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

colsten

Geri~O wrote: »

The truth is that the government have raided the National Insurance fund and have picked on what they saw as the weakest group to try to balance the books!

I hate to tell you that this isn't the truth at all. It's complete fiction that the NI Fund was ever raided. It's also complete fiction that anyone picked on a weakest group. The SPA increases affect tens of millions more than just women born in the 1950s, and most of them have higher SPAs than the 1950s women.

zagfles wrote: »

Because it is! Pension Credit age has always been the same for men and women, and tied to the female state pension age. The Labour proposal was to retain the 1995 timetable for pension credit age, ie the same age for men and women. It's one of the very few sensible policies Labour have proposed! But it's probably too late now.

IIRC, Labour proposed the PC on the 1995 timetable for women born in the 1950s only. Nothing for men, nothing for anyone born after 1959. That's not sensible - it would be outrageous!

zagfles

colsten wrote: »

IIRC, Labour proposed the PC on the 1995 timetable for women born in the 1950s only. Nothing for men, nothing for anyone born after 1959. That's not sensible - it would be outrageous!

It was a bit vague, IIRC it was a brief paragraph only mentioning women, but it would have had to apply to both men and women.

When the last Labour govt introduced PC they tried to tie it to SPA, but that was found to be illegal following a legal case as the SPA was different for men and women, and as a new benefit it was illegal for it to be discriminatory. So they tied it to the women's SPA for both sexes.

So as there's already case law on exactly this, they couldn't have set different PC ages for men and women.

[Deleted User]

This is a difficult one for me. First thing to say though is that even if WASPI had won the court case it wouldn’t have made one bit of difference to me as I was born five weeks after the cut-off date they proposed.
Yet I’m aware that not receiving my state pension until I’m 66 may present all sorts of problems in the next few years. Just for info I do have two small occupational pensions and some modest savings, but not enough to retire before I get my state pension.
So my worries are;-
The project I’m working on with finish in a year or so, and I’m going to be looking at finding another job at the age of 61-62 in an area where there isn’t a lot of work anyway. I don’t know how employable I will be at that time, in competition with a lot of younger people.
Also I’m starting to develop health problems that may limit the type of work I can do; - arthritis means that I can’t anything that involves heavy lifting or a lot of repetitive movement, such as data entry. Hearing problems mean that I can’t really do customer service type work – NHS hearing aids are rubbish and I can’t afford private ones.
Due to these health issues I’m also afraid that I physically won’t be able to work until I reach state retirement age, not even on a part-time basis.
Finally, there is a possibility that I will have to give up work anyway to become a full-time carer, which is what I was doing in 1995 when these changes were first announced. And that is a situation where life would be so much easier with a state pension as carer’s allowance is a pittance.
So do I think WASPI should have won? No, not really, and as above it wouldn’t have made any difference to me if they had. What I do think is that this whole thing needs looking at again, for both men and women, because there are too many people who are going to struggle to work until they can claim their state pension.
Yes, we need to take personal responsibility for our futures and I’ve tried to do that within my limited means, but many people in low paid, insecure, work simply can’t afford to save much for retirement. In work poverty is a big problem in this country and it’s not always a case of Amazon Prime and foreign holidays.
On solution which was proposed (Sorry, I can’t remember which bunch of politicians it was) was to let people take their state pensions earlier at reduced rate. Personally, that would have suited me, but the idea seems to have died the death now.
But I do think that we need an interim system, a safety net, in place for those who are not able to work/can’t find employment, but aren’t old enough to claim a state pension or ill enough to get disability benefits, otherwise there are going to be too many people falling through the cracks.

Aegis

Rabbit24 wrote: »

