Ombudsman finds that WASPI women are owed compensation...

[WilliamMunny]

It's up to the providers of a service to notify the users of changes.

I accept that DWP should have written to those affected.

However, we don't get letters from HMRC to tell us any time tax rates or thresholds have changed. We don't get letters telling us that Capital Gains Tax has to be paid on the disposal of certain assets. Yet we are all personally responsible for paying the right amount of tax and we are held liable if we should have paid tax and didn't declare it - ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for HMRC.

 

[sherlock]

Exhibit A - your original post as above.

Exhibit B - ignoring everything I said except for the line about not defending the DWP, then insinuating that I was defending the DWP.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory in those two posts.

 

[sherlock]

I accept that DWP should have written to those affected.

However, we don't get letters from HMRC to tell us any time tax rates or thresholds have changed. We don't get letters telling us that Capital Gains Tax has to be paid on the disposal of certain assets. Yet we are all personally responsible for paying the right amount of tax and we are held liable if we should have paid tax and didn't declare it - ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for HMRC.

We do get letters telling us when our own tax code has changed though, which is a much closer example to what has occurred here.

 

[Andy_W]

Tories are going to Tory, but if they could look after their pensioner voters they would do, but they've had that many **** ups they can only put out so many of their fires. Their best option here would have been to help out the ones who were skint, but by taking that cash from those who are rich (who don't even need their state pension).

They might not have communicated the pension age change well, but surely the individuals should be on the ball keeping any eye on this, especially if they're within 5,10,20 years of claiming it?

Then there's the thing with they probably should have expected it too. Equal rights will work in favour for a lot of women etc (as it certainly should), but will largely work against those who are well beyond peak earning potential (this isn't ideal of course). Women should have expected the pension to come into parity with men, especially seeing as loads of guys from their time were working in manual labour etc, which is effectively impossible for the latter years before pension. How's a bricky meant to work after 55, never mind 60 or 65 etc.

Also, people have been expected to be living for longer, and women longer than men of course, so women were expecting 60 to 80 from their pension (20 years) and blokes 65-78 (13 years). This was always going to be evened out, or attempted to.

Then it also comes down to means, people of their age were around when cost of property was the smallest multiple v earnings, so where they've lost in pension they've likely gained far, far more in wealth due to their property, and also benefitted from being able to buy council houses etc. People aged 55 to SPA are the richest age group (as a whole), but work does need to be done to even this out, between that group, or at least support those who actually need it.

• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is aged 16 to 24 is £22,300.
• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is aged 25 to 34 is £76,800.
• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is aged 35 to 44 is £198,100.
• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is aged 45 to 54 is £366,600.
• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is aged 55 to under SPA is £553,400.
• The average household net worth in Great Britain where the head is at State Pension Age and over is £467,700.

If women were expecting a pension at 60, and are skint (as a couple, or if they're single), no property, can't work then they should of course be helped out, but that will likely only be a small portion. This should not cost that much? There's a much higher percentage of young folk in a much worse position then the average 60 year old woman I expect, and they will likely never benefit from the same gain in property values etc. It's a bit difficult to ask that generation to help fund a 60 year old's retirement, when they may never even get a state pension as it could become unaffordable.

I'm early 40's and I don't even think I'll ever get a state pension, I'm certainly not factoring it into any of my long term planning. I don't even invest anything into a private pension as I know the payout age will just get further dicked with, so even if I do get it, it will largely be beyond when I can put it to good use. Would rather save my money elsewhere and have some control about when I get it back.

 

[WilliamMunny]

There is absolutely nothing contradictory in those two posts.

Erm, I didn't say there was anything contradictory - quite the opposite in fact.

Exhibit A and exhibit B are two pieces of evidence for the same thing and were given as a direct response to the question you asked me.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this conversation now as I really should do some work if I'm every going to be able to retire before I reach my State Pension age of 65, sorry 67, sorry 68 if proposed changes go through, sorry probably 70 as further changes are likely before I get there!

 

[Nano]

I can't see how the WASPI women have a case to be honest. The state pension age being lower for women than men wasn't fair and it was correct that it was brought in line. The financial loss that they say they suffered isn't a financial loss because it was recognising the fact that the age people should retire should be normalised and so those women could continue working and receiving their wage. Nobody forced them to stop working, they just wanted to retire early but don't we all.

I don't really buy the suggestion that they were not informed. I'm not a woman of pensionable age and I knew when they would be getting their state pension and so did they. Some claiming they had no knowledge of it after 15 years is completely unbelievable. The whole movement is around wanting money that they aren't really owed which isn't the injustice they are claiming it to be. Has anyone had a letter letting them know what their state pension age will be? Do I wait 30 years until I'm 70 and claim I should be getting years of payments because I didn't receive a letter notifying me that my pension age will be changing?

I fully understand that they wanted to retire at 60 and they wanted to receive their pension at that age and it was changed but that isn't an injustice and isn't worthy of compensation especially as they have moved on from their argument of unfairness, which they deservedly lost to ignorance/lack of communication.

 

[WilliamMunny]

We do get letters telling us when our own tax code has changed though, which is a much closer example to what has occurred here.

Sorry one last retort - HMRC Coding Notices are frequently incorrect. If HMRC makes a mistake with your tax code, it is up to you to spot it and advise them. If that mistake results in an underpayment of tax, you still have to pay it back. You can't argue that it was their mistake and you should be let off. In other words, we all bear personal responsibility for our own tax affairs. I don't see why that doesn't extend to our State Pension entitlements.

 

[sherlock]

Erm, I didn't say there was anything contradictory - quite the opposite in fact.

