good waspi news

Callistemon

^Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week^

I think that must have been because he was in a firm's pension scheme and GMP has been applied.,

Only those on just the basic state pension can claim pension credits.
I do have another pension too.

No Its his actual state pension based on his national insurance records he has a separate private pension nothing to do with his employer or GMP at all

This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.

It is categorically untrue and misinformation as far as I know, Doodledog.

In fact, if I have time tomorrow I will message them to query that.

I do believe that, if you had fewer than 30 years of contributions, you lost your entitlement to a state pension altogether.
At 30 years and above you received it on a sliding scale up to a maximum of 39 years.

Partly true!
Men born after 5 April 1945 and women born after 5 April 1950 need 30 qualifying years for a full Basic State Pension, with a single qualifying year required to get any State Pension. Men born before 6 April 1945 needed 44 qualifying years for a full basic State Pension, and women born before 6 April 1950 needed 39 years; to get any State Pension, an individual needed 25 per cent of the qualifying years required for a full pension.

I am too old and have been diddled. I never realised.
Should we start a campaign?

Callistemon

^This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.^

It is categorically untrue and misinformation as far as I know, Doodledog.

In fact, if I have time tomorrow I will message them to query that.

I do believe that, if you had fewer than 30 years of contributions, you lost your entitlement to a state pension altogether.
At 30 years and above you received it on a sliding scale up to a maximum of 39 years.

If you are getting less than you should be, you might be in for a windfall. Have you checked on the YouGov site to see that your details are all correct? It is definitely worth querying your case.

When you think about it, if women who retired at 60 had to have nearly 40 years' of contributions, hardly any of them would be getting a full pension. It would rule out all graduates for a start, as well as anyone who took time out to have children or had career breaks for any reason.

Thank you humptydumpty.
I've got everything crossed here. I won't hold my breathe though.

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

'You'll usually need at least10 qualifying yearson your National Insurance record to get any State Pension. You'll need 35 qualifying years to get the full new State Pension.'
www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/how-its-calculated

Chardy

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

I don't think it worked like that. You couldn't have increased your pension by claiming the new scheme if you had delayed your retirement until 2016. The scheme you were on was dictated by the date you were born.

From memory, women originally had to work for 39 years to claim the full state pension. It was then changed to 30 years, then changed again to 35 years. I also believe that the pension was reduced if a person didn't have the full number of years, not withheld entirely. Currently, everybody has to have at least 10 years to be entitled to anything.

growstuff

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

That's true, particularly when it was paid until the youngest child was 16. When the number of years increased from 30 to 35 this was cut to 12.

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher. And what about the men whose pension age was increased in the 2011 changes? It's always seemed to me that they're only concerned about themselves, not justice for all.

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

That's true, particularly when it was paid until the youngest child was 16. When the number of years increased from 30 to 35 this was cut to 12.

Quite right too. There's no reason why the mother of a 12 year old can't wok, unless the child has special needs.

I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher.

I think they had to have a cut-off to define their campaign. I am not a WASPI supporter either, and really don't like the way that the term is used as shorthand for all women whose pension age was increased.

Doodledog

*I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher.*

I think they had to have a cut-off to define their campaign. I am not a WASPI supporter either, and really don't like the way that the term is used as shorthand for all women whose pension age was increased.

I am one of the oldest women to have been affected by the changes. Of course I cursed a lot when I found it, which I did twice, first in the 1990s and again in 2011.

However, what annoyed me more was the change to claiming entitlement to low income benefits which accompanied the 2011 change. Before that, people (not just women) over the age of 60 could claim working tax credit (which became Universal Credit) if they worked for 16 hours a week. That means that people over 60 could slow down a bit and work part-time. That changed, so people over 60 were expected to work 30 hours a week and couldn't claim a top up if they were on a low income. It wasn't made clear either that people would not be entitled to full state pension for the years they had opted out and paid occupational pension.

The Waspi campaigners ruled out campaigning for any scheme which would have helped people (men and women) over 60, who were experiencing real difficulties. Reverting to the old benefits eligibility would also have helped people born in 1960 and later. If Waspi had included those people, I might have been supportive.

When you think about it, if women who retired at 60 had to have nearly 40 years' of contributions, hardly any of them would be getting a full pension. It would rule out all graduates for a start, as well as anyone who took time out to have children or had career breaks for any reason.

Doodledog I asked for a forecast before I retired and have in fact double checked not that long ago too because the information is quite confusing but all is apparently absolutely correct.

Yes, starting work later then getting married and being persuaded by employers that our pensions would be paid on our husbands' contributions: "Sign here!", then Home Responsibilities Protection not being introduced until 1978 meant a whole group of women have missed out on a full State Pension.

I am one of the women affected by this and have been up to London twice to demonstrate.
Yesterdays ruling was a positive result as it proved that we have had a case all along.
When I first went to discuss this with my MP back in November 2015 he said he could understand I was was a bit upset by the pensions changes, but people are living longer and the problem has to be addressed.
But the issue was not about age, it was about communication (or lack of) regarding incoming changes.
This was the first time in my life I felt assertive enough to even have a meeting with an MP.
So six years on, some High Court Cases have happened and then yesterday this report.
The Government will say because of the pandemic they now have dire finances and can't compensate.
But older women in our society today come a long way down the pecking order and are in lots of ways unseen by politicians.
When the Autumn Budget comes along we will hear about how the much applauded Triple Lock will be adjusted, so unless 1950's women keep reminding government of their losses, we will end up losing again.

Chardy

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

That's even worse, Chardy!

Perhaps it's time for protest marches!!

When you look at the whole picture of women of all ages and their pensions, it is a complete shambles.

I agree that it should have been made clear that 'opting out' would reduce entitlements to a pension. The choice of phrase makes it sound like a voluntary activity, but many people didn't know it had happened, much less that it would affect their state pensions. Communication over the whole issue of pensions has been deplorable.

It don't support cuts in other benefits either, but would never allow one injustice to reduce my opposition to another. The fact that Tax Credits/UC were cut does not mean that it is ok to cut pensions, which seems to be what you are saying? I object to both, and see no inconsistency in that.

I'm sorry you have lost out too, Callistemon. It seems that every generation is being shafted one way or another, yet we seem to be being set against one another more and more when we should be joining forces.

So_ a Government found to have treated women shabbily but not keen to redress the wrong....... where have I seen this before??????

Thanks humptydumpty. Interesting article. I’m not holding my breath for any back payments!
We can but live in hope.

*Callistemon I have just received my latest projection and need to make 46 years contributions to receive full pension which will be reduced as I paid into a company pension the additional earnings related contributions are now lost. I wish I could get full pension for 35 years contributions but it is not the case.

I will get a full pension in 2022. I have no quarrel about the equalisation of men and women, but I am pissed off about the communication of changes; I knew nothing of it until I received my first letter in 2010 saying that my pension age would be 64.5 - I then got another about a year later saying no, actually, 66. Rubbish service from DWP.

Meantime I am working full time, paying tax and NI, and know that I will have to go on working until I am 68 because I have a child at uni. And frankly, I'm exhausted!

Hi Venall, you only need 35 years of contributions to receive the new higher rate pension, which obviously is going up each year at a higher rate. I had 45 years of contributions when I retired in 2015 (I was 62 years and 6months) but still get the lower pension, so a lot of unfairness across the board.

I do suspect 'they' thought/hoped 'the ladies' would not kick up a fuss... Shysters the lot of 'em. Absolute scandal the way women's work and benefits were handled. - Still, not long since we were allowed to have souls. Never forget the Handmaids Tale (and I don't mean that made into entertainment for the masses).