WASPI ‘victory’

Pollycat

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

Isn't this just re-hashing everything that already been said on this subject?

There are dozens of WASPI threads going back years.

It's a never ending soap opera.

And nothing new.
Yada yada.

Posters (like you and I) saying we knew about the change from the original Pension Act change.

Posters saying they didn't now about it until they were almost 60 and expecting to receive their state pension.
And making points like this:

Nelliegrace said:

The state pension age had to be made equal as women fought for equality in other areas of finance, and then it had to be increased with the increased life expectancy.

The problem was that the change put a lot of women into poverty for the extra six years before they reached new state pension age. That is what upsets me. My generation of women were far less likely than men to be allowed to join employment pension schemes. We had lower wages than men for the same work. We had much less chance of promotion. We had gaps in employment, taking responsibility for childcare, care of the elderly, and looking after husbands so they could build up a good pension and savings for themselves, while we we given housekeeping money and a bit of spending money if we were lucky, and often men left taking the lot and leaving the burdens. Age UK describes how men have more personal savings because women earn less money and are more likely to give money to help their children. 

There was nothing most women could do to make up the thousands of pounds they would lose in the time it after it was announced. There was a delay between the decision by Government and releasing the information, and a lot of confusion about who would retire when, as it was phased in, and then it was postponed an extra year. Those hardest hit were not the best educated and informed in well paid management jobs, but the poorest women on low wages or benefits. Most women did not have the option to work for six more years.

We expected to retire from paid employment at sixty, and looked forward to it because post menopause, our bodies were letting us down. We still had all the housework, care of grandchildren, increasing care of elderly parents, and husbands of the generation who think their time off work is their leisure time. 

After a lifetime of being treated unfairly in financial matters, women were hit again by the men in power, as if to punish us for demanding equal rights. This bit of “equality” hurt a lot of women. I don’t expect compensation, but a bit of understanding and less arrogance would help. 

What delay?

FWIW, I was caught up in this but I knew from the age of 42/43 - I was born in 1953 - that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60.
No confusion here about when I'd get my state pension.

If anything is unfair, it's the later act (2016?) that put up to an extra 2 years onto women's state pension age with very little notice.

If WASPI had concentrated on this, more people would have supported them.

And of course, there's the somewhat silly idea by WASPI that only women born in the 1950s should benefit.
What about someone born on 1/1/1960?
Poorly thought out campaign.

LHW99

Pollycat said:

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

Isn't this just re-hashing everything that already been said on this subject?

There are dozens of WASPI threads going back years.

It's a never ending soap opera.

And nothing new.
Yada yada.

Posters (like you and I) saying we knew about the change from the original Pension Act change.

Posters saying they didn't now about it until they were almost 60 and expecting to receive their state pension.
And making points like this:

Nelliegrace said:

The state pension age had to be made equal as women fought for equality in other areas of finance, and then it had to be increased with the increased life expectancy.

The problem was that the change put a lot of women into poverty for the extra six years before they reached new state pension age. That is what upsets me. My generation of women were far less likely than men to be allowed to join employment pension schemes. We had lower wages than men for the same work. We had much less chance of promotion. We had gaps in employment, taking responsibility for childcare, care of the elderly, and looking after husbands so they could build up a good pension and savings for themselves, while we we given housekeeping money and a bit of spending money if we were lucky, and often men left taking the lot and leaving the burdens. Age UK describes how men have more personal savings because women earn less money and are more likely to give money to help their children. 

There was nothing most women could do to make up the thousands of pounds they would lose in the time it after it was announced. There was a delay between the decision by Government and releasing the information, and a lot of confusion about who would retire when, as it was phased in, and then it was postponed an extra year. Those hardest hit were not the best educated and informed in well paid management jobs, but the poorest women on low wages or benefits. Most women did not have the option to work for six more years.

We expected to retire from paid employment at sixty, and looked forward to it because post menopause, our bodies were letting us down. We still had all the housework, care of grandchildren, increasing care of elderly parents, and husbands of the generation who think their time off work is their leisure time. 

After a lifetime of being treated unfairly in financial matters, women were hit again by the men in power, as if to punish us for demanding equal rights. This bit of “equality” hurt a lot of women. I don’t expect compensation, but a bit of understanding and less arrogance would help. 

What delay?

FWIW, I was caught up in this but I knew from the age of 42/43 - I was born in 1953 - that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60.
No confusion here about when I'd get my state pension.

If anything is unfair, it's the later act (2016?) that put up to an extra 2 years onto women's state pension age with very little notice.

If WASPI had concentrated on this, more people would have supported them.

And of course, there's the somewhat silly idea by WASPI that only women born in the 1950s should benefit.
What about someone born on 1/1/1960?
Poorly thought out campaign.

I don't say it was unfair. Equality is important and had to be organised.

It did however feel unfair if you were hit by two successive increases, which a small cohort were. It would have been better to have made the whole change in one go IMO.

But then no one said life had to be fair, and if you want progress you sometimes have to accept it won't always go the way you want.

dunstonh

The problem was that the change put a lot of women into poverty for the extra six years before they reached new state pension age. 

