WASPI

Graphite - gobsmacked that the Government thought it would take them so long! There's "British inefficiency" and then there's "British inefficiency!! ".

The other thought I have re the whole SPA raising is I wonder if any of us would have thought/planned any differently right at the outset if we'd known just how many years we'd get added onto our total. Would we have chosen any differently re what to do with our worklife in the event? That's more years in which our skill could get grabbed off us by changing work practices (if we had a skill) for a start-off. My own started getting outdated in my 30's as it was and part of my thinking was "Well I've got to 'hang on in there' till 60. I think I should be able to just about manage that". But having 3 more years deskilled in the event and it would have been longer for some others.

A valid point was made too that - to those women who didn't know until retirement was due (as far as they knew) = older bodies don't hold out so well under physical strain as younger ones do. Add in that it's - still to this day - women who are more likely to land up being unpaid carers one way or another and the older they get the older (and more likely) relatives/spouses are going to be by the time they do manage to get to retire.

Even a 3 year extension on a worklife could be someone's precious "years to do what they please - at last" destroyed by finding they've been turned into a carer. Maybe retirement at 60 would have meant = "Great - now I do what I please at last" and they got turned into a carer by a relative at 65 (for instance) and that would equal 5 years of freedom before the burden of unpaid work descended. But told they couldnt leave until 65 and then the chance would be that bit greater they'd be heading straight from one job (paid) to another one (unpaid) and that was their "Free time to do what they please at long last" just taken off them.

V3ra

^Parents who were at home looking after children under 12, and in receipt of Child Benefit can claim NI credit for those years^

butterandjam we got Home Responsibilities Protection, ie our national insurance credit, for being in receipt of family allowance/child benefit until the youngest child was 16 in those days.
My friend mistakenly thought it was until her youngest child left school at 18, and had to back pay two years contributions to preserve her full pension entitlement.

I believe it's 12 years now, though I don't know when it changed.

Yes, I know. My post is about current NI credits for women who won't be getting a pension at 60.

In my sixties I was working full time and regularly checked the Government website to see when I could retire as the rules were changed so frequently, in the hope that I could stop working, so I was fully up to speed on the age that I was allowed to stop. In the end, I decided to keep on working anyway for a couple of years. I think I did get a letter but can't be sure either way.

Having said that I was working in London and spending a fortune on commuting and it was only when I met my partner who is a couple of years older than me that I realised I could have got free fares from the age of 60! No chance of getting a refund of course. So I suppose I made a similar mistake in a way.

eazybee

Lack of knowledge of the Law is no excuse.
I do not believe all these woman had no knowledge of pension changes when it was in all the newspapers, on television and radio, notice boards in workplaces, with access to advice about pension and retirement given regularly. Apparently none of them bothered to ascertain when they could/would retire and what their pension would be.
But so much easier to plead ignorance and tout for sympathy, or rather, compensation.

Excuse for what?

Maybe you can answer my question. Why do you think the women saying they didn't know are lying? 'Touting for sympathy' is a strange motive, particularly as so many people dislike women so much, and assume a financial motive for everything they do. Compensation, if it ever comes (which is unlikely) would go to everyone affected, not only to those who didn't know, as it would be impossible to determine who knew, who didn't, who was told and forgotten, who had been told but didn't believe it etc etc.

Why 'bother to ascertain' something that had been set in stone for decades? Throughout my childhood women retired at 60. Most of them hadn't worked for most of that time, but still got pensions as their credits were made up for being at home even when they had teenagers who were at school all day. If changes are made and people don't know about them, why would they investigate? It's no different from people being surprised when they have to pay hundreds of pounds for dental treatment, or can no longer get chiropody on the NHS. If the last time they went it was free, or if they are going for the first time and everyone they know had always got it free, why would they assume the same wouldn't continue to apply, unless they had been notified? Well, I say it's no different, but the difference is that the examples involve an unexpected bill, and the rise in SPA involves six long years of working or living on savings. The principle is the same though.

I knew about the changes, although it made no difference to my ability to do anything about it. But that doesn't mean that I assume women - thousands of them - are telling lies as a way of 'touting for sympathy'. I have more faith in other women than that.

One thing that the various campaigns (WASPI is just one of them) has done is maybe prevent something like this from happening again.

Comments about this from Pat McFadden in the HoC yesterday?

Don't bother writing a letter to a woman telling her that her State Pension will be paid from DD MM YYYY because either she won't read the letter or, if she does, she won't remember what it said.

The Gold Medal for Services to Misogyny.

Obviously, the Ombudsman is a woman. Why else would their recommendations be ignored?

One thing that the various campaigns (WASPI is just one of them) has done is maybe prevent something like this from happening again.

Yes. Women, if they listen to this debate at all, may realise that is up to them to take more responsibility for their own financial affairs, and take action against what they perceive to be injustices themselves. Elsewhere on this thread it was claimed that women were always treated unfairly; certainly in the world of work historically that was true, until women began pointing out the injustices and fighting for rights like equal pay, promotion, maternity leave etc.
No need to join parties, burn bras, become a rampant feminist, but to take control of concerns directly applicable to women and argue for change. I worked in education for forty years, predominantly female, and the change in pension age was certainly known about and discussed; pension providers scenting business frequently asked to speak to staff about pension arrangements, and I did notice how few women took up the offer.
I remember one pension provider telling me to keep working as long as possible because the later years of one's career were when the best returns for pensions were made, sensible advice I followed until sixty-five. I did notice a number of women who took early retirement, to coincide with their husband's retirement, because 'they weren't going to carry on working while he lolled about at home all day.' Their words.

