MPs debate the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

Count me in too!

I definitely got a letter about the 2011 change.

Add me to the list.

Not sure about the 1995 one although I was definitely aware of the change.
I did work for a very large national company though so it's possible the information was disseminated by HR.

Public Sector worker and all my colleagues knew about it.

No memory tainted by the possibility of legislation being changed in my favour here. :cool:

Only one of my colleagues has tried that one - convenient memory lapse.

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Most of it is the usual no one told me, I've been robbed, it's soooooo unfair stuff.

With many inaccurate statements too.

There's a couple of people who are going against the grain, but they are being accused of working for government.

Nothing new there. At least the comments are not being deleted as on Facebook.

But most of it makes me embarrassed to be a woman of a certain age!

Agreed.

le_loup

Pollycat wrote: »

Not sure about the 1995 one although I was definitely aware of the change.

Definitely was informed. They even sent a little cardboard calculator which you pulled up to show your age in a window - in another window it showed your new SRP date.

gadgetmind

jem16 wrote: »

Public Sector worker and all my colleagues knew about it.

Flipping 'eck, that's saying something!

bmm78

PensionTech wrote: »

I would still be surprised if the Dutch ruling stands, even taking into account the plaintiff's individual circumstances. It still appears to turn on the interpretation that the expectation of state pension is a possession, and it would still leave it open for people to claim that in being deprived of it they are suffering a "disproportionate burden" without that term being well-defined - which would be cumbersome for the courts whether or not such cases succeeded. That is, after all, what WASPI are generally claiming. But time will tell.

It would be interesting to see the specifics of the Dutch ruling to see the proper reasoning behind it, particularly as to why this case was upheld and the previous case referred to in the article was not. Not sure where to start looking for that though!

The Dutch article and comments hint that the raising of the SPA put it out of sync with other parts of the benefit system, so that there wasn't adequate protection from the state in place for that individual. Have to admit that Dutch state benefits aren't exactly my specialist subject.

I agree that it seems the kind of ruling that is vulnerable to appeal, as it could be seen as setting a precedent that has massive unintended consequences.


From the communications by the WASPI twitter account, they seem to think that they have a legal case to take forward. They have also been very careful with certain aspects of their aims and how they are communicated (eg they are not against equalisation but the lack of notice given), which hints at taking a legal position.

Take it with a pinch of salt, but the legal people I have discussed it with are of the opinion that the WASPI legal case is a non-starter, regardless of the angle of attack. The government don't seem to be too fussed about the threat of legal action anyway.

The threat of legal action may actually be counter-productive to the campaign. If someone is threatening to take you to court, you're not likely to give any concessions that would suggest culpability.

JezR

The following National Audit Office quote suggests a case based on 'notice' is unlikely to have any steam in it: "Government departments do not have a duty to provide information on changes in the law, but where they do issue such material, they have a legal responsibility to ensure that it is accurate and complete."

The DSS produced a leaflet in July 1995 almost immediately after the Pensions Act became law which reflected correctly its provisions.

The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that the 1995 changes were not discriminatory on the grounds of sex or age, although this was in a low powered case brought by an individual.

UKParliament

On Thursday 14 January, MPs discussed the effect of the increase of the state pension age on women.

Jeff Smith MP began the discussion and Shailesh Vara MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, responded on behalf of the government.

Watch the discussion on Parliament TV.