WASPI appeal fails

growstuff whilst it may be the case that on average a group of people are, or are not poor is not the point. We paid NI on the understanding that we would get a pension at 60. If an insurance company decided not to pay out to those with more than £x, or with lower than average housing costs, they would rightly be in breach of the law.

Jane10

PS I received a letter 'inviting' (!) me to apply for my State pension later this year. Hallelujah. About time too. 6 years late.

So did I Jane. I have a December birthday.

I am one of the women affected. The back to 60 group were never going to be able to ‘turn the clock back’ and return pensions to 60 for women. I agree that the pension age for men and women should be equal. What I am upset about is that I and others were not given any notice that this was happening and therefore could not plan for retirement. I believe that legally you have to be given 10 years notice before major changes are made to pensions.
The other point I would like to make is that older people particularly women are discounted and not valued in society. Only trendy ‘woke’ causes need apply!

Do you lose SERPS Growstuff?

I don’t (such as it is for a part timer) as it showed on my 2017 pension forecast - they also showed my COPE figure which should have been (but wasn’t) covered by my private pension supplier.

Regardless, I’m another who was aware of the 60>65 increase announced in the mid nineties, but had the 65>66 sprung on me with only 10 years notice which I believe isn’t long enough (for men or women) to replace that £9000+ through investment.

I had to wait until I was 63 to get my pension. I was born in 1953. But I knew about the situation - it was mentioned in the newspapers and we were told at work by the Payroll people. I have never let felt down. Anyway, surely it’s only fair that men and women get their pensions at the same age?

If women from 60-66/7 were given a lump sum, there would be a justified outcry from men and younger people, including those born on or after 1 January 1960. That's the main reason that it's my opinion that it would be unfair to give money to people whoon averageneed it less than others.
Exactly what I meant, though said better!

Doodledog

No, nor did I (and whilst I am in the age group for WASPI, I do not identify with them - in fact I resent the way the term has become shorthand for 50s-born women.

I do, however, feel that the systemic discrimination that women of my generation (and previous ones) suffered is grounds for their getting pensions at an earlier age than men. It is not about affordability (as the current splurging if cash has shown), and I detest means-testing for all sorts of reasons.

But there has been all sorts of research. Women from 60-66/67 are on average not poor. Their disposable income is on average higher than some very old people and the majority of working people. That's because on average they have lower housing costs and, if they're not working, they're not paying National Insurance.

If women from 60-66/7 were given a lump sum, there would be a justified outcry from men and younger people, including those born on or after 1 January 1960. That's the main reason that it's my opinion that it would be unfair to give money to people who on average need it less than others.

I am well aware of the flaws in talking about averages, which is why I think those genuinely in need should be supported by the benefit system, as over 60s were to an extent before the 2011 changes.

It had to happen at some point, that's life. Like other things, it's always seen as unfair by those affected and I can understand.
However, I'm later than the WASPI women, so should I too feel aggrieved? What is the difference? I can't change it. My attitude is one of acceptance, that's just how it is.

Emelle

Can I just make clear that WASPI did not bring this case - it was backed by the group Back to 60. Back to 60 were looking for the State Pension Age to go back to 60 and Full Restitution for all those concerned - men and women. However, I do feel that the way 50s born women and men have been treated is despicable and there should be some form of compensation,which I believe is the WASPi ask. Whilst not badly affected by this, I will continue to suppport the cause because it highlights the way women are still treated as second class citizens in the 21st Century and I have daughters and granddaughters who deserve better!

But making it an identity politics issue means the legal argument was lost.

Yes, I agree that women still don't have equality, but that's not what the legal argument was about.

Jane10

I'm with the WASPI request. There was no chance of us going back to a retirement age of 60 but those of us post 1953 Grans who lost out with little or no warning should have some compensation.

I agree with you about the 2011 change, but few people made a fuss at the time. It was announced at the same time as massive changes to the state pension, which has increased the default pension. I bothered to read the small print, but other people didn't. I knew I'd lose my SERPs entitlement and the years I'd paid into occupational pensions schemes in return for a higher basic pension, but nobody cared. I also knew about the changes to benefits entitlement, which has affected many men and women over the age of 60, but nobody cared about that either. There was so much virtual foot stomping from the outraged that the real effects were overlooked.

