Waspi women should be compensated for state pension age change failures

[IwantToRetire]

I heard a discussion about this on the BBC which was more detailed than this article, and implied that the problem wasn't so much how it was announced in the 1990s, but the later changes during the time Coalition was in power.

But suspect whoever is in Government there will be a delay in any payout.

https://www.professionalpensions.com/news/4188325/waspi-women-compensated-pension-age-change-failures

Somebody did try to suggest it wasn't fair on younger people to expect them to foot the bill (as if it hasn't always been the current tax payers who foot the bill at the time).

Which would be the same as saying the local government's who have gone bankrupt once it was shown they had discriminated against women employees and owed them money, shouldn't have to do it.

So not only are women too often cheated at the time, but are later told they shouldn't expect compensation because not fair on current tax payers.

(For some reason cant access the WASPI web site, but suspect it might just be overloaded. But when back on line may be worth checking their take on the situation. http://www.waspi.co.uk )

I'm sorry but o don't believe that they should get any compensation, an apology yes but nothing else.
I knew in the 1990s that my mother (a waspi) would be 65 before she retired, we even had several conversations about it, how did I know I read the leaflet sent to her (and all waspi's) about the changes back then. That women didn't read, understand or pay attention to the letter and make provision is on them (my mother inc) not anyone else. Could the government have done more to promote the info certainly, and they should have done more than 2 letters and a leaflet, yes hence the need for an apology, but not compensation.

I think that's why I was hoping to post something from the WASPI web site as the interview I heard made it quite clear that the original notice in 1990s was clear (as said in post above).

But later changes made during the time of the Coalition were not handled well. Based on comments made by the woman who chaired the investigation who I heard interviewed.

And none of the articles I have seen have explained what the later changes were.

Was that when it was announced that retirement age for all would increase to 67?

How has the State Pension age increased?
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06546/

The problem was the incompetent and cack-handed way the rules were drawn up to deal with the increase from 65 to 66 to 67.

It's very similar to the incompetence leading to the 3 million self employed excluded from the covid support grants.

Whichever back office clowns in the civil service dealing with the detail of these things are amazingly incompetent. It's not the ministers who change the rules/laws, the "devil is in the detail" and the ministers probably didn't even know the detail and fine print (or didn't understand) when they were passed by Parliament. Just believed the senior civil servants who drafted the rules, transitional arrangements, etc. Then, they can't face to have to admit mistakes were made, do u-turns, etc., so continue to defend the indefensible and hope people forget.

Agree. I was late 20s when this was announced, and all older women I knew at work, and home, knew about it and started preparing. It is shocking that some got to within a few years of what they thought was retirement age before realising. I don't understand why they wouldn't know.

The rules changed a lot and when we tried to check eg the gov site said for years the retirement age would be sixty, so reassuring. I was told that that I would get a full pension after 30 years , which turned out to be wrong. We were told that we would all get the full new pension which is not true. By the time I discovered it was really not worth contributing for the missing years. Just trying to get information at all was really difficult. I am lucky compared to many. The government saved enormous amounts of money at women’s expense. If it had been men who lost up to 7 years contributions, not to mention the employers contributions, there would have been rioting on the streets. Personally I am going to send a lot of letters to the DWP asking for them to check th3 figures as I don’t trust their competence.

So what about all of us who are being slowly told we'll not get a state pension? Work till 72 and your reward is to get a warm fuzzy feeling that those who have never paid ni or contributed to anything are the only people entitled to a state pension, as those who work should have got a private pension?
But don't think of complaining or you want other people to DIE!!

I have mixed feelings about the question of compensation, but think the original decision was short sighted and failed to consider the reasons why women's pension age was lower in the first place and the negative impacts not coming up with a more creative solution would have on the economy, social care and younger women.

I don't believe that grandparents should feel obliged to look after grandchildren, or that families are always able to provide the best care for younger or older members, but the reality is that many women (and some men) end up doing it anyway while struggling with work or insufficient income.

It should be possible for those who have caring responsibilities or who want to care for grandchildren, so younger parents can work and progress ìn their careers, to do so at 60+ without struggling financially. Most people who fall into this category are women, and forcing them to continue working, making it harder for younger workers to progress, seems ridiculous. Now we have women soldiering on at work even after they know they've had enough and want to support their parents and/or their children. In the meantime the state picks up childcare and health and social care costs. That's not to say that women have to pick up either of those things, but since so many of us do as we get older, it seems bonkers not to recognise it.

