Go WASPI!

I turned 66 last May so finally got my State pension in June 2022. I started work on my 15th Birthday and like everyone else expected to retire at 60. I was only sent one letter 8 months before I turned 60 saying I wasn’t going to get my state pension until I turned 66! That was disgusting as not only was it too late for me to think about taking out some sort of private pension but I wasn’t in a position to allow me to do so. Had I been informed 10 years prior I would of got myself into a better position to save more or take one out, however as it was I’d had serious chronic illness’s and numerous operations plus looked after both my DH’s and my own parents, my young niece who had cancer (who’s mother is an alcoholic) and our DGS all weekend every weekend whilst our DS & DDL worked so I wasn’t capable of working as well for those years. Maybe it could be argued men should have retired at 60 too but let’s be honest here as most men have the luxury of taking retirement literally, not many women have that same luxury. A lot of women in their late 50’s are often starting to suffer health problems whilst looking after their elderly parents and grandchildren of their own children consequently calling us the sandwich generation. I find some of the comments above quite rude saying us ladies born in the 50’s should of known we were not able to take retirement at 60 as planned. Like I said the first I heard of it was 8 months before I was due to claim my state pension, I didn’t have time to read the newspaper often back then, nor did I watch the depressing news, I don’t like the radio on either as I’ve had meningitis as an adult and noise now affects me so do not presume I for one am ignorant or stupid, I was exceptionally busy looking after and at one point living with family who all needed my help, plus my DH with work! I like thousands of Waspi women have lost thousands of £’s and I’m not happy about it. I paid in and should be compensated for the thousands of pounds I’ve lost. Now my husband’s got Vascular Dementia so will probably be caring for him for the foreseeable future, retirement hah I wish!!

Back in the 1980s I was a union rep in the NHS. I fought the case of a female colleague who was told she had to leave work on reaching 60. As there was at least one woman who was over 60 working there we won our case, though her employment was only extended for a year. The other over 60 year old would have been slightly more difficult to replace, but she was also disabled, so her presence on the staff ticked a few boxes on the diversity scores. It was a slightly hollow victory as my colleague still had to retire at 61. I assume she got her pension from 60 back then, but the situation for women has always been unfair. At least now one cannot be made to retire at a particular age so those who want to work and are fit and well enough can do so.

Freya5

Primrose53

I never understood why friends who were born before end April 1953 got their pensions years before me. For being born just 6 months after them 4 years were added to my wait.

Because the pension age needs to rise.

Thanks, I understood that. But how could a few months difference translate into a few years. If I had been told x is 6 months older than you so you will get your pension 6 months later that would have seemed fair.

Primrose53

I never understood why friends who were born before end April 1953 got their pensions years before me. For being born just 6 months after them 4 years were added to my wait.

Please don't forget that those of us born in March 1953, although we got our pensions at age 63 we will have to go the rest of ours lives on the much smaller old pension as opposed to the new pension for those born 6th April onwards, a difference of almost £2,500 a year.

The fact that the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the DWP in its lack of communication with this cohort of women is proof that the changes were not properly communicated or publicised. I find it so depressing that some women who were aware of them find it necessary to sneer at others who were not (and this is not the first GN thread to experience this). I am a paid up member of WASPI, proud of the fact that I have a membership number that shows I was one of the first 100 to sign up. I have trailed down on the Megabus to four London demos, written to and met with my MP who lied through his back teeth about supporting us when his website later showed he did no such thing. Followed the lengthy complaints procedures from start to finish, right to Ombudsman level. In the process I have met women who had to sell their houses to support themselves, others with terminal illnesses who knew they wouldn’t live to see any of the compensation they were fighting for, some being forced into working two or three casual, minimum wage, manual jobs while in constant pain, one with dementia who was determined to carry on fighting just as long as she could. Finding a new job at 60 plus is not always easy when you’ve given one up because of your personal circumstances, in the belief that you only had a short time to go to your pension date.

I had a partner and another pension to tide me over when I lost my job at 60, so I didn’t have to sign on and apply for 30 jobs a day, with up to 2 hours travelling time each way, as a widowed friend had to. I could retire from the workforce and help out with my grandchildren as I had promised I would. That doesn’t make me better than others, just more fortunate. Good luck to WASPI with the judicial review - I hope those who have suffered and are still suffering because of this issue get some fair and prompt compensation.

It's the lack of communication from the DWP, which is my main problem with it. I was born in August 1953 .I had saved money up to look after myself without any support from government in order to retire early. Unfortunately, the funds ran out before I was able to get my state pension as the goal posts were changed leading to hardship. This could have been avoided if I had been given 10 years notice in advance of the changes.

Maggiemaybe Your last paragraph touches on a change which was brought in with the introduction of the pension changes in 2011.

Before then, unemployed over 60s didn't have the same conditions applied to looking for work and the number of hours needed before claiming support.

After that, everybody had the same conditions applied and there were no exemptions for over 60s. That meant that over 60s who felt they could only do part-time work lost out.

If WASPI had ever looked at the wider picture (benefits for over 60s, men and those born after 31 December 1959), I would have felt more inclined to support them.

Primrose53

Freya5

Primrose53

I never understood why friends who were born before end April 1953 got their pensions years before me. For being born just 6 months after them 4 years were added to my wait.

Because the pension age needs to rise.