If the WASPI women had concentrated on some form of mitigation/compensation for men and women who had their pension ages raised at short notice in 2011, I think they might have stood a chance of success.

PS I received a letter 'inviting' (!) me to apply for my State pension later this year. Hallelujah. About time too. 6 years late.

I'm with the WASPI request. There was no chance of us going back to a retirement age of 60 but those of us post 1953 Grans who lost out with little or no warning should have some compensation.

Can I just make clear that WASPI did not bring this case - it was backed by the group Back to 60. Back to 60 were looking for the State Pension Age to go back to 60 and Full Restitution for all those concerned - men and women. However, I do feel that the way 50s born women and men have been treated is despicable and there should be some form of compensation,which I believe is the WASPi ask. Whilst not badly affected by this, I will continue to suppport the cause because it highlights the way women are still treated as second class citizens in the 21st Century and I have daughters and granddaughters who deserve better!

No, nor did I (and whilst I am in the age group for WASPI, I do not identify with them - in fact I resent the way the term has become shorthand for 50s-born women.

I do, however, feel that the systemic discrimination that women of my generation (and previous ones) suffered is grounds for their getting pensions at an earlier age than men. It is not about affordability (as the current splurging if cash has shown), and I detest means-testing for all sorts of reasons.

How old were you EllanVannin? Why shouldn't you have worked?

Sorry, but I never expected to benefit from a husband's pension.

No surprise. Money for ordinary people or money for the rich/cronies. No competition as far as this government is concerned.

I was only receiving £54 widows pension at the time and was forced to return to work just 2 weeks after he'd died !

What have I got to thank this country for ? Or anyone for that matter. It was hard graft that kept my head above water, so the savings took a battering when I took myself ( out of spite ) to Oz for 3 months.

Nobody pointed these things out in 1994 when he died and I didn't know about these claims.

Disgraceful isn't it ?
I've lost out on two pensions !

1) My late husband's earnings tagged on to my pension.
2) Late husbands Merchant Navy pension.

Doodledog

It’s not irrelevant to the millions who were plunged into poverty by the decision to change women’s pension date.

It is supposedly happening because ‘we can’t afford it’ so contracts giving £millions to tiny numbers of people become even more relevant when considered in the light of this.

I will be interested to see how much media coverage the story gets, and how much (if any) discussion of CEDAW, or a more general overview of the historical discrimination against women we hear. I’m guessing very little- which will feed into the shallow interpretation of the call for ‘equalisation’ as being ‘fair’.

No, it's happening because WASPI women don't have a legal case.

PS. I'm a WASPI woman too and I my income doesn't match my outgoings, so I would benefit greatly from a U-turn, but I knew it wouldn't happen.

It might have been different, if they hadn't decided to be so greedy. There was a case for backtracking on the changes to the benefit system which happened at the same time as the changes to the pensions system. Returning to the former eligibility for Working Tax Credit/Universal Credit would benefit those people (men and women) in poverty, but the WASPI women dismissed means-tested support out of hand because they wouldn't have benefitted.

It is irrelevant because there isn't a pot of money which has to be spent somewhere and somebody has to make a choice between WASPI women and contracts for cronies.

It’s not irrelevant to the millions who were plunged into poverty by the decision to change women’s pension date.

It is supposedly happening because ‘we can’t afford it’ so contracts giving £millions to tiny numbers of people become even more relevant when considered in the light of this.

I will be interested to see how much media coverage the story gets, and how much (if any) discussion of CEDAW, or a more general overview of the historical discrimination against women we hear. I’m guessing very little- which will feed into the shallow interpretation of the call for ‘equalisation’ as being ‘fair’.

I know you like to grasp every opportunity to have a pop "at Westminster" paddyann but I'm not sure what that has to do with WASPI?

paddyanne

Not unexpected ,but hundreds of millions have been handed to Bojo's mates for contracts for things they cant supply.Its how its going to be for the forseeable future ....

That's irrelevant.

Not unexpected ,but hundreds of millions have been handed to Bojo's mates for contracts for things they cant supply.Its how its going to be for the forseeable future ....