WASPI ‘victory’

hugheskevi

Pollycat said:

I wonder how many women who expected to receive their pension at age 60 believe they'll get compensation around that figure.

Given that a Level 6 Ombudsman recommendation is needed for awards over £10,000 then to expect this the damage suffered would have to be:

Level six cases are the most serious we see, involving profound, devastating or irreversible impacts on the person affected. This includes circumstances where the individual may be affected permanently, or where recovery is likely to take several years, and cases involving avoidable death.  It would also cover circumstances where a reduced quality of life has been endured for a considerable period. This would include significantly reduced life expectancy or injuries resulting in permanent disability or disfigurement.

I suspect a number of the poor WASPI women would consider themselves sufficiently hard done-by to meet this criteria. 

A Level 1 (£0) or 2 (£100-£450) award may more probable:

A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.  

We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration.  In these cases we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

Silvertabby

Pollycat said:

Silvertabby said:

eastcorkram said:

https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1770555606702661807?t=TnX_G1cKdYahVYtDLGi-MQ&s=19

Some kind of announcement tomorrow?

Cobblers.  It's already been confirmed that the only thing DWP did wrong was its failure to issue letters over a 2 year period in the early 2000s.

Compensation, if any, will be in respect of this admin FUBAR only - and is unlikely to be more than £500. 

Reports like this:

The ombudsman is legally not able to recommend the government reimburses women for the full amount of pension they did not receive.

However, it can recommend that at least some of those impacted receive payments of £10,000 or more, though it is not yet known how any compensation scheme would work.

don't help.

Women's pensions: Campaigners urge payouts as Waspi report due - BBC News

I wonder how many women who expected to receive their pension at age 60 believe they'll get compensation around that figure.

I've seen posts (on other boards and faceache) from women who absolutely believe that the minimum compensation they will receive is £10K, and calling for immediate payment.  Some even claim that they won't stop fighting until they get the equivalent of 5/6 years of State pension payouts.  

It really infuriates me.  All or most of the WASPI leadership aren't hurting for money, yet they are still misleading women who are struggling into handing over membership fees that they can ill afford in the name of this lost cause.

Silvertabby

hugheskevi said:

Pollycat said:

I wonder how many women who expected to receive their pension at age 60 believe they'll get compensation around that figure.

Given that a Level 6 Ombudsman recommendation is needed for awards over £10,000 then to expect this the damage suffered would have to be:

Level six cases are the most serious we see, involving profound, devastating or irreversible impacts on the person affected. This includes circumstances where the individual may be affected permanently, or where recovery is likely to take several years, and cases involving avoidable death.  It would also cover circumstances where a reduced quality of life has been endured for a considerable period. This would include significantly reduced life expectancy or injuries resulting in permanent disability or disfigurement.

I suspect a number of the poor WASPI women would consider themselves sufficiently hard done-by to meet this criteria. 

A Level 1 (£0) or 2 (£100-£450) award may more probable:

A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.  

We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration.  In these cases we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

There still seems to be this widespread belief that compo will cover the 'loss' of 5/6 years of State pension payouts, hence the assumption that they will get the Level 6 minimum £10K, preferably more.

Reality is that as any compo will be in respect of a simple admin FUBAR over 20 years ago, Level 2 would be much more appropriate.

This has been clearly explained in media reports but, hey, who bothers reading about boring pensions!

LHW99

An apology for those doubly affected (as a small number were - I think the 2011 change) would be nice. Perhaps a specific income baseline increase for claiming PC, for those in the whole affected age group, so that those who have ended up with a low income, because they were unfit to continue after age 60 might be viable (although special cases usually aren't).

But there really was plenty of information out there, even if not by formal notification (and I did think I got letters about both changes), and it needed to be done because leaving it as it was WAS discriminatory.

Pollycat

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

Silvertabby said:

eastcorkram said:

https://twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1770555606702661807?t=TnX_G1cKdYahVYtDLGi-MQ&s=19

Some kind of announcement tomorrow?

Cobblers.  It's already been confirmed that the only thing DWP did wrong was its failure to issue letters over a 2 year period in the early 2000s.

Compensation, if any, will be in respect of this admin FUBAR only - and is unlikely to be more than £500. 

