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

eskbanker

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

LHW99

Marcon said:

Brie said:

@Pollycat
you misunderstood me.  this never applied to me beyond the fact that like many women the change was from 60 to 65.  And later moved to 66.  And I'm lucky that I have a good DB scheme and other pension money and investments and am not dependent on anything my OH brings to the mix.

And whether it's in the financial pages or not....if someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances they are likely to ignore an article about boring changes to pensions.  They shouldn't but they do.  The same as all the advice there might be on the news, Martin Lewis doing his podcasts, about anything financial, someone is interested in sports or fashion or cats and they'll focus on those instead.  

Their choice - and they have to live with the consequences of their decision. "I'm not interested in pensions so I should be compensated" isn't the greatest strapline.

Particularly because (presumably) those in definate hardship would have access to benefits of some kind(s)

Pollycat

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

This is what the WASPI petition said back in 2015:

Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950’s womenThe Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA). Hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with a lack of appropriate notification

More details

The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA to 65, the same as men’s. Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), agree with equalisation, but don’t agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented – with little/no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.

I am a woman affected by the state pension age change but am definitely not a WASPI woman.

I recall the words in the petition differed greatly from WASPI's 'ask' on their website.
I signed the petition but when somebody (probably on here) pointed out what the WASPI website said, I asked for my signature to be removed from the petition.

Pollycat

LHW99 said:

Marcon said:

Brie said:

@Pollycat
you misunderstood me.  this never applied to me beyond the fact that like many women the change was from 60 to 65.  And later moved to 66.  And I'm lucky that I have a good DB scheme and other pension money and investments and am not dependent on anything my OH brings to the mix.

And whether it's in the financial pages or not....if someone isn't interested or knowledgeable about finances they are likely to ignore an article about boring changes to pensions.  They shouldn't but they do.  The same as all the advice there might be on the news, Martin Lewis doing his podcasts, about anything financial, someone is interested in sports or fashion or cats and they'll focus on those instead.  

Their choice - and they have to live with the consequences of their decision. "I'm not interested in pensions so I should be compensated" isn't the greatest strapline.

Particularly because (presumably) those in definate hardship would have access to benefits of some kind(s)

Lots of women posting on here who fell into the WASPI group affected by the pension age changes but did not support the WASPI 'ask' fully supported the women who really were financially disadvantaged by the change being entitled to some sort of benefit payment.

eskbanker

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

Pollycat

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

The answer is:
10 years on, I can't remember what WASPI's original 'ask' was on their website and their website has been changed many times.

Bit I do know for certain that WASPI's ask on their website was very different to what they put into the petition so - imho - it's quite possible that WASPI were asking for the same thing as the Backto60 group.

Unfortunately, all the many WASPI threads appear to have been deleted.

So, do you know what WASPI's original 'ask' was?

eskbanker

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

The answer is:
10 years on, I can't remember what WASPI's original 'ask' was on their website and their website has been changed many times.

Bit I do know for certain that WASPI's ask on their website was very different to what they put into the petition so - imho - it's quite possible that WASPI were asking for the same thing as the Backto60 group.

Unfortunately, all the many WASPI threads appear to have been deleted.

So, do you know what WASPI's original 'ask' was?

No, that's why I was asking, but if you don't know either, that's fine, although perhaps better not to be making accusations about them if you aren't able to back them up?

Silvertabby

What amazes me about all this is  the WASPI assumption that women's State pension age was set at 60 because women earned less/had children to bring up/had parents to look after/deserved it when this couldn't be further from the truth if they tried!

Women's State pension age was reduced from 65 to 60 in 1948.  But not to benefit women - instead, it was largely intended to benefit MEN.  Back then, very few women carried on working after marriage, and fewer still after they started their families.  Meaning they didn't accrue a pension in their own right.  Instead, there were two levels of men's State pension - single and married.  But the problem with that was that the husband could only claim the higher, married, amount once his wife had also reached SPA (even though she didn't actually have a pension).  Then, as now, women tended to be 3 to 5 years younger than their husbands, so they would have to subsist on just the single rate man's pension until she 'caught up'.

