Pensions ( Waspies)

[Moier]

Quote: 'Did you know when I was 16, the government made an agreement with me, that if I paid National Insurance every week, they would give me a pension when I was 60
I kept my end of the deal and am still paying in!!
On the 5th and 6th of June, the UK Government may be made to give back the right to retire at 60 to all those women who worked and paid their National Insurance.
Currently their pension payout is delayed until 66 or 67 depending on date of birth.
We all know that the pension age for women born in the sixties has been raised. Did you know a campaign called ‘Back to 60 Movement’ has won the right to a Judicial Review and is taking the DWP to the High Court? On the 5th and 6th June they will attempt to get women justice over non consultation in raising the pensionable age to 66 and above.
Michael Mansfield QC will lead the case and the argument for the movement. However, there does not appear to be any media coverage regarding this significant event. That is why we’re raising the awareness now. Let's hope for justice rightly deserved.
There appears to be a media blackout on this issue, which suggests that the government have put a block on the media reporting it. So let’s use social media for what it’s good at - share the hell out of this.

I thought the case had already been heard and lost.

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2020/09/15/women-state-pension-case-lost-in-appeals-court/#:~:text=Michael%20Mansfield%20QC%2C%20representing%20the,have%20been%20dismissed%20as%20premature.

https://brunsdonfinancial.co.uk/blog/womens-state-pension-age-will-never-go-back-to-60/

The hearing was indeed on the 5th and 6th June...in 2019. That is why no press coverage.

I am also in the same boat that when I was 16 state pension age for women was 60. I think it had to change - both to bring it into line with men and to increase the state pension age overall. There were many years of notice. We have an ageing population and longer life expectancy. It just isn’t feasible to be able to expect pension age to remind static.

When I was 16, we didn't have to wear seatbelts in cars, you could smoke in pubs, public transport and at work, employers expected women to give up work when they got married or had babies etc etc etc, and life expectancy was far lower than it is now....

Some legislation changes things for the better, some things change for the worse, but over a timespan of 40-50 years you can be certain that things will change....

What a ridiculous post on a dead topic. Back to 60 lost, and quite rightly.

in the NHS and other places, I can still claim my pension at 60
but it wont be enough to live on

"when I was 16, the government made an agreement with me, that if I paid National Insurance every week, they would give me a pension when I was 60"

No they didn't. No legal contract between you and the government exists. The government change taxes and benefits every year in all sorts of ways and they have the right to do that, not least because whichever government 'promises' something can be democratically voted out and replaced by a government that does the opposite.

I don't think @Moier is coming back to admit their mistake!

Out of interest, why 'quite rightly'?

They did promise that when married females were given the choice of paying a married woman’s stamp, or the full rate, in order to get a pension at age 60.🤷‍♀️

The government of the time may have but that doesn't mean these sort of things won't be subject to change.

That'd be your occupational pension rather than your state pension, wouldn't it?

But whichever choice the woman ticked the pension was payable from the same age - that choice was nothing to do with pension age.

That choice was about whether a woman wanted to get a full pension based on her own NI contributions or pay a lower rate of NI contributions for a smaller pension based upon her husband's contributions. That choice has been honoured, with women who made either choice getting a pension, and those who opted for the lower rate getting a lower pension. That choice and promise has been fulfilled.

Sounds to me like you're chasing a red herring with the idea that somehow because there was a choice between "pay more & get more" vs "pay less & get less" that somehow the existence of that choice is a legal guarantee of pension at age 60.

The case is lost. The men got a much worse deal.

true

Because there was no justification for costing the country billions in order to give a group of women from the most privileged, generation a back dated pension to which they were not entitled.

I agree!

What a load of old shite

I've seen this crop up on my Facebook feed a few times in the last week or so. I've just rolled my eyes and scrolled on by. We can't afford to pay compensation anyway and many of these women will have been 'burning their bras' in years gone by as they wanted equality. Well now they've got it! And the people sharing it on my FB aren't exactly living on the breadline - although I appreciate that many affected will be.

There appears to be a media blackout on this issue, which suggests that the government have put a block on the media reporting

Imagine the media in 2025 not reporting on something that happened in 2019. Outrageous 😂😂

Did this discussion die a death??? A number of people don't seem to know what they're talking about. The Parliamentary Health Services Ombudsman took six years to dig into these women's cases and they uncovered "maladministration" by the DWP. Women were not informed about the six year increase in their SP age so had little time to prepare. Many women lost their homes because of the DWP 'MALADMINISTRATION." And it isn't 'Back To 60' who are taking this case to the High Court - it is WASPI. The government ALWAYS have money for vanity projects (eg. Heathrow third runway) but not the relatively small amount of money the Ombudsman has said should be paid in compensation. Anyone genuinely interested could just follow WASPI on Facebook or Instagram if they want to keep up to date, and if they don't, probably best not to comment.

I would have thought you would have to be living in a hole in the ground to not know about the increases in pension age. It was all over the news, and in the papers, there were complaints about it and protests about it. I think I even got a letter if I remember correctly. You might not agree with it, although it was inevitable that something would have to be done, but not knowing always seems surprising to me.

Very few women received a letter, and that fact was uncovered during the six year PHSO investigation and why they found the DWP guilty of "maladministration." Some women might have been aware that the SP age was set to rise but very few would have anticipated a whopping SIX year leap! Very few were informed WHICH women would be affected. You might disagree but then I'm guessing you did not spend 6 years alongside the PHSO's legal team.

Where do you draw the line though? Waspi women were born between 1950 and 1960. I was born in 1969, and by the time the Government raised the pension age, I had already been paying my NI for 24 years! Why should we be excluded, we were similarly disadvantaged?

You should not be able to change pensions (state or private) once someone has already been paying in, based on the terms that were understood at the start.

In 2010 (when changes were made), they should have only applied to people born after 1994 (people just about to enter the workforce at 16).

There hasn't been a media blackout there has been s lot in the news about it.
I am a waspie and I am very comfortable with the Governments decision. The ombudsman recommended the government pay every woman in that age group between a thousand and three thousand in compensation because of maladministration by DWP not because they had financial losses. Not a life saving amount for an individual but a huge amount for the Government to find.
I was well aware of the changes and so did everyone I have spoken to in my age group (included someone who I know is campaigning to get compensation)
I think the analysis said most women were aware of the changes and the ombudsman report didn't find that anyone had suffered financial loss because of the delay in informing some women about the changes.