WASPI campaign vows to take government watchdog to court over 'serious' errors

[IwantToRetire]

Not sure how many on FWR are concerned or impacted by this, but looks like the campaign continues.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/waspi-campaign-vows-take-government-29287963

And for anyone who can afford to do some gardening see twitter.com/WASPI_Campaign/status/1628471039809183746

Yes I'm in that group. Most of my working life I expected to retire at 60 and it was a bit of a shock to find out I have to wait until 66. Also that over 40 years of contributions still wasn't enough for the full pension.
I can't get too excited about it though when I think of how long my DC will have to wait for their pension. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the country can't afford it.

I have no problem with the state pension age having increased and being the same for men and women, but it was done so badly.

I knew nothing about the changes until 2 years 4 months before my 'old' pension age (60, give or take a few weeks). My new age was 65 years 11 months. I had nowhere near enough time, working in a low paid industry, to make up the missing £50k approx.

The government made pathetic attempts after 1995 to let affected women know.

I know I am supposed to get my state pension at 67, but must admit to being totally confused by the whole thing. To start it was 60 but not enough years. For a while it was going to be something older than 60, but fewer years, then it was 67 and more years and I have had to buy some to extra years to make up the difference.

Just hoping they don't change it yet again to something I have no hope of catching up.

It's really strange that the Government didn't ask every employer at the time the increase in aged was agreed, to include a notice in the next wage packet / slip.

And a reminder at the end of the financial year or something.

I do remember it, but not because of the government or employer but suddenly getting calls from pension companies trying to persuaged me to start a private pension. But had to ask someone why they had started calling. (Couldn't afford the payments anyway).

Another side of this, is that there are now 2 levels of state pension. If you retired when the age was still 60 your pension is actually £40 a week less than those retiring at an older age. I can understand that you can say that's because those retiring later will have made more contributions, but doesn't explain how an older person is mean to survive on less money.

At one point we were told that 30 years was enough, then it was changed and by the time we discovered, the costs of buying contributions had increased considerably. The option of delaying was not as good value as it had been either. What happened to our paid in contributions and those of our employers? If this had been done to a trache of men, there would have been riots on the streets. This is worse than many private pensions schemes which hit people very hard. Women still earn less and have lower pensions. There are jobs which we just can’t do because of the physical demands, and who is actually going to to employ older women? Answers on a post card…

If you retired when the age was still 60 your pension is actually £40 a week less than those retiring at an older age.

Not in my case. I am 66. I have enough years of contributions to get the full amount but I get £144.50 per week, which is exactly what I would have got under the old system. Under the new system I would actually have got a lot less because I was in a contracted out scheme for most of my working life so they pay me the equivalent of what I would have got under the old system. I have no complaints by the way, I get what my contributions have earned me and I am happy with that.

got a lot less because I was in a contracted out scheme

That doesn't change the fact that the Government has made a decision that older pensioners can survive on less.

You took a decision to take up the option, which is what the Government wanted so they were paying out less, to opt out of the state pension scheme.

My DM is one of the women affected, I'll send her the links.

I don't know exactly what her experience was, but I do recall her being incandescently angry that she was told she didn't have enough years, having met the limit that was previously in place and only being out of work whilst raising young children and claiming CB. She bought more years - on the understanding that she would then have enough to retire at 60 (or possibly 62?), then found out very close to turning 60 that she would have to wait to 67. A complete and utter shit show.

I posted on another thread about having to buy extra years in spite of having paid 42 full years of conts.
I am still content with what I will get.