Waspi women cheated yet again!!

FlitterMouse I'd forgotten about inheriting SERPS/S2P. I think if DH dies before me I inherit 50% of his but I don't think he would inherit mine.

Doodledog

theworriedwell

Nandalot

I have some sympathy for the Waspi women of the 50’s particularly those born before 1953 who saw their pension age delayed. However, those born after 1953 are on the newer rate pension and get almost £2500 a year more.

Doesn't work quite like that. There is a transitional period so I was born in late 1953 but I get the old pension. Why? Because with SERPS and S2P my old pension is higher than the new pension.

Some women born after 1953 will never get the maximum of the new pension as they don't have enough NI contributions or some of their contributions were for the old "married woman's stamp."

It really is a complicated situation.

You could say this until the cows come home, theworriedwell, but it will make no difference. The myth that everyone on the old pension is worse off than everyone on the new one is persistent.

Those on the full new pension get more than those on the lower amount of the old one; but the new pension depends on full individual contributions (ie by paying 35 years of NI at the full rate, and not being contracted out by their employer), and there was no chance to increase it by paying SERPS, or to inherit contributions from husbands. Also, people on the old rate who depend entirely on the pension can qualify for Pension Credit, whereas those on the new one do not. Plus of course, the new pension can't be claimed until the age of 66, which will soon move to 67 and then 68, as opposed to 60.

Women born after 1953 who have worked over 35 years, paid the full 'stamp' and were not contracted out will have worked 6-8 extra years to get £2500 more, but anyone paying the married women's stamp, who took career breaks or who worked in the public sector or for an employer who contracted them out will not. And women born before 1953 who earned enough to pay SERPS and who inherited their husband's pension are likely to get considerably more than the new pension.

I know you are right but I do think it is important that people like you and me actually spell out the truth as there is so much misinformation out there. Maybe some people will read it and realise what the truth is.

I am a living example as I am getting more on the old pension so proof that you can get more on the old pension.

You took the words out of my mouth, Doodledog.

I worked for 50 years paying full NIC but contracted out deduction/the rebate derived amount mean I don't receive full nSP. In fact, my SP is calculated under the old rules because of RDA. Of course, I have an occupational pension but it increases at a lower percentage than the SP has.

Younger women cannot inherit as much SERPS as older women can. In my case, as I was widowed young, I cannot even inherit 50% of late DH's SERPS.

I've "lost" around £40,000 pension based on having to wait another six years and am set to lose between £30,000 and £40,000 as a result of not being able to inherit my late DH's SERPS. Had he lived to 65 I would have inherited 50% but because he didn't, I can't inherit. It's illogical and unfair.

theworriedwell

Nandalot

I have some sympathy for the Waspi women of the 50’s particularly those born before 1953 who saw their pension age delayed. However, those born after 1953 are on the newer rate pension and get almost £2500 a year more.

Doesn't work quite like that. There is a transitional period so I was born in late 1953 but I get the old pension. Why? Because with SERPS and S2P my old pension is higher than the new pension.

Some women born after 1953 will never get the maximum of the new pension as they don't have enough NI contributions or some of their contributions were for the old "married woman's stamp."

It really is a complicated situation.

You could say this until the cows come home, theworriedwell, but it will make no difference. The myth that everyone on the old pension is worse off than everyone on the new one is persistent.

Those on the full new pension get more than those on the lower amount of the old one; but the new pension depends on full individual contributions (ie by paying 35 years of NI at the full rate, and not being contracted out by their employer), and there was no chance to increase it by paying SERPS, or to inherit contributions from husbands. Also, people on the old rate who depend entirely on the pension can qualify for Pension Credit, whereas those on the new one do not. Plus of course, the new pension can't be claimed until the age of 66, which will soon move to 67 and then 68, as opposed to 60.

Women born after 1953 who have worked over 35 years, paid the full 'stamp' and were not contracted out will have worked 6-8 extra years to get £2500 more, but anyone paying the married women's stamp, who took career breaks or who worked in the public sector or for an employer who contracted them out will not. And women born before 1953 who earned enough to pay SERPS and who inherited their husband's pension are likely to get considerably more than the new pension.

Nandalot

I have some sympathy for the Waspi women of the 50’s particularly those born before 1953 who saw their pension age delayed. However, those born after 1953 are on the newer rate pension and get almost £2500 a year more.

Doesn't work quite like that. There is a transitional period so I was born in late 1953 but I get the old pension. Why? Because with SERPS and S2P my old pension is higher than the new pension.

Some women born after 1953 will never get the maximum of the new pension as they don't have enough NI contributions or some of their contributions were for the old "married woman's stamp."

It really is a complicated situation.