No it didn't.  The 1995 changes had plenty of notice. 5 years of the 6 increase were fair and with long notice.   The real issue was the 2011 changes.  They lacked sufficient notice and the double hit was unfair.

If WASPI hadn't been greedy and focused on the unfair bits, they would have garnered more support. And if they hadn't only looked at 1950s women, then again, they may have had more support. 

Many women born in the 60s and 70s started work when the state pension age was 60.  WASPI decided that those women were inferior to 1950s women and they could wait until 66/67.     

Pollycat

LHW99 said:

Pollycat said:

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

Isn't this just re-hashing everything that already been said on this subject?

There are dozens of WASPI threads going back years.

It's a never ending soap opera.

And nothing new.
Yada yada.

Posters (like you and I) saying we knew about the change from the original Pension Act change.

Posters saying they didn't now about it until they were almost 60 and expecting to receive their state pension.
And making points like this:

Nelliegrace said:

The state pension age had to be made equal as women fought for equality in other areas of finance, and then it had to be increased with the increased life expectancy.

The problem was that the change put a lot of women into poverty for the extra six years before they reached new state pension age. That is what upsets me. My generation of women were far less likely than men to be allowed to join employment pension schemes. We had lower wages than men for the same work. We had much less chance of promotion. We had gaps in employment, taking responsibility for childcare, care of the elderly, and looking after husbands so they could build up a good pension and savings for themselves, while we we given housekeeping money and a bit of spending money if we were lucky, and often men left taking the lot and leaving the burdens. Age UK describes how men have more personal savings because women earn less money and are more likely to give money to help their children. 

There was nothing most women could do to make up the thousands of pounds they would lose in the time it after it was announced. There was a delay between the decision by Government and releasing the information, and a lot of confusion about who would retire when, as it was phased in, and then it was postponed an extra year. Those hardest hit were not the best educated and informed in well paid management jobs, but the poorest women on low wages or benefits. Most women did not have the option to work for six more years.

We expected to retire from paid employment at sixty, and looked forward to it because post menopause, our bodies were letting us down. We still had all the housework, care of grandchildren, increasing care of elderly parents, and husbands of the generation who think their time off work is their leisure time. 

After a lifetime of being treated unfairly in financial matters, women were hit again by the men in power, as if to punish us for demanding equal rights. This bit of “equality” hurt a lot of women. I don’t expect compensation, but a bit of understanding and less arrogance would help. 

What delay?

FWIW, I was caught up in this but I knew from the age of 42/43 - I was born in 1953 - that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60.
No confusion here about when I'd get my state pension.

If anything is unfair, it's the later act (2016?) that put up to an extra 2 years onto women's state pension age with very little notice.

If WASPI had concentrated on this, more people would have supported them.

And of course, there's the somewhat silly idea by WASPI that only women born in the 1950s should benefit.
What about someone born on 1/1/1960?
Poorly thought out campaign.

I don't say it was unfair. Equality is important and had to be organised.

It did however feel unfair if you were hit by two successive increases, which a small cohort were. It would have been better to have made the whole change in one go IMO.

But then no one said life had to be fair, and if you want progress you sometimes have to accept it won't always go the way you want.

I was also one of the ones hit by the 2 changes.

I don't say the equalisation was unfair either.
I was lucky to work in a job that paid women the same as men at the same grade.
And gave women equal opportunity for promotion too.

I always felt it was unfair for women to receive their pension earlier than men.
What is fair about twins - boy and girl - receiving their state pension at very different times?

I believe it has been accepted that the later change was wrong as it gave too little notice.

jem16

Nelliegrace said:

The state pension age had to be made equal as women fought for equality in other areas of finance, and then it had to be increased with the increased life expectancy.

The problem was that the change put a lot of women into poverty for the extra six years before they reached new state pension age. That is what upsets me. My generation of women were far less likely than men to be allowed to join employment pension schemes. We had lower wages than men for the same work. We had much less chance of promotion. We had gaps in employment, taking responsibility for childcare, care of the elderly, and looking after husbands so they could build up a good pension and savings for themselves, while we we given housekeeping money and a bit of spending money if we were lucky, and often men left taking the lot and leaving the burdens. Age UK describes how men have more personal savings because women earn less money and are more likely to give money to help their children. 

There was nothing most women could do to make up the thousands of pounds they would lose in the time it after it was announced. There was a delay between the decision by Government and releasing the information, and a lot of confusion about who would retire when, as it was phased in, and then it was postponed an extra year. Those hardest hit were not the best educated and informed in well paid management jobs, but the poorest women on low wages or benefits. Most women did not have the option to work for six more years.

We expected to retire from paid employment at sixty, and looked forward to it because post menopause, our bodies were letting us down. We still had all the housework, care of grandchildren, increasing care of elderly parents, and husbands of the generation who think their time off work is their leisure time. 

After a lifetime of being treated unfairly in financial matters, women were hit again by the men in power, as if to punish us for demanding equal rights. This bit of “equality” hurt a lot of women. I don’t expect compensation, but a bit of understanding and less arrogance would help. 

