WASPI Compensation

They're saying 90% of us were advised but for me it's more the fact that when Cameron and Clegg formed a coalition they put our retirement age up again so born in 1954 I suffered 2 raises, the last with not enough notice to make up the shortfall. It's scandalous. Also when I was married in 1974 the government encouraged women to be homemakers and not even think about private pensions. Fortunately I did work when children grown up a bit and saved a bit into a private pension. Even £1000 each would make me feel better.

We simply can’t land it on Labour- most of the talk on here seems to require a universal solution to all the issues that years of conservative rule left us.

Heidithecat

Missdeke, the problem was it was accelerated to quickly, my example I was born in January 56. My state pension changed from 60 to 63 then again in 2011 to 65 then again if t was accelerated to 66 I new about the original change as a received a letter from DWP I had no further information about the other changes. What people are complaining about is the lack of notice as to these accelerated changes. All the plans you have made are just thrown in to disarray because the government changed the goalposts, by all means give men and women equality but there should have been more warning to all of these changes.

Thank you for such a clear explanation. I understand the problem now, my simpathy goes out to all WASPI women.

I agree that the majority of women would have known about the age change as it was printed at the bottom of most letters which provided the tax code. For a small minority ie those that expected to get their state pension at 60 but suddenly found it was now 62, I believe they were not given enough notice. I worked with a few people that had to work for a few more years. It is that small group who should be compensated . Labour should be allowed to "enjoy" its time in power as the party will not be allowed back for some considerable time as people will not forget the false promises made. Just for clarification, I'm not Tory either

The above was for Aveline

That doesn't sound right, do you not mean 3 years.

Prior to the election is not the same as an election campaign.
The best example of that is KS criticising Sunak for considering cutting WFA to fill a black hole, then doing exactly that once elected.
Or maybe the example of supporting WASPI needs, until elected.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog

GrannyGravy, 'prior to the election' is not the same as being part of the election campaign.

As I've said before, I support things of various types, and may very well have said I would support them when I could afford to, but after 14 years of Tory government and a COL crisis, I am not able to do so. I still support them, and would love to throw money at them, but I have to prioritise other things. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Doodledog their interviews were during the election campaign

I think you are trying to make excuses for Labour.

Well your thinking is wrong. Perhaps you could answer my question, instead of making excuses for the Tories by ignoring the 'black hole' that has forced this decision?

Petal53, what has the WFA got to do with the pension situation, please? One was a maladministration legal case, and the other a move to means-test a discretionary handout. I don't see the link, and it's not necessarily the same people who will be affected by the two different things. Some women will be affected by both (ie 50s born women who have low or no occupational pension to top up the state pension), but many will be affected by neither (ie women who retired at 60, and those who don't have to think about putting the heating on, or who go away for the winter anyway).

My friend is 3 weeks older than me. She got her state pension at 60. I had to wait till 66. Don't tell me that's acceptable.
I did not ever get any notification of the change of date of my pension. Unlike some posters here the Ombudsman agrees that we were not notified.

No Government was going to pay this whatever colour! It is beyond my comprehension that women were unaware of the changes to their state pension. The information was out there to be honest plus remember men have also missed out after expecting theirs at 65.

I'm lucky because I only lost a couple of years, though I had a few years after my retirement with only a tiny occupational pension.
I also feel annoyed because my pension came in before the "New" pension. I actually get less than my sister who is several years younger and never worked after she got married but simply paid a stamp once her child benefit stopped. I worked virtually all the time once my children were at school.

Thanks FlitterMouse, that was a very interesting and informative post.

I am also a WASPI woman. I knew that my pension age had been put back to 63, in my case, but not to 65, then to 66. I have not read a newspaper for at least 30 years and while working (3 jobs, 7 days per week) did not have time to watch tv. I never received any written notification of the increase in pension age.

I believe that one reason for the original disparity in retirement ages between men and women was because women tended to marry men older than themselves. The difference in retirement ages meant they could spend more retirement together. I could be wrong about this of course.

