But isn't that the point, even if only a small number were told directly too late to make reasonable arrangements, isn't that unfair? Do we have a duty to watch the news and political debates or is it reasonable to expect to be told directly that something major is happening with YOUR financial affairs?
I have to be honest, I am in two minds about this and I have looked back at the facts and arguments and I think I agree with the Ombudsman that a small amount of compensation needs to be paid.
My understanding is that Women born in the 1950s were affected by two major changes to the State Pension Age (1995 and 2011 Acts). The age rose from 60 → 65 → 66, and the timetable was accelerated.
WASPI Women’s Argument is that they weren’t properly informed, some only found out in their late 50s by direct notice that their pension age had risen from 60 to 66 which was very late. The 1995 Pensions Act (original plan) said that the Women’s State Pension Age (SPA) was to rise from 60 → 65, that it would be phased in slowly between 2010 and 2020 so women would have 15 years notice.
But then the 2011 Pensions Act (acceleration) appeared and the coalition government sped up the timetable so that Women’s SPA increased faster than originally planned and that many women born 1953-1954 saw their pension age jump by up to 18 months extra on top of the 1995 changes so the the final SPA for women became 66, not 65.
They had not seen the press and political discussions about this or it had not registered as applying to them. And the government sped up the plan Many women born in the 1950s only received a letter between 2009 and 2013, some received no letter at all.
Some discovered the change just 1–2 years before they expected to retire at 60.Therefore the they couldn’t plan because with little notice, they couldn’t adjust savings, work plans, or retirement timing. Some had already left jobs or made irreversible decisions.
The Ombudsman found maladministration in DWP communication.
They are not arguing for a return to age 60. Their issue is how the changes were handled. They claim the impact was severe, financial hardship, debt, loss of homes, inability to care for family, health issues from working longer. So they want fair compensation, not full pension back‑pay. They want compensation for distress, financial loss, and lost opportunities caused by poor communication.
The counter argument is that the changes were announced long in advance, the 1995 Act gave 15 years’ notice before the first woman was affected. Critics argue the information was public and widely reported. The DWP did eventually send letters between 2009–2013. They argue “late” is not the same as “not told”. They state compensation would be costly, paying millions of women could cost billions and critics say this would strain public finances or require cuts elsewhere. They also counter that equalisation was necessary because women live longer on average and that keeping the pension age at 60 would be financially unsustainable.
They state that not all women were unaware and planned accordingly. Critics argue it’s unfair to compensate some when others made sacrifices.
Ombudsman’s recommended compensation was a modest level 4 which is £1,000–£2,950 each. Critics say WASPI’s preferred levels go far beyond this.
They state individuals also have responsibility, some say people should track pension rules themselves and not have reliance on personal letters.