'WASPI' women latest: Government to review decision to refuse compensation

SnowMan

Brie said:

I've heard that supposedly the government wrote to everyone about the situation years and years in advance and yet many women never received anything.  Not sure what else you would like after hearing that the standard argument was that they didn't know.  I think that's an honest enough admission.

I remember my mum telling me it was big national news in 1995 (?) when the original announcement was made and everyone was aware of it in the small technical college where she worked. Perhaps that was unusual but almost certainly not. A lot of the WASPE women were informed in writing of the change, although not necessarily by the DWP, but somehow forgot about it later. For example in the original high court judgement the first defendant actually admitted (para 78) she had been informed about her SPA being 65 in 2006.  

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 www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/pdf/cpf/cpf5jun05.pdf.

Incidentally the original judgement gives a good account of the significant publicity of the change that happened. 

Grumpy_chap

I am confused as to how these women who, apparently, did not know about the change to the SP age because they did not receive a letter ever knew that there was a SP in the first place and the original SP age that they were not told was changing.  Did these people receive a letter ever to tell them that there was a SP and the SP age?  I am certain that I never received such a letter.  In the absence of such a letter, it must have come as a wonderful surprise to these women that they suddenly received a SP which they had not been told about in a letter.

artyboy

So remind me what the difference is between this thread and that other one that shall never be mentioned?

(possibly nothing, in a few hours or so)

Oh wait, THIS one was started 'officially'

(I'll still give it a day, tops.)

Spendless

SnowMan said:

Brie said:

I've heard that supposedly the government wrote to everyone about the situation years and years in advance and yet many women never received anything.  Not sure what else you would like after hearing that the standard argument was that they didn't know.  I think that's an honest enough admission.

I remember my mum telling me it was big national news in 1995 (?) when the original announcement was made and everyone was aware of it in the small technical college where she worked. Perhaps that was unusual but almost certainly not. A lot of the WASPE women were informed in writing of the change, although not necessarily by the DWP, but somehow forgot about it later. For example in the original high court judgement the first defendant actually admitted (para 78) she had been informed about her SPA being 65 in 2006.  

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 www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/pdf/cpf/cpf5jun05.pdf.

Incidentally the original judgement gives a good account of the significant publicity of the change that happened. 

I think thats it. Her occupational pensioner provider told her. Not everyone had one.

Im younger than a Waspi woman, but heard the news on the radio summer 1995. I recall it cos my first thought was 'Ive been working full time for the  past 11 years thinking my SPA would be 60 and now Im going to be 5 years older, wouldnt it be fairer to just apply this to this years school leavers and onwards'

Since then my SPA has changed to 66 and now 67. Guess what - no one has directly  informed me of these changes either. I know cos I check it. Ok in a digital age its easier to look up info - but surely the onus is on the individual to keep up with any changes? 

t0rt0ise

What scuppered me was when they speeded it all up in 2011. The government has admitted that not enough time was given for us to change our plans. I don't understand why the argument has always been about letters not being sent instead of the rushed timing.

MattMattMattUK

t0rt0ise said:

What scuppered me was when they speeded it all up in 2011. The government has admitted that not enough time was given for us to change our plans. I don't understand why the argument has always been about letters not being sent instead of the rushed timing.

The maximum increase in SPA was 18 months and the minimum warning period was seven years between legislation and extension of SPA. I really struggle to see how that is not enough warning. 

SnowMan

t0rt0ise said:

What scuppered me was when they speeded it all up in 2011. The government has admitted that not enough time was given for us to change our plans. I don't understand why the argument has always been about letters not being sent instead of the rushed timing.

Definitely two issues at play. 

Firstly the idea that somehow women affected by the equalisation of SPA to age 65 weren't informed in writing of the change and claimed not to know about it. This was of course a removal of sex discrimination against men despite the use of inequality in the WASPI acronym, and the timetable was set by the UK government in 1995 to be the slowest allowable under equality law at the time. The idea that it was women who were being discriminated against and not men always left a nasty taste in my mouth.  

And the second issue was the 2011 acceleration of the increase to age 65 and subsequent increase to age 66 that meant that some women had an 18 month increase in SPA (it was originally planned to be 24 months from memory) with around 7 years notice. And men were affected by the increase to age 66 also. In relation to that second issue I think it is fair to say that there was a general view on this forum, that that was too big a change with such short notice. I agree with that.

In relation to the first issue we are supposed to believe, by those supporting the WASPI women, that this equalisation to age 65 scuppered their retirement plans. The women affected had supposedly planned their retirements meticulously, identified the amounts of all their private pensions and when they were due to paid, worked out their income and expenditure in retirement, as well as knowing their state pension amount. But they'd never attempted to identify when their state pension was being paid from. How they could miss that SPA was increasing to age 65 is beyond me. I think many never checked exactly what their new individual SPA was between 60 and 65, but whose fault is that? 

