WASPI ‘victory’

westv

jem16 said:

Here we go - this is the PHSO's report.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/Women’s-State-Pension-age-our-findings-on-injustice-and-associated-issues.pdf

I will wait for someone else to read it.

The_Green_Hornet

Seems that the ombudsman has recommended Level 4 compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950.

dunstonh

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

Who says it is being addressed?  Nothing announced yet has.   The Government doesn't have to follow the ombudsman and no indication is that the position has changed on that front.  Hopefully, the Government will not cave in and give these disgraceful chancers any money.

this snipped from the Telegraph highlights the inconsistencies in information:



So, three decades would put us at 1994. If WASPI was campaigning nearly 3 decades ago, how can they then claim they didn't know about the changes?

And again, with the WASPI campaign, they disgracefully want only women born between a certain age to get compensation.   Not all women.   Those women born in the 1960s and 70s started work when the start pension was 60.    So, why are WASPI discriminating against them?

michaels

How were people informed of the state pension age (60/65) when they started work all those years ago?

Over time lots of laws and rules change, for example in motoring etc and as a citizen we are expected to know and follow the laws without them being individually communicated to us.  Ignorance of the law is never a defence.

jem16

The_Green_Hornet said:

Seems that the ombudsman has recommended Level 4 compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950.

Only for the 6 test cases though.

495. Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice because of DWP’s maladministration in communicating State Pension age. We know, for example, some women were aware their State Pension age had changed before DWP should have begun direct mail. DWP’s research between 2000 and 2007 showed that although action was needed to improve awareness, a proportion of those affected knew their State Pension age had risen.

496. Some women would not have had opportunities to do things differently. For example, some women’s personal circumstances would have limited their opportunities to do things differently, even if they would have wanted to. Other women may not have needed to consider doing things differently because their p

Marcon

484. 'Given the significant concerns we have that DWP will fail to remedy the injustice, the most expedient thing we can do is to move immediately to bringing matters to Parliament’s attention. This is a rare decision, but we consider it necessary in the circumstances. It would be unsatisfactory and artificial for complainants to have to ‘wait and see’ whether DWP will act on our findings and then almost certainly experience further delay if it does not. We are therefore asking Parliament to intervene and identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy. We consider this approach to be in the complainants’ best interests. It is, of course, open to DWP to forestall this process by acting on what we say to Parliament.'

...and so the saga goes on...

The_Green_Hornet

jem16 said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Seems that the ombudsman has recommended Level 4 compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950.

Only for the 6 test cases though.

495. Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice because of DWP’s maladministration in communicating State Pension age. We know, for example, some women were aware their State Pension age had changed before DWP should have begun direct mail. DWP’s research between 2000 and 2007 showed that although action was needed to improve awareness, a proportion of those affected knew their State Pension age had risen.

496. Some women would not have had opportunities to do things differently. For example, some women’s personal circumstances would have limited their opportunities to do things differently, even if they would have wanted to. Other women may not have needed to consider doing things differently because their p

Section 504 implies compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range.

504. We recognise the very significant cost to taxpayers of compensating all women affected by DWP’s maladministration. Compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds, though we understand not all of them will have suffered injustice. Our Principles for Remedy acknowledge that public bodies need to balance responding appropriately to people’s 90 Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues complaints and acting proportionately within available resources. But they also say finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. 

jem16

The_Green_Hornet said:

jem16 said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Seems that the ombudsman has recommended Level 4 compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950.

Only for the 6 test cases though.

495. Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice because of DWP’s maladministration in communicating State Pension age. We know, for example, some women were aware their State Pension age had changed before DWP should have begun direct mail. DWP’s research between 2000 and 2007 showed that although action was needed to improve awareness, a proportion of those affected knew their State Pension age had risen.

496. Some women would not have had opportunities to do things differently. For example, some women’s personal circumstances would have limited their opportunities to do things differently, even if they would have wanted to. Other women may not have needed to consider doing things differently because their p

Section 504 implies compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range.

504. We recognise the very significant cost to taxpayers of compensating all women affected by DWP’s maladministration. Compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds, though we understand not all of them will have suffered injustice. Our Principles for Remedy acknowledge that public bodies need to balance responding appropriately to people’s 90 Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues complaints and acting proportionately within available resources. But they also say finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. 

It does but I would guarantee compensating all at Level 4 simply will not happen. Some women only had a few months delay and compensation at that level would be more than the state pension they "lost". The Treasury would not agree to spending taxpayer's money like that.

Malthusian

WASPI didn't exist one decade ago, let alone three. It was formed in 2016 after a campaign to reverse the 2011 Pensions Act (the further increase of State Pension Ages by up to 18 months) sank without trace. One of the those campaigners started a new campaign to reverse the 1995 Pensions Act (the equalisation from 60 to 65), which encompassed many more woman and promised them a much larger payout, and the rest is history.

The headline about the Omudsman recommending payouts of £1,000 - £2,950 is based on their finding that the failings identified represent level 4 on their "severity of injustice" scale. But what they have really done is kick it back to Parliament.

What DWP has told us during this investigation leads us to strongly doubt it will provide a remedy. Complainants have also told us they doubt DWP’s ability or intent to provide a remedy. Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.

The full "Remedy" section of the report is so vague in its recommendation that an economist would be proud.

As a matter of principle, redress should reflect individual impact. But the numbers of people who have potentially suffered injustice because of the maladministration, the need for remedy to be delivered without delay, and the cost and administrative burden of assessing potentially millions of individual women’s circumstances may indicate the need for a more standardised approach. [...]

Parliament may want to consider a mechanism for assessing individual claims of injustice. Or it may consider a flat-rate payment would deliver more efficient resolution, recognising that will inevitably mean some women being paid more or less compensation than they otherwise would. We recognise the very significant cost to taxpayers of compensating all women affected by DWP’s maladministration. Compensating all women born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between around £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds, though we understand not all of them will have suffered injustice. Our Principles for Remedy acknowledge that public bodies need to balance responding appropriately to people’s complaints and acting proportionately within available resources. But they also say finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. 

Everyone got that? On the one hand it may be fair to compensate women affected individually, but on the other it may be better to create a flat-rate scheme. And the compensation should not be too much, but it should also not be too little. Over to Parliament.

The Tories were in power when both the 1995 and 2011 Acts were passed and don't seem very likely to propose compensation for failings that they will be considered on the hook for. While Starmer saw Corbyn jump on the WASPI bandwagon and promptly get enmeshed in its wreckage. WASPI's prospects in Parliament don't look promising. 

Marcon

amykirk1996 said:

Good to see this historical wrong finally being addressed.

I'm looking at you @Grumpy_chap / @MattMattMattUK / @68ComebackSpecial / @unholyangel / @bradders1983 / @jayzor / @Jonesy1977 / @gary83 / @dunstonh / @ToxicWomble / @noitsnotme / @jon81uk and others in the Excluded UK pandemic support debate.

Hang your heads in shame.

@amykirk1996 - you might want to delete your completely irrelevant and unfriendly post. Your comments were about something else entirely: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6205543/gapsinsupport-national-audit-office-2-9-million-people-were-not-eligible-for-government-support#latest