WASPIs' Ten Thousand payment

Germanshepherdsmum

How women could have been unaware is beyond me.

I don't really understand it either. People always seem to have something to say about current affairs and politics, but I wonder where they get their facts from. If they don't even know something which will affect them personally, how on earth can they comment on anything which doesn't affect them?

BTW It's been established that there was "maladministration", but only in one specific instance. After a survey, the DWP decided in 2006 to wrote to certain women to inform them of the changes, but delayed doing so for 28 months.

Compensation for maladministration is on a sliding scale from an apology to more than £10,000 in compensation, but only in the most serious cases.

After browsing this thread, I have just been to check my ‘pensions’ folder.

I received my state pension when I was 62years 10 months old, born early 1953.

My sister, 3 years older than me, was one of the last to get it at 60.

I have quite a bit of paperwork associated with my pension. It seems I requested pension forecasts some time before it was due to materialise. One of the booklets, dated 11 years before I actually received my pension, stated quite clearly that the pension age was changing, and would be on a sliding scale depending on your birth date.

So I was well aware that I wouldn’t be getting it at 60. Would I have been as well informed if I hadn’t been pro active myself? I don’t know. But it seems to me as with many things in life, you can’t always rely on others. It’s up to you yourself to take note of anything that affects you, and act upon it.

I have younger friends retiring now, at 66. They have obviously had to wait a lot longer, but will be getting more than me, how much more I have no idea, I don’t ask.

But that is how it is.

I still do not understand why a section of the the female population believe they are entitled to five years extra pension for five years less work than the rest of the work force because they claim not to have been personally informed of the changes and were apparently too ignorant to hear it on the news, read it in newspapers or, perish the thought, actually check their pension entitlements whilst still working.

I don’t stress over it. I have bigger fish to fry now anyway.
It is what it is.
I don’t expect a payment.

I didn’t receive a letter but we checked our Pension ‘forecasts’ online when I read about it, so I knew that my Pension age would be later then I expected.

I’m more concerned about my daughters probably having to work until they are 70 yrs old.

Me neither, eazybee. The changes didn’t affect me but I was very well aware of them.

Calendargirl, you’re in almost exactly the same situation as I am in. You are about a month or so older than me I think, as I was born end of March 1953. As I said upthread, I did receive a letter telling me that my pension age would be 61. I only found out by checking my pension forecast online that I wouldn’t actually get my pension until I was 63. Nobody thought me important enough that I actually would receive notification of this important change by letter. My sister is also three years older than me and has never worked from getting married at age twenty. Nonetheless she received her pension, based on her husband’s stamps, at age 60. It was £60 per week at that time. I believe the amount is now something over £80 per week. On the other hand, I have paid my full insurance stamp all the time I worked, apart from the ten years I took out to care for my children, but like others, I had to wait for the pension I paid for. And Calendargirl, you like myself will only be receiving the old state pension which is £156.20 per week. Conversely my school friend, who is three months younger than I am (we were in the same school year group) is now receiving the full new state pension of £203.85 per week. However she did have to wait longer than I did, about another year I think.

Oopsadaisy1

I didn’t receive a letter but we checked our Pension ‘forecasts’ online when I read about it, so I knew that my Pension age would be later then I expected.

I’m more concerned about my daughters probably having to work until they are 70 yrs old.

And sons.

Urmstongran

I don’t stress over it. I have bigger fish to fry now anyway.
It is what it is.
I don’t expect a payment.

I actually agree with this, although I do believe the changes were introduced too quickly and with little notification for many women. I checked online for my pension forecast but many people didn’t do this as computers were not used as freely in the 90s and early 2000s. As I used computers at work and we had one at home, I did check, but I think many women may not have been so used to using computers in their everyday life.

The biggest unfairness was the way the new state pension was introduced, and of course that affected both men and women. A person of either sex could miss out on the new state pension by a week or a few days, but they are then on that old, lower amount, nearly £50 per week lower for the rest of their lives. If they go on to live a further ten, twenty, or even thirty years, that amounts to a very large amount of money they are losing over the rest of their lives. £50 per week adds up to over £2,600 per year. That’s over £2,600 per year for every person who is on the old state pension that the government are saving from these people. If it is deemed that the minimum pension a person should receive is £203.85 per week, then every pensioner should receive that amount.

I never received a letter outlining changed to my pension age. I missed out by three weeks. My friend, a month older than me, could retire on full pension at 60. I had to hang on for longer until I couldn't stand it any longer and retired. Luckily I had an occupational pension. Very hard for those less fortunate.

eazybee

I still do not understand why a section of the the female population believe they are entitled to five years extra pension for five years less work than the rest of the work force because they claim not to have been personally informed of the changes and were apparently too ignorant to hear it on the news, read it in newspapers or, perish the thought, actually check their pension entitlements whilst still working.