It is important to say that there were many women affected by the increase in SPA to age 65 who were opposed to the WASPI campaign. In fact the most passionate, well reasoned and articulate posts on this forum against WASPI came from women affected.     

  

Flugelhorn

Spendless said:

SnowMan said:

Brie said:

I've heard that supposedly the government wrote to everyone about the situation years and years in advance and yet many women never received anything.  Not sure what else you would like after hearing that the standard argument was that they didn't know.  I think that's an honest enough admission.

I remember my mum telling me it was big national news in 1995 (?) when the original announcement was made and everyone was aware of it in the small technical college where she worked. Perhaps that was unusual but almost certainly not. A lot of the WASPE women were informed in writing of the change, although not necessarily by the DWP, but somehow forgot about it later. For example in the original high court judgement the first defendant actually admitted (para 78) she had been informed about her SPA being 65 in 2006.  

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 www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/pdf/cpf/cpf5jun05.pdf.

Incidentally the original judgement gives a good account of the significant publicity of the change that happened. 

I think thats it. Her occupational pensioner provider told her. Not everyone had one.

Im younger than a Waspi woman, but heard the news on the radio summer 1995. I recall it cos my first thought was 'Ive been working full time for the  past 11 years thinking my SPA would be 60 and now Im going to be 5 years older, wouldnt it be fairer to just apply this to this years school leavers and onwards'

Since then my SPA has changed to 66 and now 67. Guess what - no one has directly  informed me of these changes either. I know cos I check it. Ok in a digital age its easier to look up info - but surely the onus is on the individual to keep up with any changes? 

It was my private pension provider who told me, though I think the occupational provider did too - it was totally to be expected -the surprise was how long it had all taken to happen

pseudodox

I am a female of "WASPI" age.  I was never in an occupational pension scheme, never worked for a big company with HR dept who might have told workers about the rise in SPA, never read any serious financial pages etc and yet I was aware from many years before it happened that I would collect my SP from age 63.  I had a chequered working life with many short term jobs but from early 2000s I sought work that would be long term so I would not be job seeking in or after my late 50s when my age would be a negative asset on my CV.  The failure of the campaigners to know about the age rise must be their own responsibility.  And of course the old pension ages DID discriminate against men who overall have shorter life spans than women & were losing out on 5 years of retirement enjoyed when women retired at 60.

Women were campaigning for equality in many spheres decades ago - but when they finally got it they didn't like it.  You can't have your cake & eat it so about time these WASPIs were finally told to stop chasing compensation.  It's just typical of modern society - always someone else to be blamed for your own shortcomings.  I imagine others like me form the majority in the population affected but we get on with our lives, happy to be part of an equalising society.

If by any remote chance there is a compo payout & I am on the receiving end it will go straight to a charity.

LHW99

SnowMan said:

t0rt0ise said:

What scuppered me was when they speeded it all up in 2011. The government has admitted that not enough time was given for us to change our plans. I don't understand why the argument has always been about letters not being sent instead of the rushed timing.

Definitely two issues at play. 

Firstly the idea that somehow women affected by the equalisation of SPA to age 65 weren't informed in writing of the change and claimed not to know about it. This was of course a removal of sex discrimination against men despite the use of inequality in the WASPI acronym, and the timetable was set by the UK government in 1995 to be the slowest allowable under equality law at the time. The idea that it was women who were being discriminated against and not men always left a nasty taste in my mouth.  

And the second issue was the 2011 acceleration of the increase to age 65 and subsequent increase to age 66 that meant that some women had an 18 month increase in SPA (it was originally planned to be 24 months from memory) with around 7 years notice. And men were affected by the increase to age 66 also. In relation to that second issue I think it is fair to say that there was a general view on this forum, that that was too big a change with such short notice. I agree with that.

In relation to the first issue we are supposed to believe, by those supporting the WASPI women, that this equalisation to age 65 scuppered their retirement plans. The women affected had supposedly planned their retirements meticulously, identified the amounts of all their private pensions and when they were due to paid, worked out their income and expenditure in retirement, as well as knowing their state pension amount. But they'd never attempted to identify when their state pension was being paid from. How they could miss that SPA was increasing to age 65 is beyond me. I think many never checked exactly what their new individual SPA was between 60 and 65, but whose fault is that? 

It is important to say that there were many women affected by the increase in SPA to age 65 who were opposed to the WASPI campaign. In fact the most passionate, well reasoned and articulate posts on this forum against WASPI came from women affected.     

  

There was also the issue with the 2011 change that there was a cohort who, having been part of the original increase (quite reasonably) were then hit with a second rise. I think there would have been a danger that a good proportion would assume that the (probable) letter referred to the original change without reading it through.

IMO making a single larger change in one go, or ensuring no-one was hit twice would have been better.

Should all have been done with the earlier equality legislation though.