I was born late 1958, I'm still working. I knew the change was coming. I was disappointed, but I knew and I don't know anyone my age who didn't.
Young people have it tough enough, without paying compensation to the likes of me. I bought my first hovel house for 25k. It wasn't very nice (it didn't have drains for a start) but no one can do that anymore.

I think that those (in the media?) stirring up the old vs. young antagonism are in fact doing the work of the Government (which ever is in power).

Its like the arguement over the triple lock. A lot of complaining about how it isn't fair, but the triple lock was put in place to try and bring UK pensioners in line with other European countries, as it had been chronically low. I think now the UK has crept up to about 16th in the list.

However the media goes out of its way to present this as robbing younger people (as they are current tax payers) not bothering to remember that when the welfare state first started a lot of people got benefit / pensions who had never paid into it. That has always been they way.

How is it it isn't said that campaigning can work (ie the Government was shamed by pensioner poverty campaigns) we should do it as well.

But of course this stirring of an intergeneral conflict avoids the real issue, which is that sucessive Governments have failed to provide an equitable situation.

Or, as the report suggests, certainly in terms of the later changes to the pension system woman have lost out.

Its like saying the women who have got back dated equal pay claims against local governments shouldn't get the money, because of the impact of local services.

Somehow it is always women who are supposed to accept that they shouldn't make a fuss about being short changed.

Have now found the actual report. Its very long.

How DWP communicated changes to State Pension age

We found failings in DWP’s communication about changes to women’s State Pension age.

Communication between 1995 and 2004

Between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet. Accurate information was publicly available through DWP’s agencies, pension education campaigns, leaflets and website.

Communication from 2005 onwards

Research reported in 2004 showed that information about State Pension age changes was not reaching the people who needed it most. The researchers recommended that information should be ‘appropriately targeted’.

DWP failed to take this feedback into account properly when deciding in August 2005 what to do next. It had identified it could do more but did not.

A survey in 2006 showed that too many women still thought their State Pension age was 60.

In November 2006, DWP proposed writing directly to women to let them know about their State Pension age. But it failed to do anything about that proposal until December 2007.

How DWP communicated National Insurance qualifying years information

We found failings in how DWP communicated information about National Insurance qualifying years.

Due to the 2014 Pensions Act and the introduction of the new State Pension, there were changes to the number of National Insurance qualifying years needed to claim the full rate of State Pension. There was timely and accurate information available about this.

However, research showed too many people did not understand their own situations and how the new State Pension affected them personally. The Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office, as well as research that DWP commissioned, highlighted this gap between awareness and understanding. DWP failed to use this research and feedback to improve its service and performance.

Full report here https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/complaints-womens-state-pension-age

They didn't bother about women missing out on information or pension benefits because they thought women wouldn't make a fuss. These women lost out in jobs, and now pensions. When I started work in the late 70's women had only just got equal pay legally but it hadn't been universally implemented (and still isn't). Also married women had their pensions decreased because their husbands were supposed to support them.
it's only fairly recently that a husband didn't have to fill in his wife's tax forms.

I'd forgotten about the Married Women's Pension. My mother always felt she had been cheated as my dad assured her it wasn't worth her paying full contributions because he was ... but then he died long before her.

This article isn't about the WASPI women but illustrates what a minefield state pension are ie married women aren't getting pension boost.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/married-women-missing-state-pension-boost/

And I know on the basis of contributions it could be justified, but given how low the UK state pension is, its hard to fathom how women who were entitled to get a pension from age 60 are somehow meant to survive on less money. Particularly as a group they are highly unlikely to have taken out a private pension, and probably had taken time out of work to have and raise children.

I think the focus needs to be on specifically compensating primary parents and others with caring roles (elderly parents, grandchildren etc.) for the career sacrifices that they make in this regard, NOT giving extras to women for being female per se. The earnings gaps is basically a caring role/motherhood gap; take that away and women and men earn very similar amounts. I would rather see more generous state assistance specifically for people (who are most often women but not always) who undertake caring work in their lives, instead of undifferentiated help for being a woman.

There are also questions of generational fairness here. We all know that if you are 30 right now, by the time you are in your 60s the pension age will have been racheted up so high and chipped away at with so much means-testing that it will essentially have become a stipend for the very poor and elderly. The WASPI thing looks a bit tone deaf, frankly. And I do not believe that they did not know. These changes were very well publicized.

Most people DID know of the changes, they just didn't like the changes, and that's what they were campaigning against.

This ruling is only about communication. It's not about whether the changes were fair, reasonable, correct, etc. It's ALL about the lack of direct communication to those affected.

