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

Andy_L

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?

From the wayback machine in 2016

"The AIM of the campaign is: to achieve fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)

​

We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516132208/https://waspi.co.uk/

BlackKnightMonty

Looking at 67 and 4 months here; and that’s likely to rise.

Just absolutely less than zero sympathy here.

60. Good grief, the entitlement!

AlanP_2

BlackKnightMonty said:

Looking at 67 and 4 months here; and that’s likely to rise.

Just absolutely less than zero sympathy here.

60. Good grief, the entitlement!

Poor you, in 20 to 30 years time it might well be 70+ and "Son / Daughter of BKM" can come on MSE and say "67y 4m, Good grief, the entitlement."

eskbanker

Pollycat said:

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.

That's just whataboutery - there are plenty of valid reasons to criticise WASPI for what they have said and done, so there's no need to create a strawman based on inventing stuff that they didn't say or do.

Pollycat

Andy_L 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?

From the wayback machine in 2016

"The AIM of the campaign is: to achieve fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)

​

We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516132208/https://waspi.co.uk/

Thanks for that.

So - one wonders what WASPI meant by "fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)". 🤔

Silvertabby

Pollycat said:

Andy_L 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?

From the wayback machine in 2016

"The AIM of the campaign is: to achieve fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)

​

We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516132208/https://waspi.co.uk/

Thanks for that.

So - one wonders what WASPI meant by "fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)". 🤔

If my memory is correct, they agreed with the re-equalisation of State pension ages - just not for them.  Their 'fair compensation' would have been the equivalent of the pension they had 'lost'.  In other words, someone born on 5 April 1960 would have received compo, but her twin sister born just a few minutes later, on 6 April 1960, wouldn't have got a penny.  

Pollycat

Silvertabby said:

Pollycat said:

Andy_L 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?

From the wayback machine in 2016

"The AIM of the campaign is: to achieve fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)

​

We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516132208/https://waspi.co.uk/

Thanks for that.

So - one wonders what WASPI meant by "fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)". 🤔

If my memory is correct, they agreed with the re-equalisation of State pension ages - just not for them.  Their 'fair compensation' would have been the equivalent of the pension they had 'lost'.  In other words, someone born on 5 April 1960 would have received compo, but her twin sister born just a few minutes later, on 6 April 1960, wouldn't have got a penny.  

And that's my recollection too.

So even if they didn't want the state pension for women to be put back to 60, they wanted all the money they would have received at age 60.
Not too different from a financial viewpoint for the women who fell into WASPI's group - imho.

A very poorly thought out mission, as evidenced by your comment about the cliff edge between those women born in 1959 and those born in 1960.

Marcon

Out of interest, I've just had a look at Companies House's website to see what objectives were shown:




Note the word 'rights'!

BlackKnightMonty

AlanP_2 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Looking at 67 and 4 months here; and that’s likely to rise.

Just absolutely less than zero sympathy here.

60. Good grief, the entitlement!

Poor you, in 20 to 30 years time it might well be 70+ and "Son / Daughter of BKM" can come on MSE and say "67y 4m, Good grief, the entitlement."

Just as long as you get 60 everything’s fair eh!

woolly_wombat

Andy_L said:

From the wayback machine in 2016

"The AIM of the campaign is: to achieve fair transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s (born on or after 6th April 1951)

​

We do not ask for the pension age to revert back to age 60"

https://web.archive.org/web/20160516132208/https://waspi.co.uk/

Useful background information.

Thank you.

The timing of the government’s statement and the withdrawal of their previous response to the ombudsman’s findings is ‘interesting’:

Both parties were due to appear in court on 9 and 19 December as part of a judicial review instigated by the Waspi group.

See: https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2025/11/12/govt-to-reconsider-waspi-compensation-decision/

Let’s try and stick to factual and legal information to avoid this thread going off the rails.

I am not a member of Waspi.