Graphite

Comments about this from Pat McFadden in the HoC yesterday?

Don't bother writing a letter to a woman telling her that her State Pension will be paid from DD MM YYYY because either she won't read the letter or, if she does, she won't remember what it said.

The Gold Medal for Services to Misogyny.

Dear dear - like we're totally incapable of doing something like doing a reminder note in our diaries or similar?

In my case it got "burned on my brain" what age they were now going to graciously accept I was going to get my State Pension after all - and I'd kept the table I'd cut out from that newspaper article in my filing boxes - so I could quote off exactly "My birthdate of x means you're going to hand over that bit of my income to me at y". Right from Day 1 I didn't trust them not to come back for more (which they did to us as a whole) and I'd kept my proof of when mine was - just in case they tried to pull another stunt of saying it would be even later.

Visgir1

Just in.. "The Government has reconsidered the case after a new document came to light, but has again concluded no compensation should be paid."
Feel for those ladies who were not aware, I had a letter so I was aware.

Labour were very vocal in their condemnation of the Tories about this issue. Seems they are not prepared to honour their promise to the WASPI women after all. Shame on them.

In order to pay for 6 years of pension one would have to save a lot of money into AVCs, as they do not attract employer contributions as pensions do. It may well be lack of affordability, rather than a refusal to take responsibility for financial affairs that prevented women from taking them out. Much depends on time of life, and other circumstances. Someone with a well-paid husband and grown up (or no) children might have far more disposable income than a single parent who is forking out for childcare, for instance. Judge not, lest you be judged, and all that.

Valid point Doodledog - and it is true - AVCs are very expensive and you need a long run-up time to manage to find the money to pay for them. If I'd not actually known what was coming for me personally (ie about 3 years worth of State Pension grabbed off me) then it would have been a matter for debate as to whether I could "make up any difference".

As a single person it was not easy to buy some more pension for myself and I landed up doing without all sorts of things, eg it's a large part of the reason why I can about count on only one hand just how many holidays I've had - at my age!!!!! That extra pension cost added on top of all the extra costs of being single that one has no choice whatsoever about (like having to pay rent or mortgage all on one's own) is a strain for sure.

My husband is disabled and hasn't been able to work since his 40s, my youngest child graduated when I was 63. I was born late 53 so had little time to prepare for the second change. What did I do? I worked till I was 70.

It's history, time to get over it and move on.

OK move on but remember! Women have the vote. I know who I won't be voting for.

Aveline

OK move on but remember! Women have the vote. I know who I won't be voting for.

Who? This govt, the last one, the one before that,?

To all the 'ladies' on this site who declare "well, I knew all about it!"..............so, your husband explained it to you in a way you could understand, I imagine.

Lucky you. Not.

I do think that part of the problem is that there are several different campaigns that want different things, including some that think women should have all the money they would have been paid had they received their pension at 60 rather then when they did. That was never going to happen but it muddies the water.

I don’t understand how the the alleged £10 billion cost of compensation has been calculated. As I said upthread, few would be able to substantiate a claim for levels 4 to 6. Paying 3.8 million women at the upper end of level 3 would cost less than £3.8 billion as so many have already died.

I am also dismayed at the excuses McFadden made:

• had we sent you a letter earlier you either wouldn’t have read it or, if you had, you wouldn’t have remembered it.
• there are too many of you to figure out who should have compensation and who shouldn’t
• we are giving you a £575 pension rise in April
• more people are now getting pension credit

Imagine saying that to a claimant for compensation in any other context.

You have an accident at work and your employer admits fault. They refuse to pay compensation because:

• had they put up a notice explaining the danger you wouldn’t have read it.
• too many people have had similar accidents through not reading a notice that wasn’t there that they can’t figure out who should have compensation and who shouldn’t
• you have an annual payrise due later this year.
• more lower paid workers are now getting universal credit.

It's illogical and is Labour shooting themselves in the foot all over again as they did at the start, refusing to remove the two child cap on UC and removing universal WFP.

theworriedwell I'll not be voting for either of these governments who screwed us over.

How patronising. No my husband didn't explain it to me, I keep up to date with news.

theworriedwell

How patronising. No my husband didn't explain it to me, I keep up to date with news.

That was to mae13.

The move to 65 was extensively discussed in the media. Many women received a letter about it. Some appear not to have but I think the widespread public information was sufficient. I don't think the Waspis have a good case. It's true Labour in opposition supported them but it's the Opposition's job to oppose. In government Labour's job is different.

The research showed that a large percentage of women did not receive notification of this change. As a 1954 woman I lost out the most and by a very short time. My friend with a birthday the month before me got her pension and I, a month later, had a 6 year wait. I won't forget this.

I am sure I had a letter about going from 60 to 65 but not about the extra year to 66. And I remember a lot of people at work talking about the letter too.

Born 1955 think my letter must have got lost in the post!

Aveline

The research showed that a large percentage of women did not receive notification of this change. As a 1954 woman I lost out the most and by a very short time. My friend with a birthday the month before me got her pension and I, a month later, had a 6 year wait. I won't forget this.

I was born late 1953 and I got my pension at 64yesrs and 10 months. I don't understand how your friend got her pension six years before you.

I’m not a WASPI woman but I was made aware of the changes to pension age through the payroll office. My employer at the time wanted to ensure that all female staff knew the details.

I think the whole issue has been badly handled both by successive governments and companies not advising fully on this change in pension age.