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

Pollycat

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

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.

Were you affected by the 2010 change?
i.e. are you a 1953/1954 woman?
If you weren't, you wouldn't have been sent a letter.
The 'earlier affected women' i.e the 1995 Act weren't notified personally.

ETA:
Just read an earlier post of yours.
I don't think you were affected by the later (2010) Act.

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

Were you affected by the 2010 change?
i.e. are you a 1953/1954 woman?
If you weren't, you wouldn't have been sent a letter.
The 'earlier affected women' i.e the 1995 Act weren't notified personally.

Those born in 1953/4 were the worst affected by the 2011 changes but weren't the only ones - any (man or) woman born after that date was affected as their pension age went up to 66.

I wa born in 1960 and got a personal letter from DWP advising that my state pension age had changed from 65 to 66 as a result of the 2011 changes. I'm confident I didn't get a letter following the 1995 changes but was well aware of them at the time from the widespread media coverage.

Bogof_Babe

Pollycat wrote: »

Were you affected by the 2010 change?
i.e. are you a 1953/1954 woman?
If you weren't, you wouldn't have been sent a letter.
The 'earlier affected women' i.e the 1995 Act weren't notified personally.

No, I am an early (Feb) 1952 woman. That explains it!

onomatopoeia99

Pollycat wrote: »

The 'earlier affected women' i.e the 1995 Act weren't notified personally.

It was, however, all over the news for days at the time, and in the leadup as the legislation made its way through parliament, and afterward, and has often been referred to in the intervening years.

Bogof_Babe

It's similar to the "married woman's stamp" obfuscation. Thousands of women reached retirement age expecting a pension and finding out that they wouldn't get one in their own right.

Thankfully when I married my HR department automatically continued with deducting full NI contributions, but it was never explained that there was an alternative. Had I been asked, goodness knows what I might have chosen to do, given we had a new mortgage and were living pretty much hand to mouth in the early days.

Pollycat

p00hsticks wrote: »

Those born in 1953/4 were the worst affected by the 2011 changes but weren't the only ones - any (man or) woman born after that date was affected as their pension age went up to 66.

I wa born in 1960 and got a personal letter from DWP advising that my state pension age had changed from 65 to 66 as a result of the 2011 changes.
I'm confident I didn't get a letter following the 1995 changes
but was well aware of them at the time from the widespread media coverage.

I'm also pretty confident you didn't get a letter about the 1995 changes.
Because no letters were sent out.

Pollycat

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

It was, however, all over the news for days at the time, and in the leadup as the legislation made its way through parliament, and afterward, and has often been referred to in the intervening years.

Of course it was.
But if pensions weren't on your radar, you'd have just switched on Coro or EastEnders.

colsten

Pollycat wrote: »

The 'earlier affected women' i.e the 1995 Act weren't notified personally.

They weren't, in 1995 or shortly thereafter. However, they might have been amongst the 17 million who received automated state pension forecasts between 2004 and 2006. When the women complain, they usually complain about their total increase, i.e. including the 1995 one. When quizzed, some do admit that they knew, anyway - but it's convenient to say they didn't know as it's nigh on impossible to prove that they did, and they bank on getting their money if they maintain they didn't know. What they forget, or don't comprehend, is that there is no obligation on anyone to personally inform people about changes to legislation.

There's a long section in the High Court judgment which deals with the notice aspect.

ArcticRoll

It's spurious logic though isn't it?

Unless I'm informed directly of a legislative change that affects me by letter then legislation doesn't apply to me?

Can people who haven't been written to in regards to increase prescription costs go into the chemist and demand to pay 1995 prices?

Arrested for not wearing a seat belt
"I've kept every letter since 1983, and not once...."

grnglide

Because no letters were sent out.

But there was a mass mailing in the early 2000s to ensure that people realised how much they might get from the state pension.


There were several groups that were given priority so 1950s women and the self employed were sent first.


If people were in a DB scheme the data was sent to the scheme and they consolidated it into their annual notification (a Combined Pension Forecast) otherwise it was sent directly to the punter (an Automatic Pension Forecast). This operation was run by the Future Pension Centre although it probably wasn't called that then.