Reports like this:

The ombudsman is legally not able to recommend the government reimburses women for the full amount of pension they did not receive.

However, it can recommend that at least some of those impacted receive payments of £10,000 or more, though it is not yet known how any compensation scheme would work.

don't help.

Women's pensions: Campaigners urge payouts as Waspi report due - BBC News

I wonder how many women who expected to receive their pension at age 60 believe they'll get compensation around that figure.

I've seen posts (on other boards and faceache) from women who absolutely believe that the minimum compensation they will receive is £10K, and calling for immediate payment.  Some even claim that they won't stop fighting until they get the equivalent of 5/6 years of State pension payouts.  

It really infuriates me.  All or most of the WASPI leadership aren't hurting for money, yet they are still misleading women who are struggling into handing over membership fees that they can ill afford in the name of this lost cause.

I think we've had this discussion before...🤔

hugheskevi

LHW99 said:

An apology for those doubly affected (as a small number were - I think the 2011 change) would be nice. Perhaps a specific income baseline increase for claiming PC, for those in the whole affected age group, so that those who have ended up with a low income, because they were unfit to continue after age 60 might be viable (although special cases usually aren't).

But there really was plenty of information out there, even if not by formal notification (and I did think I got letters about both changes), and it needed to be done because leaving it as it was WAS discriminatory.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman findings relate to notification of the increase to age 65, not the subsequent increase to 66 so this would be out of scope of this particular finding.

Such an apology would be a political apology (ie from Ministers), rather than an administrative apology (ie from DWP) as it relates to the way policy was designed rather than how the process itself was administered. 

Similarly any changes in benefit levels would be a Ministerial policy decision. Given the proximity to the Election, it is unlikely Ministers would want to acknowledge any deficiencies in fairly recent policy design made by their own party and draw more attention to it.

Any policy proposal specific to this group would be at high risk of age discrimination challenge, as it would be necessary to justify why one group of people defined solely by reference to age and income are more deserving of govt. assistance than others of a very similar age and income level - would prioritising this group be objectively justified, and if so, would this policy be a proportionate response.

jem16

Silvertabby said:

hugheskevi said:

Pollycat said:

I wonder how many women who expected to receive their pension at age 60 believe they'll get compensation around that figure.

Given that a Level 6 Ombudsman recommendation is needed for awards over £10,000 then to expect this the damage suffered would have to be:

Level six cases are the most serious we see, involving profound, devastating or irreversible impacts on the person affected. This includes circumstances where the individual may be affected permanently, or where recovery is likely to take several years, and cases involving avoidable death.  It would also cover circumstances where a reduced quality of life has been endured for a considerable period. This would include significantly reduced life expectancy or injuries resulting in permanent disability or disfigurement.

I suspect a number of the poor WASPI women would consider themselves sufficiently hard done-by to meet this criteria. 

A Level 1 (£0) or 2 (£100-£450) award may more probable:

A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.  

We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------- A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once, or was of short duration.  In these cases we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

There still seems to be this widespread belief that compo will cover the 'loss' of 5/6 years of State pension payouts, hence the assumption that they will get the Level 6 minimum £10K, preferably more.

Reality is that as any compo will be in respect of a simple admin FUBAR over 20 years ago, Level 2 would be much more appropriate.

This has been clearly explained in media reports but, hey, who bothers reading about boring pensions!

I'd agree with Level 2 maximum. However the leaked Stage 2 report that was quashed showed £1k for the 6 test cases which is bottom end of Level 4. Other leaked tables from the DWP showed they didn't agree and said Level 1 or 2 was more appropriate.

GibbsRule_No3.

Do we have a time today for when this report is being released? Forget the question, seems it has been released.  None the wiser what will happen as the DWP are not happy with the announcement. So no doubt this will roll on.

MattMattMattUK

GibbsRule_No3. said:

Do we have a time today for when this report is being released? Forget the question, seems it has been released.  None the wiser what will happen as the DWP are not happy with the announcement. So no doubt this will roll on.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/dwp-failed-adequately-communicate-changes-womens-state-pension-age

Only at some point today as far as I am aware, though if you happen to be in the Houses of Parliament I believe you can already pick up a copy. 

jem16

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