Stay-at-home parents - retrospective Child Benefit claims

I found out recently that the Home Responsibilities Protection that came with receiving Child Benefit was only credited for full years.
I'd always wondered why my Government Gateway account showed two incomplete years, but I had enough contributions and more for my full state pension so didn't query it.
Looking closer at it now I can see it is 1981, when my first child was born, and 2000 when my last child turned 16.

The fact that people are receiving Child Benefit should be enough. However, the systems haven't worked that well. For example, I had some years when I was paying reduced NICs because I was contributing to an occupational pension fund. As a result, my original pension forecast was reduced. I queried it. My argument was that I was receiving Child Benefit and would have received HRP, if I hadn't been working. In effect, I was being penalised for working. My argument was accepted and I was credited for a few years. In practical terms, it didn't make that much difference because I have a total of 47 years of contributions anyway.

V3ra

I found out recently that the Home Responsibilities Protection that came with receiving Child Benefit was only credited for full years.
I'd always wondered why my Government Gateway account showed two incomplete years, but I had enough contributions and more for my full state pension so didn't query it.
Looking closer at it now I can see it is 1981, when my first child was born, and 2000 when my last child turned 16.

It's ridiculous, isn't it? A person could have 35 years of 51 weeks of contributions, but wouldn't be counted as having any full years.

Yes, and anyone taking a holiday between jobs, or having maternity leave that spanned two tax years lost out too, if they took unpaid leave.

I have around 47 years of work too, but some were contracted out, and some were incomplete because of the reasons above. I have had to pay for 6 years of VCs, despite having worked since I was 16.

It's ridiculous, isn't it? A person could have 35 years of 51 weeks of contributions, but wouldn't be counted as having any full years.

Yes, and rightly or wrongly lots of people aren't financially aware and in the example you outline would more than likely have assumed that they'd paid the national insurance as required, especially if they were an employee and it was deducted at source, and would have been none the wiser until it was potentially too late ☹️