Thanks, I understood that. But how could a few months difference translate into a few years. If I had been told x is 6 months older than you so you will get your pension 6 months later that would have seemed fair.

It doesn't translate into a few years.

Very saddened to see a number of very smug know it alls.

The impact of the campaign would have been lost if the scope was broadened. It’s the single issue element that has forced those in power to listen and take notice. Not that there aren’t many other injustices, but focussed action was the only way.

If ultimately there is a victory, I don’t suppose those who are decrying the campaigners will say no to an additional lump sum of compensation.

I didn't have notification either. Born December 1954

Oldbat1

Very saddened to see a number of very smug know it alls.

Should I pass you a tissue?

So now you blame people who actually take an interest in current affairs and their own personal finances. Weird!

growstuff I'm surprised and disappointed at you.😑

Aveline

growstuff I'm surprised and disappointed at you.😑

Same here!

growstuff

Primrose53

Freya5

Primrose53

I never understood why friends who were born before end April 1953 got their pensions years before me. For being born just 6 months after them 4 years were added to my wait.

Because the pension age needs to rise.

Thanks, I understood that. But how could a few months difference translate into a few years. If I had been told x is 6 months older than you so you will get your pension 6 months later that would have seemed fair.

It doesn't translate into a few years.

Of course it translates into years! If my friend born on 1 Feb 1953 got her State Pension in 2015 and I was born just 9 months later in Oct 1953 and I had to wait until 2018 to get my pension then that is 3 years!!

I am not going to argue with you any more over this because you clearly don't want to understand and you are being very rude to people.

growstuff

Maggiemaybe Your last paragraph touches on a change which was brought in with the introduction of the pension changes in 2011.

Before then, unemployed over 60s didn't have the same conditions applied to looking for work and the number of hours needed before claiming support.

After that, everybody had the same conditions applied and there were no exemptions for over 60s. That meant that over 60s who felt they could only do part-time work lost out.

If WASPI had ever looked at the wider picture (benefits for over 60s, men and those born after 31 December 1959), I would have felt more inclined to support them.

My friend lost her job in 2016, when she was 61. She would have been fine with working full-time, though she struggled (and who wouldn't?) to apply for 30 jobs a day, with no internet access at home. But when she was told she would have to look for jobs that would have meant her travelling for 4 hours on public transport on top of every working day, she signed off and managed to limp through the next 5 years on her small savings and whatever casual work she could find.

If it comes to that my friend with birthday only six weeks before mine got her pension at 60.

I've always felt that pensions should be equalised for men and woman. But my gripe is that it should have been done more gradually to compensate for the fact that many 50s women don't have private pensions, as many stayed at home or took low paid jobs, to look after children. Plus there was little pay equality in those years. Whereas many men have work pensions so if they need/want to retire early they may be able to do so. I'm lucky. I worked decent jobs most of my life and have two small work pensions. But my DHs work pensions are far higher than mine. The changes should have been introduced more gradually. But perhaps we should have objected at the time. The French would have.

When Icstarted work and started paying into a pension, it was on the understanding that I would be able to retire aged 60. I consider this to have been a "contract" which by making the required payments, I accepted. I therefore consider that if thd pension age was to alter it should start with the people just entering into their pension "contracts", not those who had been paying into them for many years already. Insurance companies have statistics which give an indication of how long people will live, so thd government would have similar statistics and should have anticipated when the change needed to start. I have always considered the government to be "in breach of contract" over this as you can't just change a contract part way through without the agreement of all parties.

There’s a video on YouTube of George Osborne saying it was one of the least controversial things he’d done to raise money. Other countries have managed to raise/equalise their pension ages much more gradually over a significantly longer period, avoiding such a severe impact on one particular cohort and giving people notice so that they had time to prepare and adjust. I sometimes think we are far too accepting.

Personally I'd be grateful if, on social media in general, women would stop saying 'I knew, so others should have known'. You gave no idea of the circumstances of other people, then or now. Govt should have sent everyone individual letters and didn't. Some women, in their early 40s, were working flat out 16, 17 hours a day in 1993
Now to increase SPA by one year, ten years notice must be given. Did some WASPIs get 60 years' notice?

Couldn't agree more. I'd love to see people so readily accept that an insurance scheme they paid into all their working life did not pay out when and what was expected.
Many relied on what they were told to expect as an outcome of their pension payments. Those 'waspi' women were not paid what was promised, and when it was promised.
Utterly crass to blame these women for not seeing the agreement changed without their input in the newspapers papers or on line.

I agree with a previous poster - it was a breach of contract. The government hit the least able to fight back section of society - the older people at the end of long working lives. I'm glad to see some have found the energy to fight this on behalf of many others - and I hope they win this before those who deserve recompense die off!

I agree, SoD, but someone will be along soon to crow that there was never a contract, that there is no pension pot, and that other groups in society deserve more than pensioners.

I really can not understand people being nasty to others simply because they disagree with the person's post. It's unimportant and helps no one. Let's all be nice to one another. It costs nothing to be pleasant .

I start to get my state pension from today. I have worked the extra 6 years and retire this month.
Jaciest I am sorry about your Father, but he knew he would have to work until 65. What Waspi are saying is that it came as a complete suprise to some women, and it did cause them alot of hardship. I am not going to struggle I have my state pension and my occ pen, not a fortune but I will be OK. I just feel that the last 6 years have been a hard slog.