And Calendargirl, you like myself will only be receiving the old state pension which is £156.20 per week. Conversely my school friend, who is three months younger than I am (we were in the same school year group) is now receiving the full new state pension of £203.85 per week

This is the small group which have fallen into a trap, eazybee and the women I do feel sorry for.

I do think the pension age should have been equalised and most of this was publicised apart from the small group which maddyone belongs to where the rules were changed seemingly at the last minute, without publicity.
Someone could be a day older than a colleague yet there will always be that divide of those on the old SP and those on the new SP.

The gap will only widen as % increases are added year on year.

nearly £50 per week lower for the rest of their lives. If they go on to live a further ten, twenty, or even thirty years, that amounts to a very large amount of money they are losing over the rest of their lives. £50 per week adds up to over £2,600 per year. That’s over £2,600 per year for every person who is on the old state pension that the government are saving from these people. If it is deemed that the minimum pension a person should receive is £203.85 per week, then every pensioner should receive that amount.

Don't forget the % increases will make the divide larger each year.

Sorry to make it seem worse, but it is significant.

Aveline

I never received a letter outlining changed to my pension age. I missed out by three weeks. My friend, a month older than me, could retire on full pension at 60. I had to hang on for longer until I couldn't stand it any longer and retired. Luckily I had an occupational pension. Very hard for those less fortunate.

Similar to what happened to me. To make matters worse, I was deemed unfit to work at 59, so no State pension at 60 and too young to access my occupational pension. I remained on unpaid leave, until I was 60, in order to access my occupational pension.
Thank goodness for my husband who worked in LA HR and was able to advise me. Many won't have access to that expertise.

Germanshepherdsmum

Me neither, eazybee. The changes didn’t affect me but I was very well aware of them.

As a solicitor, I would have been surprised if you didn't 🙂

I didn’t become aware of the changes through my work, as my clients were property developers, but there was much publicity in newspapers and on television, probably in women’s magazines too I would think.

They should have written to everyone who would be affected.

I got my new state pension last year, 41 years and they reduce it a bit because I have a occupational pension.
Like Urms who also worked until 66 I don't expect any financial recompence, as the proposal by the Government is being done on scale, from an apology to 10k.
I have a feeling that because I worked until 66 often tired with a health condition I will get the apology as I was not financially affected.
I have a life to live and other things going on so I won't hold my breath or let it bother me.

This may have been discussed before but in case anyone wants to re-familiarise themselves, this is what the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman, Rob Behrens, has reported:

www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication-0

2. We find that between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet. Accurate information about changes to State Pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through DWP’s pensions education campaigns, through DWP’s agencies and on its website. That reflected those applicable standards.

3. However, DWP’s decision making following research reported in 2004 failed to give due weight to relevant considerations. The research recommended information should be ’appropriately targeted’. DWP explored options for targeting information but, having considered the options, what it ended up doing was what it had already done. DWP failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information or of how likely it was doing the same thing would achieve different results.Despite having identified there was more it could do, it failed to provide the public with as full information as possible . DWP failed to make a reasonable decision about next steps in August 2005 and failed to use feedback to improve service design and delivery. It therefore failed at this point to ‘get it right’ and ‘seek continuous improvement’. That was maladministration.

4. Following research reported in 2006, DWP failed again to ‘get it right’ and ‘seek continuous improvement’. It did not act promptly enough on its November 2006 proposal to write directly to affected women to tell them about changes to State Pension age. And it failed to give due weight to how much time had already been lost since the 1995 Pensions Act. That was also maladministration.

5. We consider that, if DWP had made a reasonable decision in August 2005 and then acted promptly, it would have written to affected women to tell them about changes to their State Pension age by, at the latest, December 2006. This is 28 months earlier than DWP actually wrote to them. It follows that these women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes than they got. The opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost.

In early 2007, my husband died suddenly and unexpectedly, aged only 55. I was 51. You don’t just lose a beloved husband. You lose his income too. You have to find ways to bridge that shortfall and meet financial commitments. As a result of his death, I received various moderate lump sums of money that I needed to invest wisely. Probate obtained in autumn 2007, I sat down to look at term investments to try to work out what was best. I was now 52. I worked on the basis that I needed to bridge the gap for eight years. I knew I would receive my occupational pension at 60. I thought I would receive my state pension at 60 because the DWP had not told me any differently. Look at the dates in paragraph 5. They should have acted by December 2006. They acted 28 months later. Has I known in December 2006, three months before my husband’s death, I would have done things differently. Had I know before autumn 2007, I would have done things differently.