This is a difficult one for me. First thing to say though is that even if WASPI had won the court case it wouldn’t have made one bit of difference to me as I was born five weeks after the cut-off date they proposed.
Yet I’m aware that not receiving my state pension until I’m 66 may present all sorts of problems in the next few years. Just for info I do have two small occupational pensions and some modest savings, but not enough to retire before I get my state pension.
So my worries are;-
The project I’m working on with finish in a year or so, and I’m going to be looking at finding another job at the age of 61-62 in an area where there isn’t a lot of work anyway. I don’t know how employable I will be at that time, in competition with a lot of younger people.
Also I’m starting to develop health problems that may limit the type of work I can do; - arthritis means that I can’t anything that involves heavy lifting or a lot of repetitive movement, such as data entry. Hearing problems mean that I can’t really do customer service type work – NHS hearing aids are rubbish and I can’t afford private ones.
Due to these health issues I’m also afraid that I physically won’t be able to work until I reach state retirement age, not even on a part-time basis.
Finally, there is a possibility that I will have to give up work anyway to become a full-time carer, which is what I was doing in 1995 when these changes were first announced. And that is a situation where life would be so much easier with a state pension as carer’s allowance is a pittance.
So do I think WASPI should have won? No, not really, and as above it wouldn’t have made any difference to me if they had. What I do think is that this whole thing needs looking at again, for both men and women, because there are too many people who are going to struggle to work until they can claim their state pension.
Yes, we need to take personal responsibility for our futures and I’ve tried to do that within my limited means, but many people in low paid, insecure, work simply can’t afford to save much for retirement. In work poverty is a big problem in this country and it’s not always a case of Amazon Prime and foreign holidays.
On solution which was proposed (Sorry, I can’t remember which bunch of politicians it was) was to let people take their state pensions earlier at reduced rate. Personally, that would have suited me, but the idea seems to have died the death now.
But I do think that we need an interim system, a safety net, in place for those who are not able to work/can’t find employment, but aren’t old enough to claim a state pension or ill enough to get disability benefits, otherwise there are going to be too many people falling through the cracks.

This is a really good sentiment - in essence we need a robust safety net for people that struggle to find or keep work due to age or infirmity, or those who are essentially forced into work that pays well below actual living wage. Unfortunately the era of austerity seems to have eroded this safety net away rather than building it up, despite generally positive economics over the last decade.

JoeCrystal

Rabbit24 wrote: »

But I do think that we need an interim system, a safety net, in place for those who are not able to work/can’t find employment, but aren’t old enough to claim a state pension or ill enough to get disability benefits, otherwise there are going to be too many people falling through the cracks.

There is still Universal Credits safety net through which you can claim, but yes, the benefits system is pretty dire at the moment. I missed the Working Tax Credits, which doesn't take into account capital savings.

Malthusian

Rabbit24 wrote: »

On solution which was proposed (Sorry, I can’t remember which bunch of politicians it was) was to let people take their state pensions earlier at reduced rate. Personally, that would have suited me, but the idea seems to have died the death now.

It was a non-starter. Almost everyone would claim their State Pension as soon as they could get it. This is not speculation; we know this for a fact because most people claimed the pre-2016 State Pension as soon as they could get it, despite the exceptionally generous terms for deferring.

The State Pension is, in theory, the minimum needed for an elderly person to live on. Therefore a reduced State Pension is not enough to live on. Therefore everyone who was solely reliant on the State Pension would draw it as soon as they could and then not have enough to live on, and would campaign until the "reduced" State Pension was increased or topped-up with means-tested benefits.

A proposal for a reduced early State Pension is in reality a proposal for an unreduced early State Pension and we can't afford it.

But I do think that we need an interim system, a safety net, in place for those who are not able to work/can’t find employment, but aren’t old enough to claim a state pension or ill enough to get disability benefits, otherwise there are going to be too many people falling through the cracks.

I'm not going to stand against increasing benefits for the relatively small minority of low-income people who find themselves unable to work while still of working age. But to quote Labour, there is no money left.

The priority is Universal Basic Income, with a top-up for those with special medical needs, which would allow the disabled to do what work they were capable of without threatening their benefits. This would make their lives far better than increasing the pittance they get for sitting at home doing nothing.

SnowMan

zagfles wrote: »

Basically what the judgement said, it ripped the case to bits. The media reporting of it has been hugely biased, mainly concentrating on the last paragraph saying they were "saddened by the stories" and it's a matter for parliament, as if the judges agreed but their hands were tied. Together with quotes from groups supporting the case. Rather than mentioning the parts of the judgement where it ripped apart the idea that a policy to end direct discrimination is discriminatory, or that there was some obligation on government to personally inform everyone affected, as if the government normally personally informs everyone affected by a change in the law :rotfl:

The initial media reports mentioned an appeal is likely, but they seem to have changed now - possibly after reading the full judgement completely rubbishing the case.

