Hope this isn’t construed as being political because it crosses over party lines and at this point nobody knows the views of either the government or opposition. I’ll own up and say that I have a dog in the fight because my wife was born in 1957 and therefore falls within the scope of the WASPI claim. It looks as if battle lines are being drawn with arguments both for and against the ombudsman’s findings and recommendations. I am genuinely interested in hearing the views of this forum because it always offers a genuine cross section of opinion.
Comments
For me 1995 was ample notice, I certainly knew about it back in the 90's, and I'm neither a woman nor effected in any way, I remember numerous 'discussions' at work at the time, usually (rememeber this was nearly 30 years ago) a woman complaining that she's going to have to work 5 more years and some bloke responding with 'well you wanted equality'.
I also recall getting a letter from the Pension Trustees as there had been a number of questions as to if they were going to also increase the age you could take your pension (I worked at the Woolwich at the time and their pension paid out at 60 for both men and women, still does).
This is a good summary
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/complaints-womens-state-pension-age
Clearly failings, predominantly around making sure everyone knew, but not solely.
But someone born in 1957 was 38 when the changes to 65 were announced, i.e. still well over half their working life to go (I was about the same age when the increase to 67/8 was announced). Whilst I accept there will be people who didn't pick up on the changes, and the DWP could have done more to advertise it, I don't think that in itself is a reason to pay compensation or bring the age back to 60. How can you tell who did know and who didn't know?
EDIT: a question for you both as effected, when did you know about the change from 60 to 65?
People have discovered in recent years they are not alone, whether it is WASPI, the contaminated blood horror, or the Horizon scandal, or dangerous cladding, or manky concrete making schools dangerous, Windrush discrimination and so on
Demonstrates the power of people working collectively.
I think this is called due diligence. I think any compensation should be means tested, an reflect any actual hardship endured
'Er indoors would have not known much about it had I not appraised her of the facts as I understood them.
I'd be very surprised if any compensation will be payable given that the raison d'etre was to save money and they would argue that is what they have done.
Sad for the 200K+ women that passed away between the age of 60 and 66. The argument might be made that statistically men live a shorter time than women so what about the men that have died between 60 and 66 or even 65 and 66 given that the male retirement age was 65 when that of women was 60.
was widely publicised at time - not sure why people were not aware
I have skin in the game as being a financial adviser since 1991 I was only too aware of this and have had many discussions with clients since 1995. It was hardly sprung on the public in 2010 !
My main beef with any compensation is as @Rob7Lee says.......it was announced 15 years before it came into effect. My State Retirement age has changed since I started work from 65 to 67.....I haven't received a letter telling me this either. Can I sue the Government for compo when I get to 65 saying "no-one told me..." ?
People have to take ownership of their lives. They should be more aware of political & social change. Take more notice of Budgets, General Elections and the world around them.
Yes it was poor by the Coalition in 2010 to accelerate the retirement age but if you had been paying attention from 1995 at least you would have had some plan in place to mitigate it.
You’re a slave to money
Then you die
If you read the Ombudsman report recommending compensation it is for "maladministration". It lists page upon page of initiatives taken by DWP to publicise the changes back in 1995 than at various times subsequently. DWP produced pamphlets, newspaper adverts, etc. The Ombudsman states - Accurate information was publicly available through DWP’s agencies, pension education campaigns, leaflets and website.
Despite this, DWPs own research found the majority of women in 2006 still thought pension age was 60.
In 2007 DWP wrote to women directly. This seems to be criticised as being a year late. Problems over Data Protection precluded personal information being sent without absolute proof it was only going to reach the intended recipient.
In 2014 the changes to the State Pension system were announced - There was timely and accurate information available about this. Says the Ombudsman.
So as a result of the lack of the public's interest in pensions, made ridiculously unintelligible by legislation, DWP were aware that women were generally uninformed/uninterested in details around State pensions.
This was publicised at the time and was followed by organised complaints from the WASPIs.
The Ombudsman concludes - We found that DWP did not adequately investigate and respond to complaints about these issues.
So the Ombudsman says -We found that failings in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act negatively affected complainants’ sense of personal autonomy and control over their finances. Complainants also lost opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently.
So the compensation is for Complainants who might have done SOME THINGS differently about SOME THINGS they didn't understand and the DWP's failings were the inability to magically discover how to get people to bother to read pensions literature or recall pensions information given to them for more than 5 minutes and override Data Protection rules.
What I don't understand is why "Complainants" didn't just ask for a State pension forecast from DWP if they were so perplexed and/or undertaking an in depth financial planning exercise.
And governments do change the rules, which will have a long lasting impact on us all, and that's their right.
I am expecting there to only be a means tested state pension/pension age benefit by that time
I think it's the pace of the change that is the main bone of contention for most women, as most of us would have started our working life expecting to retire at 60. I agree that it was the right thing to equalise the retirement age with men.
I am not holding out much hope that I'll receive any money, although it would be nice.
On the other hand, it could have been explained that we are generally living twice as long after state pension age as our grandparents so are getting twice the pension payout originally envisaged by the State Pension system.
Just for the record, pension age for women was increased “at a stroke” to comply with an EU directive to the government to remove discriminatory social security rules.
The whole point of auto-enrolment was to render reliance on the state system obsolete for the next generation. Contributing from age 20 to age 70 for the current generation entering the workplace should more than replace current state pension levels particularly if contribution rates are increased gradually over time. The first 10 years of contributions will be the sums that produce perhaps 75%+ of a pension pot. It's called compound interest.
It's those caught in the middle of the transition who started work after final salary schemes had been abandoned, relying on inadequate rates of DC contribution for their age, that fall between the cracks.
But note over all those years all you had to do was follow the news papers, broadcasts and current affairs programs to no this.
So now I wonder if men may be entitled to some compensation.
I think doing it in England would be more effective.
Women have had a rough deal on so many things over the years - and still do - but I dont understand how equalising the retirement age was somehow discriminating against them. All it did was put them on an equal footing with men, which is surely what the fight has always been about?