Impact of Married Women's NI stamp versus HRP

WelshLady42

I would like your comments on my circumstances which I describe below – I cannot believe that I am the only retired married woman to be in this situation:

• I was born in May 1949 and started working in 1966
• I paid the reduced married women’s NI stamp from 1977 to 1985
• Only now do I understand that the reduced stamp did not contribute years to my state pension
• The government brought the reduced stamp out in 1977 and abolished it in 1979 but did not advertise this and allowed women to continue contributing at the reduced rate with no pension benefit
• I believe that I should have qualified for a full pension credit through child benefit while bringing up a family over the same period (my two daughters were born in 1971 and 1974)
• It seems that by working and paying my tax and the reduced NI stamp, the HRP to which I would have been entitled if I had not worked has been lost.  Surely this is not fair
• I qualified for HRP from 1995 to 2005 (through my third child who was born in 1988)
• I reached retirement age in May 2009 and was invited by the DWP to pay six back years of NI, which I did.  I was not told that I had already qualified through HRP for 2003 and 2004 so I have paid unnecessarily for those years

I have tried several times to get this addressed by both the DWP and HMRC to no avail, including requesting a managerial callback from HMRC three times, but again no contact.

In Dec-23 I received two letters from the HMRC.

The first on 7-Dec-23 says I have HRP for my NI record for the periods:

                6-Apr-78 to 20-Sep-93

                30-Jan-95 to 20-Sep-04

                5-Jul-04 to 28-Mar-05

This is correct as I was with my husband overseas from Sep-93 to Jan-95.

The second on 12-Dec-23 says that “You cannot have HRP for a tax year when you have a married women’s reduced election on your NI record”.  The letter states that the period in question is 6-Apr-1977 to 1-Sep-85.  It goes on to say that , “For the tax years 6-Apr-03 to 5-Apr-05 no HRP is awarded”.  You will note that this does not align with the first letter.  This is why I have requested a managerial call which has never materialised.

I would be grateful for any comments on the merits of my case and publicise it on behalf of other women who have been affected by the reduced stamp versus HRP.  The government has acted in an unjust manner by not explaining the consequences of selecting the reduced stamp and its relationship to HRP, allowing it to continue even when abolished for new joiners, and I was asked to pay NI for two years for which I had already qualified.

Thank you

badmemory

Unless they have changed the rules then if you were paying the reduced rate as the last form of NI before claiming child benefit then no you wouldn't have got the credit.  I was lucky as my employer advised against paying the reduced rate.  Many employers just put women on the lower rate without really asking.  As for the years you paid & didn't need to I believe some have been able to claim them back so may be worth a try.

Silvertabby

My late aunt always regretted paying the married woman's stamp, but as the NI reduction was the difference between paying or not paying their mortgage then she felt she had no alternative.  However, she did say that the declaration she had to sign made it quite clear that her reduced NI wouldn't count towards her own State pension, and that she would only be able to coat-tail on her husband's contributions once HE reached SPA.  

I don't think employers would have been able to move women onto the lower rate without the declaration/option form.  But... when a friend got married in the early 1970s, our already married work colleagues said that she HAD to get herself up to the pay office, because "married women don't pay the full stamp".  My friend, who had done her research, said that she was going to continue to pay full NI because she wanted a full State pension.

McKneff

The form did not say that paying the MW stamp did no affect pension, it did and listed other things that it affected benefit wise but being 18, newly married, baby on the way and bills to pay it was a no brainer to a naive teenager. It should have been explained, not just a form to sign. 
I paid enough full stamps for 50% SP but it was explained when I retired that I could claim 60% from my hubby's contributions a difference of a few pounds a week, but still welcome

And that's where we are today...

millie

I have put a claim in for HRP. I returned to work part time when my youngest was 2 and because I had not worked for more than 2 consecutive tax years I lost the right to pay at the reduced rate. Any NI that I did pay was at the full rate. Most years it was only a small amount , not enough to qualify for a full year. I would have thought as I had lost the right to pay the reduced rate and any contributions I did pay were at full rate  I should have been covered by HRP. It would put a further 11 years on to my pension. I only put the claim in 10 days ago so I have not had a reply as of yet.