I have some sympathy for the Waspi women of the 50’s particularly those born before 1953 who saw their pension age delayed. However, those born after 1953 are on the newer rate pension and get almost £2500 a year more.

I believed Starmer when he said during the campaign it would be tough and everyone would be affected. I didn’t expect the government to find the money to compensate every group who expected it. My pension affected but that’s life plus I knew I needed to up my contributions. I was never more than a month away from enough in the bank to pay the direct debits and mortgage but I did top up my pension

Trevor Phillips had Lucy Powell on the ropes this morning when he was asking her questions on the WASPI crusade. She kept on blaming George Osborne for the decision not to pay these ladies the money they are rightly owed. When Phillips mentioned Labour's support for WASPI when they were the Opposition, Powell said they knew in March, just before the General Election, that the £10b figure stipulated in the report would be too much to pay. When Phillips asked her why Labour had not said so but strung these ladies along in the belief that Labour would make good on their support and agreement, she had nothing credible to say. He asked her how she slept at night?

Peter Mandleson is to be our ambassador to America. Can’t say I was a fan but - he’s clever, manipulative, very experienced and a Lord, which the Americans often like . His experience and personality will be a positive.

There are two ways of looking at it, a token payment shows respect or it is patronising? I "lost" (I didn't really as I never had it) about £50k so giving me £1k is neither here no there. They can't actually afford to give me £50k and all the others who would be due it, he's been honest and said there isn't the money so surely it is better for everyone to just accept it is done and move on. I'm not sure it is good for people's health to keep dwelling on this.

Some, like me, chose to work on and probably ended up with more money, if people weren't well enough to work then presumably they got benefits, are they offering to pay them back?

A token payment wouldn't come close to reversing the impact of the changes, but it would show respect for the women involved, and act as a deterrent for government bodies who think it's ok to make sweeping changes without proper notice. An element of compensation is punitive, and shows that there are consequences to acting outside of the public interest.

The ombudsman recommended compensation payments of between £1000 and £3000 so nobody would have received anything like the £10,000 that some women calculate that they lost. Yes it would still have been a huge sum but if they are trying, as they say, to restore trust in politics then refusing to honour the result of a process that is supposed to be an impartial arbiter was not wise. The payments advised were not to restore what women lost but as a small measure to compensate for the inefficiencies and unfairness of the process.

Thanks, Doodledog. An extract came through on another social media feed. My initial reaction was "this can’t be right" but it does seem to be, in which case whoever is advising Starmer and Kendall has simply latched onto a convenient statistic based on a tiny sample from a survey that wasn’t even about the key issue.

I don’t know how many people here have read both the PHSO Stage 1 report (published July 2021:

www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/womens-state-pension-age-our-findings-department-work-and-pensions-communication-0

or the combined Stage 2 and 3 reports published March 2024:

www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/Women%E2%80%99s-State-Pension-age-our-findings-on-injustice-and-associated-issues.pdf

Annex C of the latter sets out the criteria for compensation described as Summary of the levels of injustice and ranges of compensation in our severity of injustice. I suspect few would be able to say that not receiving their SP at 60 affected their ability to live a relatively normal life.

This new government likes using the “no money, burden on the taxpayer” excuse for its unpopular choices when the money is there e.g, the billions of unnecessary excess contingency in the National Insurance Fund which I have described elsewhere. I would prefer that they (and the media) start treated people like intelligent beings who can understand the rationale described in Annex C and that it would be an enormous task to consider 3.5 million cases and where every woman falls within that scale.

I fall within the 54% statistic from the focussed 2004 National Omnibus survey - Managerial and Professional women affected by the changes who were, in 2004, unaware of their new SPA. I received and still have the DWP letter from 2007 in which they tell me my SPA is 60. I did not received the letter allegedly sent to me sometime between October 2012 and November 2013 according to Annex A of the second report. As the DWP have no record of who they wrote to they can't evidence that they sent it.

Did I make decisions based on receiving SP at 60? Yes but they were overtaken by a tragic event in my life - the premature death of my husband - so my plans changed anyway. I can't say that I haven't been able to lead a normal life because I had to wait another six years to receive SP. A token payment wouldn't make a lot of difference.

Iam64

Thanks vampire for your calm, sensible post.

Mollygo, throughout the election campaign Starmer stressed how tough things would be before anything got better. Once elected, that message continued, was expanded as the extent of mess became ever clearer. He was criticised for being miserable when he said it will take 10 years to rebuild our devastated nhs and public services.
He’s being honest.

Agreed, Iam.

If he had said 'vote for me and there will be sunny uplands', or that he had an 'oven-ready plan' to right the wrongs of the last 14 years he would have been being dishonest. But he didn't. He (and the rest of what was then the shadow cabinet) made it very clear that 'difficult decisions' would have to be made, and they have been. The accusations of dishonesty are very unfair.

