Women SPA this week

Mnd

Terron wrote: »

WASPI's proposals will mean women born on the same day as me getting a pension 6 years earlier (or compensation for that).

I agree totally, I turned 65 2 weeks ago and get my state pension in January next year. If I had had a twin sister, then how can anyone justify that she would have received thousands of pounds more state pension than me, and likely to outlive me to receive even more!

With regards to the who has most pension question, I retired 2 years ago being supported by my wife and my occupational pension of 7400. My wife is 59 and she can, if she chooses to, retire at 61.5 when she will have full state pension entitlement. We are building her SIPP to give her approx £100k at that time.

POPPYOSCAR

jimi_man wrote: »

A certain amount of that is to do with letter writing etiquette - as I'm sure you know. It's still customary not to split up the man's first and surname, hence Mr and Mrs (His firstname) Poppyoscar is still the correct way to address formal letters. Obviously informally the reverse is still true, your first name would go first.

If they are just addressed to him and you are not included, then that's down to something that you must have filled in. My wife gets numerous letters addressed to her, which is effectively for both of us, but hers was the name used to set it up.

A lot of assumptions there

No it is not.

We are not Mr and Mrs.

We are married but I have kept my own name.

And no it is not.

We recently made a planning application in both our names.

Who did builders write to do you think?

westv

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Even in this day and age my husband gets letters addressed to him about matters that concern us both.Even when I put my name first his name is put before mine.

One example,our accountant puts my husband's name on our partnership accounts as signatory even though I deal with all administration relating to our business.

Presumably the first point isn't just down to alphabetical order?
Have you questioned the second point with them? I would if it bugged me.

Thrugelmir

Paul_Herring wrote: »

No - not (just) a personally addressed letter; an invitation for an individual face-to-face interview.

Sometimes you wonder if lawyers believe in their clients case. Or just present the case for self publicity and of course the money. Never known a poor barrister.

Pollycat

Paul_Herring wrote: »

"Refusal is not an option, you must turn up for your mandatory education..."

OK boss
I will turn up for my 'mandatory education'.
I assume first-class travel and champagne will be provided..._party_

Gers

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/06/no-duty-of-fairness-to-women-hit-by-pension-age-rise-court-told

Well, that's what the government think of women.

Pollycat

I'm just reading the Guardian article now.

On the second day of a judicial review at the high court brought by the campaign group Back to 60, many of whose members received little or no notice that their pension age had been changed, Sir James Eadie QC also argued that the group had no right to expect either notification of the changes or legal remedy to soften its impact.

Pollycat

From WASPI website:

Many of you will be aware that Back to 60 has called for a Judicial Review (JR) regarding State Pensions for 1950s-born women.  We have indicated that while we wish them well in their endeavours their ask is different from ours.
WASPI have spent four years campaigning for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women. This would take the form of a bridging pension, not means tested, between our original State Pension age and our new one, with compensation for those who have already reached State Pension age and lost out.  We are not campaigning for the State Pension age to revert to 60.  It is essential for the credibility of the campaign that we remain true to our ‘ask’.

Gers

Gers wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/06/no-duty-of-fairness-to-women-hit-by-pension-age-rise-court-told

Well, that's what the government think of women.

I feel vindicated in my ongoing assertions that I did not receive notification of the 2011 changes. Some people have been difficult and unbelieving, saying I was forgetful or even lying.

Doesn't make me any more hopeful of a result in favour of review, just makes me a lot less indignant.

:rotfl:

Pollycat

Gers wrote: »

I feel vindicated in my ongoing assertions that I did not receive notification of the 2011 changes. Some people have been difficult and unbelieving, saying I was forgetful or even lying.

Doesn't make me any more hopeful of a result in favour of review, just makes me a lot less indignant.

:rotfl:

On this thread?

I've found my letter.
It was dated January 2012 & gave me a revised date for state pension of 6th July 2018 (from 6th July 2017).
That gave me 5 years and 6 months notice of a 15 month change.

My OH (18 months younger than me) got a similar letter dated February 2012 notifying him that his revised state pension date would be on his 66th birthday.

I wonder why some people got a letter and some didn't - I'm not disputing that you didn't and I don't think I've said so on this thread.
There must be a reason why, even if the answer is a simple !!!!-up by DWP.