I do think the excuses about the state of finances is a lie. This Country is still one of the richest in the World. We have one of the lowest pensions. If the WFA was cancelled for most in order to help fill a £22 billion black hole, then what happens once it has been filled? Will we get our WFA back? I think we all know the answer to that! Perhaps all MPs should help to fill this black hole by giving up their own expenses, including the cost of heating their 2nd homes?

Not paying compensation set by the governmental ombudsman sets a very nasty precedent. In my opinion and as I always suspected, all politicians lie, but those in power lie the most and their lies are the biggest.

As a pensioner who just scrapped in and received my pension at 60 I watched the inequalities. First I was told I didn’t need to worry about it, my husband would provide (he didn’t) then the company Finally Salary scheme was scrapped when I searched for an equivalent money purchase scheme it was explained to me that Bill would get more than me per month. Not on health grounds or because he had a larger pot but because he was a man. Then we have’Equality’ we all retired at the same age for state pension.Following this logic I assume the next legislation will require women to work longer because statistically we live longer. Beware.

Totally agree with Freya5 worst PM in modern history

Heidithecat

Missdeke, the problem was it was accelerated to quickly, my example I was born in January 56. My state pension changed from 60 to 63 then again in 2011 to 65 then again if t was accelerated to 66 I new about the original change as a received a letter from DWP I had no further information about the other changes. What people are complaining about is the lack of notice as to these accelerated changes. All the plans you have made are just thrown in to disarray because the government changed the goalposts, by all means give men and women equality but there should have been more warning to all of these changes.

I don't understand this.

I was born in April 1955, so you are slightly younger than I am, but your changes are the same as mine.

The pension age for women was increased to 65 in 1995. I was 60 in 2015, so I had 20 years' notice. There were transitional arrangements, but I knew my pension age would be 65 - as was yours.

The second increase was in 2011, when my pension age was increased to 66 - this affected men and women. Your pension age would also have increased in 2011.

I knew about both changes (and I can't say I was happy about them), but giving more notice or even sending a physical letter wouldn't have made any difference. The real issue as far as I'm concerned is that it's more difficult for people in their fifties to find well-paid work. There is some evidence that women in their fifties are disproportionately 'eased out' of certain jobs with threats about competency.

GrannyGravy13

Casdon the removal of the WFA is pertinent to this or any thread about the Labour Party.

It wasn’t in their manifesto, but they still done it!

Look on the internet, there are far to many interviews with Labour’s Head Honcho’s vowing to honour the findings of the enquiry…

They also vowed to pay the post masters as one of their first jobs, they are still waiting…

The WFP wasn’t in the election campaign either GG13, and there has been plenty of discussion about that on previous threads. Some of the criticism about that was justified in my opinion, as I’ve said before, better provision should have been made for those on the threshold, and it was not well handled. However, the WASPI compensation is a different issue, and has been trundling along for many years. knspol sums up my feelings about it perfectly. The manufactured anger at the current government for not doing what we know no government was going to do seems pointless to me, but hey Ho.
Post office payouts have been happening in great numbers though.
www.gov.uk/government/news/compensation-paid-to-over-2700-claimants-across-post-office-compensation-schemes

Nannynoodles

I am a Waspi women and obviously affected by the changes, however I was aware of what was happening and whilst understanding some didn’t know can’t help but wonder what those ladies would have done differently if they had known.
It’s fine to say we would have planned but how?
Also I’m aware that my pension is now far higher than my sisters who got hers at about 62ish so in the end I think as long as I live into my late 70’s I will be better off.
Personally I would prefer the money to go into building new hospitals and improving the NHS which will help all of us going forward (although realistically accept the money just isn’t there anyway).

I knew very well that I would have to work until I was 65.25, which I did. What we did not know at this time was that by 2016 the then government would change the rates of pay for pensioners, thus making it a two tier system!

I’m absolutely aggrieved that the government dare to give the increased rate when telling us the increases from next April.

