. Can we please stop saying there was a sudden jump from 60 to 65. The attached table shows there was no such thing. We have all lost out, I didn’t get my pension at 60 but I’m stuck on the old rate for the rest of my life.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f02e640f0b62305b84929/spa-timetable.pdf

Yes, this is the group of women who should be getting compensation.

However, the fact remains that those of us born before 1950 did retire at 60 under the old pension scheme while those born later had their pension age adjusted.
There is a point, I'm not sure at what age, where those born before 1950 start to lose out, even taking into account the amount of pension they received from age 60. .

Another important point is that for 35 years of contributions, women will receive the full new State Pension.
For 35 years of contributions those born before 1950 receive just 35/39ths of the old State Pension. We needed 39 years of contributions for the full amount.

That means it is about £60 per week less than the new State Pension.

Oh well, we’ve all missed out one way or another.

Yes.