I don't know that I would have done things in the same way as the government has done, but I don't have access to the same information as they do, so who knows? I would have done a lot more to explain the thinking behind the choices, though. I think they have been dreadful at PR, and it is vital that they counter the relentless media rhetoric that has been going on since before the election. A simple announcement that something is being withdrawn (or not implemented) leaves itself open to accusations of all sorts of things, but a more reasoned explanation might have gone a long way to make people happier.

Good, informative posts Doodledog.
A calm, sensible post VampireQueen, as Iam says.

However, as I said earlier, and I really think this is being ignored by some posters (and no I am not going to list every one because apart from anything else I can’t remember every one) some Gransnetters, and therefore we can assume some people who are not Gransnetters, feel very badly put out that having lost their WFA, and now on top of that, being told there will be no compensation despite the ombudsman recommendations, but yet they see a lot of money going abroad to finance green policies in other countries, or going as aid to countries such as India (with its own space programme) or China, with its fast growing economy. People feel that citizens of this country should come first. This is doubtless felt more keenly by people who are less well off, less comfortable in their old age. I’m not speaking for myself because I luckily need neither payment in order to be comfortable, but others do feel this way, and I find the complete lack of understanding amongst others to be unkind. I’m not surprised to see posters writing about the I’m alright Jack mentality because they feel they’re being ignored.

Thanks vampire for your calm, sensible post.

Mollygo, throughout the election campaign Starmer stressed how tough things would be before anything got better. Once elected, that message continued, was expanded as the extent of mess became ever clearer. He was criticised for being miserable when he said it will take 10 years to rebuild our devastated nhs and public services.
He’s being honest.

Like many of you, I'm a WASPI. I don't remember getting a letter but it didn't mean that I was unaware. It was in the media on and off from 1995.

Yes it's not fair or right that the contract we signed up to when we started to pay NI was changed and it would be lovely to get a cheque for £thousands but that's not how it works in the real world.

If the government had lots of spare cash then it would be OK but it doesn't and is having to make difficult of choices.

Ask yourself the question, "How would the back pay help me to put right my financial shortages (if any) I suffered whilst waiting for the new pension age"?

You managed because you could or you had to. Yes compensation would be nice but do you really want it at the expense of social care, the NHS, education, housing and a host of other needs the government has to deal with.

The world isn't perfect. If it was this situation would never have occurred. But it isn't so we make the best of what we have. In this case we lose out but it's money we never had in the first place.

So (sorry for repeat posts) it was not a survey of women's awareness of the implications of the SPA changes, and was not a fact-gathering mission to see how far such awareness had spread.

Right, I need to sort out a spare bedroom before I go to bed tonight .

PS. A very quick glance at the objectives of the survey shows that it is not meant to represent the views towards or understanding of changes to the SPA. It is a baseline study, designed to be repeated every couple of years, and has a much broader remit:
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) commissioned NatCen and Stephen McKay (University of Bristol) to carry out a survey of attitudes to pensions in Britain.
The main aim of the survey was to explore people’s attitudes towards pensions, as well as establishing their views on associated topics such as saving, risk and financial decision-making. In addition to collecting a broad range of attitudinal data, a second aim was to explore the extent of people’s knowledge about pensions – both about the way the State Pension and private pensions work – and also about the
respondent’s own pension provision, future retirement income and likely life expectancy. Thirdly, in addition to asking about attitudes and knowledge, the survey also collected information regarding people’s behaviour in relation to pension provision and savings.

I've had a quick look at your extracts, as I am taking a break from tidying, but from that, yes, I believe so.

The WASPI chair certainly agrees with you. A survey with such small numbers would not be considered valid in an undergrad project. I supervise Masters ones, and students conducting surveys have to have a minimum of 250 responses (not including ones that don't meet the demographic criteria). Interviews have to be very specifically targeted, but can be a lot fewer in number, and the results of either would have to be triangulated (ie compared with data arrived at using a different method).

It is recognised that students can't be expected to carry out research at the level of professional ones, because of constraints of time and costs, so something on which policy is made should be significantly more reliable than that, as they would have a proper budget and should have more time and staff resources. This is particularly the case when the target population is as diverse as 'women born between x and y dates', as there would be (or should) have been a need for including variables such as education, access to media, level of English comprehension and so on. 77 people couldn't possibly be enough to cover all that. If the topic were something like 'sufferers from X rare disease who attended a High School in a 40 mile radius of Y Town in 1974' then obviously the researchers would be dealing with small numbers, but this was not the case in a survey of all women born in a ten-year period.

I'll try to look at the actual survey tomorrow.