Marcon

McKneff said:

The form did not say that paying the MW stamp did no affect pension, it did and listed other things that it affected benefit wise but being 18, newly married, baby on the way and bills to pay it was a no brainer to a naive teenager. It should have been explained, not just a form to sign. 
I paid enough full stamps for 50% SP but it was explained when I retired that I could claim 60% from my hubby's contributions a difference of a few pounds a week, but still welcome

And that's where we are today...

The world was a different place then - and hindsight is always a wonderful thing. Cash now, rather than in 40+ years time...you'd have done the same thing whatever anyone said to you. 

travellinggrannie

Hi, I also should have been able to get my State Pension in 2008 when I was 60 but because I opted in 1964, at the age of 16, to pay a married womans stamp I get nothing.  I am now 76.

I left school at 15 and started working, paying I presume a normal stamp.  I married at 16 and was asked did I want to pay a married womans stamp, how naive was I.
I stopped working 6 or 7 months later as I was pregnant, my first baby was born in 1965, a second in 1967 a 3rd in 1970 and my last child in 1974.  I stayed at home almost all of the time to look after and raise my children.  I have more than the qualifying years and also more than the qualifying years of family allowance.
My first husband died at the age of 37 when our youngest child was 7, I was then getting widows pension at the age of 33.
I married again and may now be able to claim my pension as my husband has now reached his pension age.
I have tried many times to get my pension, the pensions department telling me I have enough qualifying years of looking after my children and family allowance, even going as far as taking my bank details and asking how I want my pension paid.  Then it appears I do not qualify.
Surely this cannot be right?

JoeCrystal

Except if I remember rightly, HRP only reduce the number of qualifying years by up to 22 years. You need a full basic state pension at 39 qualifying years. Home Responsibilities Protection ran between 1978 and 2010 so potentially a maximum of 12 years HRP provided you meet the requirements.

So, you still need 27 years of proper NI credits to get the full basic state pension. And unfortunately, as the post near at the top highlighted, if you were paying the married woman's stamp before claiming Child Benefit, then you do not get any HRP.

Having said that, and I appreciate it, it was a long time ago, but the voluntary Class 3 contribution option has been around for a while before your SPA, so you could have potentially topped up your credits.

I think they should make it very clear as exactly what years are missing and so on. It is a bit harsh on you that "The computer say no" especially when the access to information online was rather limited. Admittedly, the UK government website has potentially had information available since 1994.

jem16

WelshLady42 said:

I would like your comments on my circumstances which I describe below – I cannot believe that I am the only retired married woman to be in this situation:

• 
  
• Only now do I understand that the reduced stamp did not contribute years to my state pension
• The government brought the reduced stamp out in 1977 and abolished it in 1979 but did not advertise this and allowed women to continue contributing at the reduced rate with no pension benefit
• 
  

The Married Woman's stamp was not brought out in 1977. It was there long before this. It stopped for new claimants in April 1977 but continued for anyone who was already on it who wished to continue paying it.

The notes were quite clear that you would not build up your own state pension if you chose to be on it.

Muffin28121949

millie said:

I have put a claim in for HRP. I returned to work part time when my youngest was 2 and because I had not worked for more than 2 consecutive tax years I lost the right to pay at the reduced rate. Any NI that I did pay was at the full rate. Most years it was only a small amount , not enough to qualify for a full year. I would have thought as I had lost the right to pay the reduced rate and any contributions I did pay were at full rate  I should have been covered by HRP. It would put a further 11 years on to my pension. I only put the claim in 10 days ago so I have not had a reply as of yet.

Hi I’m in exactly the same position as you. I did not work from 1973 until 1975 . I have been to a tribunal who dismissed the case claiming no new evidence presented.
Last year went back again to the HMRC with evidence that I had not worked.
The response this time was they cannot overturn a tribunal ruling.
I have everything clearly written that I was not employed plus the written policy of unemployment/ no employer you are not allowing to be in receipt of MWS . Good luck please let me know how you got on . 

millie

Hi Muffin sorry for the late reply I have been trying to find the answer they came back with but cannot find it.

the gist of it was that all the HRP had been included but there was a certain age group covering about 5 years when the the qualifying years were 35 and not 30. I was born in February 1947 and that was in this period. I have searched online to try and find it again but have had no success. I did read it somewhere but do not know where. I will keep on searching