Campaigners raise £65,000 for legal challenge to women's state pension changes

JenniferK

We want equality with men - but only when it suits us.

city1949

I don't think most women who support the movement argue about the equalising of the pension age.
However it is the totally unfair way it has been implemented. My wife who is 54 had her pension age raised in 1995 without much notification however she accepted she would have to work an extra three years. Then with less than two years notice she was asked to work another two years and three months. This is unfair and why the campaign is justified a co worker four weeks older works six months less.
There are real grievances here which should be listened to

hugheskevi

Then with less than two years notice she was asked to work another two years and three months.

The increase was consulted on in November 2010, enacted in 2011 and took effect from 2016, so I don't see where the two years notice comes from?

Similarly, where does 2 years and 3 months come from? The maximum increase to female State Pension age under Pension Act 2011 is 18 months?

This is unfair and why the campaign is justified a co worker four weeks older works six months less.

Could you give some specific dates of birth, as I don't think this is accurate, I think it would need to be 1 month older and reaching State Pension age 4 months earlier.

colsten

city1949 wrote: »

However it is the totally unfair way it has been implemented.

The increases enshrined in law are lot fairer than the WASPI demands.

They are trying to convince people that all women born in the 1950s are unfairly affected and must be given compensation as if their state pension age was 60. That is so, according to WASPI, for everyone born up to and including 31/12/1959.

Those born 1/1/1960 and later are, in the views of WASPI, not affected and can live with a state pension age of 66.

That's clearly a totally ridiculous approach to what they say is fairness, and nobody can take them seriously whilst they don't even answer the question why this 6-year difference for people born even just one day apart should be acceptable.

The other thing that makes WASPI look a laughing stock is incorrect claims of the SPA increases, by both the 1995 and the 2011 Acts. Anyone complaining should first get their facts right.

Silvertabby

I don't think most women who support the movement argue about the equalising of the pension age.
However it is the totally unfair way it has been implemented. My wife who is 54 had her pension age raised in 1995 without much notification however she accepted she would have to work an extra three years. Then with less than two years notice she was asked to work another two years and three months. This is unfair and why the campaign is justified a co worker four weeks older works six months less.
There are real grievances here which should be listened to

City1949 - if your wife is 54 now, that makes her year of birth 1962, Don't waste your time/energy/money on the WASPI campaign, as they are only interested in backdating the changes for women born in the 1950s, and don't give a stuff about women born in the 1960s onwards.

dunstonh

However it is the totally unfair way it has been implemented. My wife who is 54 had her pension age raised in 1995 without much notification however she accepted she would have to work an extra three years.

She had over 20 years to deal with that extra 3 years. That is why most consider the 1995 changes to be fair.

Then with less than two years notice she was asked to work another two years and three months. This is unfair and why the campaign is justified a co worker four weeks older works six months less.

Whilst it may have been 2 years and 3 months on the original 2011 changes, it won't be that now as the Govt changed their position on those close to retirement so the maximum add on was 18 months.

There are real grievances here which should be listened to

Yes. the 2011 changes for Women should have had a longer lead in.

colsten

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. the 2011 changes for Women should have had a longer lead in.

I am not even sure of that any longer. Some women had only 2 or 4 months added, with something like 5 years notice. That's more than enough IMO. But even the maximum 18 months additional increase in 2011 is not an issue for some women - me being one of them.

I don't particularly like that my SPA went up for a second time, but it doesn't cause me hardship because since 1993 (at least) I focussed on minimising my reliance on the state pension. I know many other women, and men, who pursued a similar strategy.

IMO what should happen is that those who actually suffer hardship, despite being eligible for JSA or ESA and other benefits, should be considered for additional help. This should apply to not just women but also to men. But WASPI are totally against this because it would involve means testing and most of them are way too well off to qualify for benefits.

city1949

Sorry I should have said she was born in 1954 she wasn't informed of the second change until 2013.
By the way two former works and Pension ministers including the last one Baroness Altman now support the group

dunstonh

By the way two former works and Pension ministers including the last one Baroness Altman now support the group

Baroness Altman will support whatever agenda suits her career path.

jamesd

city1949 wrote: »

There are real grievances here which should be listened to

The key grievance here is two people born on the same day having state pension ages that are five years different, just because of their gender.

The bigger change in the law that is removing that great injustice happened around twenty years ago and has been mentioned routinely in many places since then, including in personal letters to the last known address of everyone affected.

Naturally some of the people who benefit from discrimination will want it to continue.

Meanwhile, while falsely claiming to want equality, the WASPI2's campaign is advocating creating of a six year gap in payments between two people born one day apart, both women.

The original 2011 change had a gap closer to the two years and three month change you've mentioned but transitional protection was incorporated as a result of a number of campaigns during it's consultation and legislative process that reduced the maximum to 18 months and kept more than 80% to under a year. It would have been good if all of these changes had started sooner than a 1995 announcement but we can't go back and change life expectancy projections back then to what we know has now happened to life expectancy.

Even so, it's well worth remembering that the affected women aren't being asked to do anything that men born on the same day as them are already expected to do.