Could someone please look at this and tell me I am not going mad? The 90% awareness rate that Starmer and Kendall are claiming appears to be based on paragraph 106 of the PHSO’s Stage 1 report published in July 2021:

106. In 2006 DWP carried out the first of three ‘Attitudes to Pensions Surveys’. The survey found that 83% of respondents were aware women’s State Pension age was going to rise in future. This included 90% of women aged 45 to 54 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 47 to 56 in 2006). The survey did not ask respondents about their own State Pension age, so we do not know if respondents knew whether and/or how the changes affected them.

Here is the survey:

doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/5745/mrdoc/pdf/5745technicalreport.pdf

Extracts

3.2 PAPI pilot survey (paper assisted personal interviewing)

3.2.1 Respondents

Five interviewers, in a mix of urban and rural areas of the country were asked to carry out eight interviews each. Attempts were made to recruit respondents from
both low-income and high-income areas. The interviewers used their knowledge of their local area and approached residential addresses to find respondents. In addition to this, the interviewers were given quotas in order to recruit respondents with a variety of characteristics. Each interviewer was asked to interview at least three men and three women, two people aged 18-34, two aged 35-59 and one aged 60-69, four people in paid work and two not in paid work.

3.2.3 Outcomes

The five interviewers obtained a total of 37 interviews. The quotas were achieved but there was an uneven distribution of respondents in terms of income as fewer respondents in lower income areas could be persuaded to take part.

3.3 CAPI pilot survey (computer-assisted interviewing)

3.3.1 Respondents

One of the aims of the pilot was to see how well the interview worked for different respondents so the interviewers were asked to follow a quota and select their own respondents. Five interviewers, in a mix of urban and rural and high and low income areas were asked to carry out eight interviews each. They were asked to interview at least three men and three = women, three people in paid work, two not in paid work and one person who was retired, two people aged 18-30, two aged 31-49 and two aged 50-69.

3.3.3 Pilot outcomes

Forty interviews were conducted in a mix of rural and urban areas. There was a good distribution of respondents in terms of income for this pilot but there was an issue with locating and recruiting younger respondents resulting in an uneven
distribution of respondents in terms of age. The quotas were achieved in relation to gender and economic activity. The average interview length was 66 minutes.

The question asked (page 29) was: The age at which women can receive their State Pension is going to increase in the future (True) 83.2% said it was true. I can't see where the 90% comes from.

Am I right in thinking that this alleged 90% awareness that affects 3.5 million women is coming from two pilot surveys that interviewed a total of only 77 people 65% of whom self-assessed their knowledge about pension issues as very patchy or little or nothing?

Mollygo

Rosie51

Wyllow3 do you believe Sunak have paid out the 10.5 billion pounds concerned?

Honest answer, no I don't. But are you indicating we are not to expect anything from Starmer that Sunak wouldn't have done? Why bother changing leaders if all we can expect is more of the same?

Good point Rosie51.
We were assured that Labour would be better. So far it’s not, so it’s hardly surprising that those affected are angry/upset when what they were led to believe would happen doesn’t.
Or when things that the LP said was wrong whilst in opposition are suddenly right, now they’re in power.

Did Rishi stand around with placards supporting WASPI women?

Rosie51

Wyllow3 do you believe Sunak have paid out the 10.5 billion pounds concerned?

Honest answer, no I don't. But are you indicating we are not to expect anything from Starmer that Sunak wouldn't have done? Why bother changing leaders if all we can expect is more of the same?

Good point Rosie51.
We were assured that Labour would be better. So far it’s not, so it’s hardly surprising that those affected are angry/upset when what they were led to believe would happen doesn’t.
Or when things that the LP said was wrong whilst in opposition are suddenly right, now they’re in power.

A PM who never will do a U turn means a stubborn person.
A PM needs at times to listen to the vox pop and act accordingly.
Labour supported the waspi women when they were a shadow government but are hanging them out to dry now they are in power and may actually have do something!
Even a figure of £1,000 each lump sum would be very helpful to them.
Saying there’s no money and a blasted black hole is untenable.
Stop sending billions abroad for green measures for a start.Stop sending oodles of cash to India, who have a space programme for heavens sake and a PM who hates us and is a friend of Russia.

Good post, Ramblingrose22.

I don't think anyone will have to prove anything though. If the case is that women were disadvantaged it will apply to everyone - we can't discriminate based on who got a letter and who didn't.

I don't know if it would be cheaper to give a flat rate payment to all, or whether a figure for each lost year would be more cos-effective, but most people would have lost a minimum of £10k, I think? That's probably a rough average of the loss of a year's pension for most women of that age. Or there is an individual record of everyone's NI contributions - perhaps it could be worked out from that, if the system is set up to do it?

I very much doubt that we'll get anything now though. The way the media turns on KS and anything he does means that a U turn would be politically disastrous for him.