Wherever these public campaigns referred to in paragraph 2 were, I didn’t see them. I don’t read women’s magazines and I rarely watched TV or had time to read a newspaper. I worked very long hours in a very demanding job. Where was I going to see a DWP leaflet? Why would I go to a DWP agency? Where were these education campaigns taking place?

In any case, it’s irrelevant as the Ombudsman has made it clear that the DWP had an obligation to provide individually tailored information and should have done so by December 2006.

Please stop saying that women should have known. That is not the point and not what the Ombudsman has said. We have different birthdates and one’s birthdate was crucial to how much longer one had to wait to receive the pension.

The delay hasn’t left me in poverty as it has many others. I had a good job and other income but by age 60 I had already worked over the requisite number of years to receive a full pension but still had to wait another six years. This has cost me around £50,000 in lost income. I know that I will never receive that but some compensation is due.

The Ombudsman has copped out of ordering compensation for the 3.5 million women affected on the grounds that it’s too costly for the taxpayer. But we are the taxpayers. If this were maladministration in banking, insurance or any consumer industry, compensation would be ordered. Maladministration on a such a major scale makes the offender more not less culpable.

Rob Behrens should be ashamed of kicking this back to the Commons to decide. Sunak, Hunt and the Treasury won’t want to pay and the whips will, in all probability, ensure that any motion will fail unless some MPs find some backbone and put 3.5 million women before party loyalty. Quite frankly, they could defy the whips and just spend the tail end of this moribund government sitting as in independent. A lot of them are planning to step down anyway. What harm would it do them?

This is and always has been austerity of choice. The government can always find money down the back of the sofa when it wants to. The 4 billion pounds saved by the Treasury - see the WASPI counter - is peanuts in the great scheme of things. Just as a comparision, there is currently 122 billion pounds invested in Premium Bonds, That represents just 5 % of the national debt. The government could easily find or raise the money to resolve this, it would barely make a dent, but so far they chose not to.

I knew I wouldn't get my SP at 60 (born late 51), but I can't remember when I found out, just that it was a long time ago. In fact, I expected to be over 63, but got it when I was over 62, which was a nice surprise. As I was still working part-time, I deferred it for several weeks, and if you do that, it increases. In the end, I am getting just a little less than DH, who gets the new pension.

The communications I do remember from whatever the DWP was called in the late 90s or early 00s was to do with the few years that I had not been earning enough between the end of HRP for the youngest DC and the time I started earning enough to pay NI contributions. They offered the chance to pay up missed years and it seemed like a very good offer so we took it. In the end, I would have had enough qualifying years anyway, but it was a nice feeling of security in case I had to stop work.

There must be others like me who are fortunate enough to have had a positive experience.

My last post looks a bit self-satisfied - I have great sympathy for those who have been landed in financial trouble through no fault of their own. I have just been lucky, and I do realise that.

In any case, it’s irrelevant as the Ombudsman has made it clear that the DWP had an obligation to provide individually tailored information and should have done so by December 2006.

They somehow manage to send out individual letters for the WFP which is always in the news anyway.

I won’t hold my breath over this . I was born in October 58 and get my SP this year .
However I did receive a letter from DWP informing me of the change plus a letter from my accountant as I’m self employed.

For anyone who would like more detail, this is very interesting, especially pertaining to who was actually sent an individual letter when the DWP finally got around to it 28 months after they should have done.

www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/Women%E2%80%99s_State_Pension_age_-_our_findings_on_the_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_communication_of_changes_Final.pdf

88. Between April 2009 and March 2011, DWP wrote to 1.2 million people affected by the 1995 Act (including women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953). Due to proposals to increase State Pension age to 66, direct mailing was paused in March 2011. It resumed after the Pensions Act 2011 became law. DWP wrote to men and women affected by the 2011 Act between January 2012 and November 2013.

I was born in 1955 so I was not in that mailing from April 2009 and March 2011. At best I might have received a letter by November 2013 that should have been sent by December 2006 and eighteen years after the Pensions Act 1995 which initially announced the changes.

65. ... a 2005 Pensions Commission report recommended that a core principle of pension reform should involve ‘significant pre-warning of changes in [State Pension age]’, so that people approaching retirement know exactly when they will
become eligible to receive their State Pension. The report suggested at least fifteen years notice be given.

Furthermore:

91. Three complainants from the sample group say they did not receive letters, despite being told during the complaints process that they would have been sent a letter between October 2012 and November 2013. DWP does not have a record of who it wrote to, so we are not in a position to clarify which women were sent letters.

It was utterly shambolic.