Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News

seven-day-weekend

I find it difficult to believe that some of these women didn't know about the changed retirement date and thought they could still take their Pension at 60. It's been known about for over twenty years and people have not received it a t 60 since 2011!

Anne, from Stockport, said: 'I always thought I would retire in 2014 when I reached 60 and my husband would be 66 then we could do things together and help our kids look after their children so they could work.

Shirley, 64, from Weston Super Mare said: 'I am 64 years of age and was made redundant three years ago after nearly 20 yrs with the same company, which thought I had my state pension so I would be OK!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7532871/Two-women-hit-governments-state-pension-changes-LOSE-landmark-High-Court-challenge.html

ETA, thinking about it, I DON'T believe them.

ArcticRoll

I asked an outrage friend today: Women born in which year should be the first to be asked to work until 61.

Her answer ' 1970'

So the solution to the 'injustice' that women born in 1951 who were given 15 years to prepare for a single year's increase to their state pension age is to give women born in 1970, 12 years (2019-2031 when they turn 61) warning to prepare for a single year's increase in their state pension age.

15 years warning - not sufficient
12 years warning - that's okay.

Really is mind boggling.

zagfles

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that some of these women didn't know about the changed retirement date and thought they could still take their Pension at 60. It's been known about for over twenty years and people have not received it a t 60 since 2011!

Anne, from Stockport, said: 'I always thought I would retire in 2014 when I reached 60 and my husband would be 66 then we could do things together and help our kids look after their children so they could work.

Shirley, 64, from Weston Super Mare said: 'I am 64 years of age and was made redundant three years ago after nearly 20 yrs with the same company, which thought I had my state pension so I would be OK!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7532871/Two-women-hit-governments-state-pension-changes-LOSE-landmark-High-Court-challenge.html

ETA, thinking about it, I DON'T believe them.

See post #58, or paragraph 77-78 in the judgement https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-CO-3174-2018-Final.pdf

The Claimants rely on their own lack of knowledge as illustrative. The first Claimant’s case is that she decided to leave her employment in April 2012 to care for her mother who was ill. She did so on the understanding that she would receive her state pension on her 60th birthday [...] the first Claimant has produced two letters she received from her occupational pension provider, dated 4 August 2006 and 28 April 2011. In each case the letters advise her:“The DWP has assumed that your State Retirement pension will be payable when you reach the age of 65 Years

Media don't seem to have picked up on this for some reason.

Bogof_Babe

zagfles wrote: »

See post #58, or paragraph 78 in the judgement https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delve-and-Glynn-v-SSWP-CO-3174-2018-Final.pdf Media don't seem to have picked up on this though.

If the claimant herself produced that document, how can she maintain that she didn't know about the age increase thing?

AlwaysLearnin

Triumph13 wrote: »

The best analogy I can think of for WASPI's idea of inequality is this. Imagine you have three kids. You buy the first one two presents for their birthday, but then you run into financial difficulties and can only afford one present each from now on. You take middle child to one side and carefully explain the situation and why it means that she, and her younger sibling will only get one present each.
If your middle child is like a WASPI member they have a screaming fit and complain that it's not fair because big sister got two presents. You have to give her two presents or it's just not fair! You explain that if you did that then you wouldn't be able to buy any presents for her little sister. "I don't care! Big sister got two so I have to have two! Little sister can have none, that's not my problem, I have to get as much as big sister or it's just not fair! Wah!"

... and you actually told middle child well before their birthday, but they were 'busy' on their phone and so couldn't (/didn't) really listen, therefore it wasn't until their birthday that the unjustness became apparent...?

colsten

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

If the claimant herself produced that document, how can she maintain that she didn't know about the age increase thing?

moreover, how on earth did the legal team think this would escape the attention of the judges?:rotfl:

Ganga

Do you wonder what would have happened when the whole " equality " thing was proposed/implemented if some one had asked about the retirement age difference,woman MIGHT have asked for it being kicked into touch.

Ganga

Sorry should have said CERTAIN WOMAN OF A CERTAIN AGE would have wanted it kicked into touch.

Pollycat

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

ETA, thinking about it, I DON'T believe them.

I've said up-thread about when I received my letter telling me that my state pension age had been changed by 15 months, as a result of the 2010? Act.
My husband also received a letter advising him that his state pension age had changed to age 66.
So why do we think these women allege they didn't receive a letter?
The organisation involved managed to find me.
The organisation involved managed to find my husband.
Maybe it's because we read the letter.
We filled the letter.
We understood the contents of the letter.
We didn't just toss it in the bin because 'it wasn't interesting'.

Bogof_Babe

Pollycat wrote: »

I've said up-thread about when I received my letter telling me that my state pension age had been changed by 15 months, as a result of the 2010? Act.
My husband also received a letter advising him that his state pension age had changed to age 66.
So why do we think these women allege they didn't receive a letter?
The organisation involved managed to find me.
The organisation involved managed to find my husband.
Maybe it's because we read the letter.
We filled the letter.
We understood the contents of the letter.
We didn't just toss it in the bin because 'it wasn't interesting'.

I am still sure I never had a letter. My SPA was changed by 22 months, so I'm just wondering if perhaps it was only the earlier affected women who were notified by mail, on the assumption that they would be the least likely to know about it. Once their friends and colleagues were affected, perhaps they thought the information would trickle through, and there would be no need to mail out all those thousands who would follow on. Just a thought.