There is no challenge to the general pretext of equality, as the state pension ages HAD TO be equalised to comply with equalities legislation (which I believe was an EU diktat!). There is no challenge to the increase in state pension age from 65 to 67.

It all about communicating the changes to the waspi women affected. Very few waspi women were in a position to change things too much, whether they'd been directly notified or not, hence why compensation will be minimal across the board. There "may" be cases where a potentially successful claim for actual loss of income compensation may stand up in court, but they're hard to envisage especially and hard for the claimant to prove they genuinely didn't know at the time that they made decisions which must be a very short timescale given the publicity that the waspi women themselves generated via protests, letters to MPs, etc which happened pretty quickly after the rules were changed and led to lots of media attention in both TV, printed media and social media.

If there's any compensation at all, which I highly doubt, I'd imagine it would be an across the board fixed amount of a pretty trivial sum, perhaps in the region of £100 to £500 to apologise for lack of communication, as that is all, legally, the government could be accused of doing wrong!

Emily Thornberry was interviewed about this (among other things) on Radio 4 this morning at around 7:30/35 or so. She wouldn't be drawn on what Labour think as to compensation. Apparently she and others campaigned (or supported the campaign by posing with WASPI women) in 2015 though? Or 2019. Can't quite remember but you'll be able to rewind or find it on catch up.

I'm a WASPI woman. I've never received any literature about changes to my pension age. Maybe mine got lost in the post?
Women who continued working after 60 were/are continuing to pay in (through NI) for the benefit of others (as that's how the system works), so let's not forget about those contributions we/they have made.
I am lucky enough to have a workplace pension which enabled me to retire before qualifying for my state pension, but I still need to make further voluntary NI contributions to receive a full state pension, despite working FT since 1981 (bar a couple of mat leaves).
I am fortunate, and I know it.

I'm conflicted. I was born a month after the cut off date for this campaign and I don't really understand why women a month older than me should be compensated and not me. I know there is always a cut off to these things but I admit I do get worked up when I discuss it with my friends and their answer is simply 'you had longer to prepare for it' . Yes - a whole month of extra notice 🙄

Side note, asking for a family member - if compensation is agreed on, does anyone know if anyone within that age range will be automatically compensated, or do you need to be a Waspi member to be considered for compensation?

I think it's being said that any compensation will be a fixed amount and the amount will be pretty trivial, maybe just a few hundred pounds, across the board. So that sounds as if it will be those affected by the 2011 (?) change from 65 to 66 or 67. Anyone who wasn't in that "transitionary" group won't get any compensation, those who got their pension at 65 won't get any, nor those who were younger. So it's actually a pretty small group of pensioners born within a range span of just a few years (maybe around a five year range if I remember rightly). The compensation is for lack of communication, not the losses suffered, and it has to be remembered lots of those affected simply continued to work, so didn't actually suffer a financial loss. It would be too complex to calculate losses on an individual basis as there are too many variables between circumstances, some people knew and took action, some people didn't know but didn't need to take action, some people knew couldn't take action, some knew but stuck their hands in the sand hoping it wouldn't happen, etc.

This is just a general point about Government clearly making any changes that directly impact peoples lives.

In the past I have memories of Government ads on tv, about the Highway Code and things. And of course the infamous one about HIV ?Aids. So a while ago they changed the rules about who has right of way at road junctions etc.. But there wasn't any effort to use tv ads (which could also have been posted on social media.)

So the report seems to be pointing at 2005 onwards. I dont remember anything like an ad campaign.

And although the report says the earlier changes in the 1990s were done properly, I heard from a number of women that in fact what made them aware was suddently getting phone calls from private pensions companies asking them if the wanted to enroll.

But yes, as said up thread, I dont think anyone is going to get some sort of pension boost or whatever, but will get a lump sum of between £1,000 and £2,950 compensation for lack of clear information.

And presumably it will only be the group of women who are impacted by the later increase in age of retirement from 65 - 68 as the report says the announcement of the change of retirement to 65 was properly advertised.

That's fair, actually. A whole extra month but the same school year. How ridiculous.

I remember the 95 announcement. While I have sympathy, the Waspis aren't an isolated case. We may have had longer to prepare but still a long time of inequality. Many women have been majority family caregivers and worked badly paid jobs to fit in with these. Our pension ages are going up still. I was born in 71 so nowhere near a waspi but we are at the point where a retirement is probably unaffordable or will have been taken away all together. I hope things are becoming more equal for women

@karriecreamer thank you :)