It’s not a good look for the Labour Party to take away WFA and then to stretch the truth concerning payments.

I’m not surprised by Blue Labour seemingly behaving like the one nation Tories and I’m pretty disgusted. Time will tell what happens to the economy, education, NHS and adult care. I will cast my vote dependent on the success or otherwise of their manifesto promises.

silverlining48

I was an ordinary working woman but knew that pension ages were due to be gradually equalised to 65. I remember thinking it would be fairer to split the difference and use 62.5.
It was reported by print media, tv and radio at the time.

I knew as well that the pension age for women was increasing. Just because you say you didn't know doesn't mean you get compensation so I agree with the decision. I got at least 2 maybe 3 letters referring to the rise. What I don't like is the hypocrisy of these Labour MPs who supported the Waspi women when I opposition but have now done a complete about turn. They are a disgrace.

I think WASPI missed the point in campaigning on the basis of lack of communication, They should have instead pursued the government for breach of contract. Perhaps they can still bring a class action on this basis why they are still all together!

A contract is formed when something is offered at a price, the price is agreed and the contracted price is paid - End of!

When I started working and paying for my pension, it was on the understanding that at the age of 60, my pension would be available to me. Nobody can change a contract willy-nilly. It has to be agreed by both sides.

I think that most women would have been reasonable and agreed either to pay more or to perhaps work for 1 more year, but 5 or 6 years was totally unreasonable!

The government, like insurance actuaries must have known that the cost of paying pensions as people lived for longer, would need more money in the pot and THEY should have ensured that we all paid more to facilitate this.

If they wanted to change the dates for pensions it should have started many years ago with people newly starting out in paying for their pensions NOT people who were already in a contract with them.

I think that to resolve this situation, as quickly and cheaply as possible, the government should make an offer of settlement to ALL women of this age group of say £1000 per extra year they had to, or would have had to work before getting their pensions. It is of no consequence whether they "suffered hardship" due to not being paid - many women would have been able to rely on their husbands income to support them, but that is not the point is it!

I would also point out that the well paid train drivers got their pay rise more or less straight away when this government took over! There was money for that then!

Aspiring MP's from all parties are mostly economical with the truth. I am too old to be one of the WASPI ladies but they have been mugged, pure and simple. Old sins cast long shadows. Just remember when faced with the ballot box at the next GE.

Missdeke, the problem was it was accelerated to quickly, my example I was born in January 56. My state pension changed from 60 to 63 then again in 2011 to 65 then again if t was accelerated to 66 I new about the original change as a received a letter from DWP I had no further information about the other changes. What people are complaining about is the lack of notice as to these accelerated changes. All the plans you have made are just thrown in to disarray because the government changed the goalposts, by all means give men and women equality but there should have been more warning to all of these changes.

Just shows all politicians will say anything in opposition or to be elected and once in govt they see things differently. Hence even if an opposition party agrees with the current govt and could possibly work with them to achieve things they won't on principle. Is this a good way for our country to be ruled?
As for the Waspi movement I don't understand how anybody could possibly not have known that the pension age was going to rise to 65. I was well aware of it and remember grumbling about it with friends and it was very widely reported in the media.

Yes mae13 they will all go off on Friday to their centrally heated homes paid for by the tax payer, with no doubt a big Christmas bonus. Makes you sick.

I don't actually know what the problem is. Lack of following the news these days is my problem. I was one of the last female pensioners to get my pension at 60 and although I was working abroad at the time I still knew about the raising of the pension age. So I was one of the lucky ones.
So really what I am asking is can somebody please explain to me, briefly, what exactly everybody is complaining about. I am definitely not saying there isn't problem I just don't know what it is. Sorry for being dense.

Casdon the removal of the WFA is pertinent to this or any thread about the Labour Party.

It wasn’t in their manifesto, but they still done it!

Look on the internet, there are far to many interviews with Labour’s Head Honcho’s vowing to honour the findings of the enquiry…

They also vowed to pay the post masters as one of their first jobs, they are still waiting…