Go WASPI!

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!

I didn't have notification either. Born December 1954

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

I was born in 1955 and did not receive any notification abut the increase in pension age from the DWP. I only knew from watching the news on tv and looking at news websites that I was going to wait longer for my pension. I can believe that some women did not know about it until the last minute.

I often worked on part-time contracts and by the time I had a full-time permanent job there was little time to save extra. However I did take out a additional contract through my pension provider and paid in as much as was allowed. In the end my private pension is only enough to pay my council tax, but it was the best I could do.
If we had been properly notified at an earlier date many of us could have prepared ourselves better.

The only notification I remember receiving many years ago said I'd retire at 64 and a half. Meanwhile the sliding scale must have changed as I finally got my pension 3 weeks before my 66th birthday! I had other private pensions but they were not enough to live on without the state pension so as a divorcee I had no choice but to continue working. I was lucky to be well enough to work and I still do some casual work since retirement partly to stay in touch with former colleagues, but mainly for the money. I feel angry for those who were less fortunate and suffered a great injustice!

As the OP I posted this news expecting constructive comments, not smug responses of: They should have checked their pensions! A couple of key points (some of which have been raised above) : the Pensions Act of 1995 was not subject to significant reporting. We had no social media in the 1990s and I challenge anyone to show me a front page headline of that time saying: Women to work longer before State Pension eligibility. There would have been a reaction! It started to become common knowledge 14 years later when the government finally got round to sending some letters to women. Then the Government introduced a second pension age change in 2011, pushing the eligibility age for women back further! So herein lies the rub: It is now proven that large swathes of women did not receive a letter of notification. Women have had little time to save for the extra years they were now expected to work. Many women lost their jobs in their 50s (redundancy, ill health and caring roles). They were totally unaware their state pension would not kick in at 60, as they had been led to believe all their working life. This has led to significant hardship.

Jackiest

Quite true I was never personally informed of the rise in pension age till close to my pension. I heard about it on the news.

I was aware of the first change in age, but not the second. I also was not personally informed, although I was one of the earlier people affected I think (born January 1952).
My pension was delayed for a relatively short time, but a friend born three months later had her pension delayed for several years longer. So although I think that the delay was unfair, I was much luckier than many.
But in the grand scheme of things women have been getting their state pensions earlier than men for a long time so levelling things up between the sexes was overdue. It is unfortunate that the changes were imposed over such a short time scale, leading to unfairness between women of very similar ages.
If it had been thought through more carefully in the first place and handled better (i.e. people were personally warned much earlier) it could have been introduced much more gradually. The introduction of the second delay was just a kick in the teeth for all of us.

Interesting how three members can change the tone of a thread. It would be better in my opinion to completely ignore rude and offensive comments so the rest of us can carry on considering and discussing the original post rather than giving them the satisfaction of knowing they have caused offence.

As a war baby I was not affected by the changes to the rules and am fairly ignorant of the ins and outs. I retired at 66 but was at home as a carer for two decades and It has though always seemed unfair to me that men should have to work 5 years longer than women but there are men who sit at desks all their working lives and women worn into the ground working while caring for the younger and older generations. It just isn’t possible to have a fair system but changes should have been more gradual and properly communicated.

Are we likely to be compensated in any way it is it enough that it shouldn't happen again?

Congratulations WASPI! They demonstrate the sheer determination and resilience of 50s born women, of which I am one. I had to wait 6 years for my pension, with no prior notification. Women of our age had to fight for equality and justice throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s and we have continued that fight with the same dogged determination. The DWP will certainly not make the same mistake again; any pension age increase will be properly notified in the future.

Born in 1954, received no letter from DWP. I consider myself to be fairly well informed and DH to be extremely well informed.
I don’t appreciate being sneered at either.

1956 and like many I knew it was changing but couldn’t afford to save enough to tide me over the 6 years missing pension in the time we were given.

Chardy

The 1953 women were treated badly (I'm older, btw).
For every month later you were born, your pension date went up 3 months. So a Jan 1953 baby retired 3 years younger than a Dec 1953 baby.
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?

Post of the day!

And I agree with Doodledog's response to Chardy's post. Talk about schadenfreude!

Born in 1956. Another who received no notification, I think I first heard through word of mouth that the age had increased but didn't know what the age would be.
I too think the sneering about 'everyone should have known' was offensive and unnecessary. Like many, I had a very busy life, have never been a newspaper reader and not much of a TV watcher (which is apparently where the change was announced?)
I agree that there should be parity for men and women, but that it should have been a slight increase in women's pension age and a lowering of men's, to align them.
It is the underhanded mis-selling of the pension I have issue with and the suffering for so many. I was fortunate enough to have a small company pension I was able to access and get out of the rat-race before the current retirement age.
I feel sorry for those who will have to wait even longer, even though apparently life expectancy has now lowered.

Cossy

I totally agree that pensions should be considered from both male and female views, especially men and woman undertaking manual work, but consideration should also be given to working mothers and the stresses and strains and complications due to childbirth and there’s no need to be nasty about this - my retirement date leapt up by 6 years and I didn’t feel the notice given was enough to allow me to “save” extra funds - there’s so many nuances and complications in this issue and many WASPI women, including me, feel “cheated”

This
Same here