Full report is here, quite long but worth reading rather than biased journalists' cherry picked bits:

Agree completely that the judgement ripped the case to bits, and the bit at the end about being saddened about the stories and being a matter for parliament, taken out of context on it's own, doesn't reflect what precedes it in the report.

For example anyone trying to argue lack of consultation and lack of notification really needs to read the full report from para 76 to para 123, where it explains in detail the considerable consultation, publicity and thinking about individual notification that went on. Nobody's going to say the notification and consultation was perfect, but reading the report you can really appreciate the considerable consultation and publicity surrounding the changes that went on.

The standard of the case put by the claimants re notification is illustrated by these paragraphs

The first Claimant states that she “became aware of the changes to the state pension age in around 2010/2011. However, I was led to believe at the time that nothing would change until 2020 and I would, therefore, be unaffected...”. The first Claimant’s statement does not explain what led her into this belief. It was only in 2014 when, through conversations with a colleague, that she realised she would receive her state pension only at age 66.

With engaging honesty, 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. If you have any queries you should contact the DWP on 0845 3000 168. A leaflet is available giving more information about your State Pension statement at.....

SnowMan

Rabbit24 wrote: »

What I do think is that this whole thing needs looking at again, for both men and women, because there are too many people who are going to struggle to work until they can claim their state pension.

Yes, we need to take personal responsibility for our futures and I’ve tried to do that within my limited means, but many people in low paid, insecure, work simply can’t afford to save much for retirement. In work poverty is a big problem in this country and it’s not always a case of Amazon Prime and foreign holidays.
...............
But I do think that we need an interim system, a safety net, in place for those who are not able to work/can’t find employment, but aren’t old enough to claim a state pension or ill enough to get disability benefits, otherwise there are going to be too many people falling through the cracks.

You make a good point that there are a lot of people (and that applies to males also) who are in the 60-66 age range who have limited means, and are unable to work due to ill health.

In some of the work I do I see many people in this 60 - 66 age range, who are trying to claim means tested benefits such as universal credit. They are assessed by the medical assessments as being fit for work, despite it being obvious they are not fit for work. It's clear under the point scoring system that they are not fit for work; we help them appeal and invariably they win. Probably a larger number don't seek our advice and just lose out and either give up claiming, are sanctioned, or have worsening health because of the fear of sanctions.

Those people in the 60 - 66 age group already in receipt of means tested help such as income based Employment and Support Allowance, are often suddenly declared fit for work, even though their condition has not improved, and lose their income with not 6 years, not 10 years not 20 years, but zero days notice.

And even those with limited financial means, who are accepted as unable to work find that working age means tested benefits are typically significantly less than pension age benefits.

So as Zagfles mentions the labour policy at the last election to freeze Pension Credit Age as State Pension Age goes up was a sensible one.

On top of that there needs to be a review of the medical assessments for getting means tested help including for those in the 60 -66 age range.

There is an urgent needs for change to help those with limited financial means in the 60 - 66 age group who face ill-health and are unable to work. But it is important to differentiate this need from the spurious, non-means tested, un-affordable and discriminatory demands of the WASPE and Backto60 campaigns.

Pollycat

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott tweeted: “Disappointed to hear about today’s decision regarding the WASPI women. I will continue to support the WASPI-Campaign in their fight against pension inequality.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/state-pension-age-women-waspi-high-court-discrimination-case-lost-sexism-a9135961.html
It doesn't surprise me that Diane Abbott doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'inequality'.

GibbsRule_No3

"The State Pension is, in theory, the minimum needed for an elderly person to live on. Therefore a reduced State Pension is not enough to live on. Therefore everyone who was solely reliant on the State Pension would draw it as soon as they could and then not have enough to live on, and would campaign until the "reduced" State Pension was increased or topped-up with means-tested benefits."

The State Pension will just about be enough to cover my rent, (and it is not Private rental) and Council Tax when I get it next March, hence the reason I am still working. So what are people living on?

Out of interest have we heard how men born in 53-54 feel about the time they were given for their increased retirement SP age? I know it is only a year rather than the possible 6 extra years for a woman but wondered. Under the first change I would have had my SP in September and now get it in March 2020. PPOV I am now benefitting from working three days a week and plan to stay for longer than I was going to, as it is upsetting my company plans for the section I work in:j