The problem here is that you’re making far too many generalisations, something which campaigners have done, and are still doing, all the time. 

I’m a 50s’ born woman. Always had equal pay and equal opportunities throughout my career. I joined my work pension scheme in 1977. I took 5 years out when my sons were young and then a further 4 years part time at which point I rejoined the pension scheme (1989). I had just returned to full time work in 1993 when I heard the announcement of SPA rising to 65 during the Budget speech in November of that year. Decided at that point to buy back some missed years in my pension scheme. When i reached the scheme’s NRA I had almost a full pension. 

Most of my friends and colleagues who were 50s’ born were in exactly the same position as me. All joined the works pension in the 70s and retired on that pension by age 60. 

As long as the campaign looks for all 50s’ women to be treated the same, the more it is destined to fail. The 2011 Act was unfair but really only to those born 53/54 and hit with the more than 12 months increase. They should have concentrated on that but instead went after a 25 year old Act. 

Even now, despite all the information that’s out there, there are many who think that not having their state pension at age 60 is their financial loss due to the DWP maladministration. It’s like fighting the tide trying to explain that not having a state pension at 60 is the effects of the legislation and not maladministration. All these “victory” articles are doing are giving campaigners false hope again and there will be many disappointed yet again when the looked at again report comes out. 

There may be a £1k payment for distress as shown in the leaked provisional Stage 3 document but any higher award will need evidence of a financial loss or lost opportunity due to the maladministration. Most will not be able to give it. 

GibbsRule_No3.

If they compensate the later rise, that also impacted men and pay out £1k to both male and female it might be seen as a fairer solution. 1953/54 born.  The first rise was fine, it was the second rise that impacted both (but probably more the same women that had also had the first equality rise) that I'd complain about.  Luckily I'm still able to do a part time job, while receiving Pension money as well at almost 69, so have not been as financially impacted by both rises. Truth be told I have probably benefitted financially by not getting my SP at 60, as I'm sure I would have stopped worked then.  By the time I reached 64+ when the new retirement age for me arrived, the world money situation had changed, so staying on suited me even more.

Silvertabby

GibbsRule_No3. said:

If they compensate the later rise, that also impacted men and pay out £1k to both male and female it might be seen as a fairer solution. 1953/54 born.  The first rise was fine, it was the second rise that impacted both (but probably more the same women that had also had the first equality rise) that I'd complain about.  Luckily I'm still able to do a part time job, while receiving Pension money as well at almost 69, so have not been as financially impacted by both rises. Truth be told I have probably benefitted financially by not getting my SP at 60, as I'm sure I would have stopped worked then.  By the time I reached 64+ when the new retirement age for me arrived, the world money situation had changed, so staying on suited me even more.

It's not the actual rise(s) in SPA that may be subject to compo - it's the alleged tardyness/omission in sending out individual notification letters over a 2+ year period.

Something that the WASPE hierarchy seem keen to gloss over, while perpetuating the myth that 'victory' will = back dated pension payments.  More money into their coffers, paid by women who can least afford it?  As has already been said, those first class rail tickets and bottles of bubbly en-route to the latest protest march don't pay for themselves.

jem16

GibbsRule_No3. said:

If they compensate the later rise, that also impacted men and pay out £1k to both male and female it might be seen as a fairer solution. 1953/54 born.  The first rise was fine, it was the second rise that impacted both (but probably more the same women that had also had the first equality rise) that I'd complain about.  Luckily I'm still able to do a part time job, while receiving Pension money as well at almost 69, so have not been as financially impacted by both rises. Truth be told I have probably benefitted financially by not getting my SP at 60, as I'm sure I would have stopped worked then.  By the time I reached 64+ when the new retirement age for me arrived, the world money situation had changed, so staying on suited me even more.

There will be no compensation for the later rise as the PHSO is satisfied letters were sent out in good time following the 2011 Act. 

The maladministration period centres round the delay in sending letters informing women of the 1995 Act rise. Only thing to be clarified is exactly how that delay affected women. The PHSO counted backwards from when letters were sent but Waspi/Bindman’s has said that this was flawed as there were pauses for the 2011 Act which wouldn’t have been necessary if the letters had started earlier. 

Of course the part I find odd is that the letters sent about the 2011 Act contained information regarding the further increase. If the previous letters had all been sent by July 2009 as Waspi/Bindman’s are suggesting then there would have had to have been yet another mailing to tell approximately 2.6m women that it had gone up again. 

Murphybear

woolly_wombat said:

There is talk of compensation for a failure to give adequate notice.

We’ll see…..

Flying pigs anyone

Murphybear

woolly_wombat said:

marycanary said:

If there is compo, who will receive it? Asking for a friend.

Don’t count on it.

If previous ‘compensation due to maladministration’ cases are anything to go by, then if any compensation were eventually to be paid out, many of those entitled to it would no longer be with us.

I was on ESA before getting my SP and the DWP made a cats breakfast of my claim so they gave me compensation - £50