Exhibit A and exhibit B are two pieces of evidence for the same thing and were given as a direct response to the question you asked me.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this conversation now as I really should do some work if I'm every going to be able to retire before I reach my State Pension age of 65, sorry 67, sorry 68 if proposed changes go through, sorry probably 70 as further changes are likely before I get there!

Still no idea how you think I was being party specific then. The fact is that it’s only the Tories that can implement Ombudsman recommendations at this time.

The fact they say they won’t risks alienating the only demographic likely to vote for them, that’s just a fact.

 

[sherlock]

I can't see how the WASPI women have a case to be honest. The state pension age being lower for women than men wasn't fair and it was correct that it was brought in line. The financial loss that they say they suffered isn't a financial loss because it was recognising the fact that the age people should retire should be normalised and so those women could continue working and receiving their wage. Nobody forced them to stop working, they just wanted to retire early but don't we all.

I don't really buy the suggestion that they were not informed. I'm not a woman of pensionable age and I knew when they would be getting their state pension and so did they. Some claiming they had no knowledge of it after 15 years is completely unbelievable. The whole movement is around wanting money that they aren't really owed which isn't the injustice they are claiming it to be. Has anyone had a letter letting them know what their state pension age will be? Do I wait 30 years until I'm 70 and claim I should be getting years of payments because I didn't receive a letter notifying me that my pension age will be changing?

I fully understand that they wanted to retire at 60 and they wanted to receive their pension at that age and it was changed but that isn't an injustice and isn't worthy of compensation especially as they have moved on from their argument of unfairness, which they deservedly lost to ignorance/lack of communication.

Wow, why bother with a 3 year Ombudsman investigation when they could have just asked you?

 

[Since1973]

Wow, why bother with a 3 year Ombudsman investigation when they could have just asked you?

They should have - it would have saved 3 years of tax payers money bring wasted on the investigation.

My retirement age has gone up 2 years since I started working - Where is my compensation.

Should I make up that I don’t know and turn up when I’m 65 to claim my pension?

I’m sure they would have known instantly if the age had been cut to 59.

 

[sherlock]

They should have - it would have saved 3 years of tax payers money bring wasted on the investigation.

You realise that investigation found in favour of WASPI, right?

 

[Nano]

Wow, why bother with a 3 year Ombudsman investigation when they could have just asked you?

Also note that the WASPI women were not asking for the pension age to go back down to 60 so the people that come after them get the benefit from 60. They are happy for those people to retire at 66, they just don't think it is fair that they are the ones that were affected by the change being made.

The case doesn't even make sense. They claim to have been only told at short notice which gave them no time to make arrangements but delaying your pension age gives you more time.

You realise that investigation found in favour of WASPI, right?

It didn't really. It says there should have been better communication but not that the decision was incorrect. The WASPI still think they should have been entitled to their pension from age 60.

 

[Since1973]

You realise that investigation found in favour of WASPI, right?

Yes I do - but in my opinion it shouldn’t have.

If we have equality which we should have it’s need to work both ways.

Why should a male who is exactly the same age as a female work years longer to get the same pension?

And as for them not knowing - I don’t believe that.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

Yes I do - but in my opinion it shouldn’t have.

If we have equality which we should have it’s need to work both ways.

Why should a male who is exactly the same age as a female work years longer to get the same pension?

And as for them not knowing - I don’t believe that.

That's not what their case was about. They haven't opposed having equality. They complained about a lack of communication from DWP, who have since sorted their act out.

 

[sherlock]

That's not what their case was about. They haven't opposed having equality. They complained about a lack of communication from DWP, who have since sorted their act out.

And all this talk of equality ignores the historical inequalities in opportunity that women born in the 1950’s would have suffered.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

And all this talk of equality ignores the historical inequalities in opportunity that women born in the 1950’s would have suffered.

And still do.

 

[NYboro]

I accept that DWP should have written to those affected.

However, we don't get letters from HMRC to tell us any time tax rates or thresholds have changed. We don't get letters telling us that Capital Gains Tax has to be paid on the disposal of certain assets. Yet we are all personally responsible for paying the right amount of tax and we are held liable if we should have paid tax and didn't declare it - ignorance is never an acceptable excuse for HMRC.

I do get a letter from the DWP every time my pension increases.

 

[Andy_W]

I don't really buy the suggestion that they were not informed. I'm not a woman of pensionable age and I knew when they would be getting their state pension and so did they.

Yeah, that's the bit I kind of didn't get, I'm sure I knew about this back in 2010 and even before that, it was all over the news and I probably wasn't even paying much attention then as I'm not a woman and not a pensioner. The act seemingly came in 1995, so that's 15 years notice, which is about as good as anyone can expect. I think asking for a letter drop 15 years in advance is a bit naïve when it's all over the news, and people would likely have took no notice anyway if they were also not keeping up with the news.

It's a bit odd that some pensioners (or not as the case may be) are demanding compensation, at a time when the pension is the only thing which has not taken a massive beating, as it's been protected by the triple lock.

It's probably the case that the triple lock (brought in 2010) has probably gained them more than they've lost, and they've probably not even lost anything that they should have been fully expecting to receive.

 

[WilliamMunny]

I do get a letter from the DWP every time my pension increases.

I know, but I don't see how that is relevant to the WASPI case.

Anyway, I've actually stated several times in this thread, including in the post you have replied to - "I accept that DWP should have written to those affected." I wonder if I have written that in invisible ink!

 

[NYboro]

I know, but I don't see how that is relevant to the WASPI case.

Anyway, I've actually stated several times in this thread, including in the post you have replied to - "I accept that DWP should have written to those affected." I wonder if I have written that in invisible ink!

It's relevant inasmuch as they should have written to them.