There must have been other ways round this dilemma, but the one they went for was the reduction in women's SPA to 60, so the majority of married men would retire on the married rate.  The powers that be then obviously didn't see the future 1975 Sex Equality and Equal Pay Acts, and a time when most women carried on working beyond marriage and families.  

Silvertabby

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

The answer is:
10 years on, I can't remember what WASPI's original 'ask' was on their website and their website has been changed many times.

Bit I do know for certain that WASPI's ask on their website was very different to what they put into the petition so - imho - it's quite possible that WASPI were asking for the same thing as the Backto60 group.

Unfortunately, all the many WASPI threads appear to have been deleted.

So, do you know what WASPI's original 'ask' was?

It was certainly more than the £1K to £3K currently being chewed over.

About 5 years ago I bumped into an ex work colleague.  We had a bit of a chat and, both being of a certain age, she asked me if I was a member of WASPI.  And if not, why not.......  I said no, as I had been aware of the changes since 1995 (which was before I became a pensions administrator).  I also pointed out that she had also known, by 2002 at the latest, because we had both attended a GMP training course which included the extra work involved once women's SPA started to rise from April 2010.

She told me that didn't count, as WASPI had told her that she had to confirm that she had never received a personal letter in order to be able to claim her 'missing' pension payments.

Pollycat

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

The answer is:
10 years on, I can't remember what WASPI's original 'ask' was on their website and their website has been changed many times.

Bit I do know for certain that WASPI's ask on their website was very different to what they put into the petition so - imho - it's quite possible that WASPI were asking for the same thing as the Backto60 group.

Unfortunately, all the many WASPI threads appear to have been deleted.

So, do you know what WASPI's original 'ask' was?

It was certainly more than the £1K to £3K currently being chewed over.

About 5 years ago I bumped into an ex work colleague.  We had a bit of a chat and, both being of a certain age, she asked me if I was a member of WASPI.  And if not, why not.......  I said no, as I had been aware of the changes since 1995 (which was before I became a pensions administrator).  I also pointed out that she had also known, by 2002 at the latest, because we had both attended a GMP training course which included the extra work involved once women's SPA started to rise from April 2010.

She told me that didn't count, as WASPI had told her that she had to confirm that she had never received a personal letter in order to be able to claim her 'missing' pension payments.

And this is why I have no time for WASPI.
At best, misrepresentation of facts to suit their goals.
Quite possibly downright lies. 

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:

eskbanker said:

Pollycat said:
If WASPI had concentrated on the later act which really did give some women little notice of the 2nd change, then I would have supported their cause.

But to try to get women's state pension age reverted to age 60 was ludicrous.
And stupid.
And greedy.

Did they actually try to get the change reversed as such?  Their current position appears to be to seek a rules-based compensation mechanism, based on the impact of lack of notice, rather than changing the SPA, but maybe that's evolved over time....

That may be the 'Backto60' group. The name of that group says it all.

From this article:
Women's state pension age increase was 'maladministered', rules Ombudsman - will it lead to compensation? - Which?

Backto60 is hopeful for full restitution, that is, payment for the years of state pension they assert they have lost due to the changes.

So, yes, they pretty much want their pension backdated to age 60.

So, in response to the question, it's 'no, WASPI weren't seeking reversal', even though a different group may have been!

The answer is:
10 years on, I can't remember what WASPI's original 'ask' was on their website and their website has been changed many times.

Bit I do know for certain that WASPI's ask on their website was very different to what they put into the petition so - imho - it's quite possible that WASPI were asking for the same thing as the Backto60 group.

Unfortunately, all the many WASPI threads appear to have been deleted.

So, do you know what WASPI's original 'ask' was?

No, that's why I was asking, but if you don't know either, that's fine, although perhaps better not to be making accusations about them if you aren't able to back them up?

What?
Like everything posted on here is the truth? 🤔😂

No wonder these threads get closed down.