In July 2021, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) ruled that in 2005 and 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failed to communicate the changes to State Pension age for women with enough urgency, finding it guilty of maladministration, and is currently investigating the harm caused.
Last month, the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign called for an immediate one-off compensation payment of between £11,666 and £20,000 for millions of older women across the UK, with the higher amounts going to those who were given the shortest notice of the longest increase in their State Pension age.
The WASPI campaign has identified some 3.8 million women born in the 1950s who suddenly found they would have to work many more years when the State Pension age was increased to 65 between 2016 and 2018 and then to 66, for both men and women across the UK in October, 2020.
However, it looks like the “fight for fairness” and compensation payouts may take a while yet - despite SNP chief whip, Owen Thompson, calling on the UK Government to provide a timetable to “properly compensate” WASPI women.
At the time, Commons Leader Mark Spencer responded to a number of points raised by Mr Thompson, but did not directly address his comments relating to the WASPI women.
However, Mr Thompson received a written response to his question from Guy Opperman MP, the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, which he shared on social media.
Posting on his official Twitter account, Mr Thompson wrote: “Their response? The Pensions Minister sent me the letter below, pointing out the PHSO investigation is a ‘multi-staged process’ and ‘what could be a three part investigation’. WASPI women have waited long enough but seems the fight for fairness will continue for a while yet.”
Mr Opperman wrote: “The PHSO investigation is ongoing. This is a multi-staged process and the PHSO has not given his final findings on the overall investigation The Ombudsman’s report of 20 July 2021 concludes stage one of what could be a three-part investigation. The report made findings in relation to a specific window of time - under the last Labour Government.
“It is important to stress that the Ombudsman’s investigation is not a review of the entire State Pension age increase from 1995-2011. As they state on their website, ‘A 2019 High Court decision underlined that we are not able to recommend DWP reimburse ‘lost’ pensions. Nor can we recommend that anyone receives their State Pension any earlier than the law allows’.”
Mr Opperman goes on to to point out that in the 2019-2021 Judicial Review on changes to State Pension age, both the High Court and Court of Appeal have found “no fault with the actions” of the DWP, finding it “acted entirely lawfully and did not discriminate on any grounds”.
He also added that in March 2021, the Supreme Court refused the claimants permission to appeal.
And in response to Mr Thompson’s request for a debate on the matter he wrote: “Section 7 (2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 says Ombudsman investigations ‘shall be conducted in private’, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a live Ombudsman’s investigation.”
He added: “Under the well-established ‘sub justice’ rule, it is not appropriate for Parliament to debate a matter that is subject to live consideration before a Court.
“For the same reasons, it is not appropriate for Parliament to debate a matter that is subject to live consideration before the Ombudsman.”
On April 1, the PHSO published that they have concluded stage one of their investigation into the way the DWP communicated changes to women’s State Pension age, and related issues.
It said: “We have found that between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet.
“But in 2005, DWP failed to make a reasonable decision about targeting information to the women affected by these changes. That was maladministration.
“In 2006, DWP proposed writing to women individually to tell them about changes to State Pension age but it failed to act promptly. That was also maladministration.”
Full stage one findings can be found in the PHOS investigation report, here.
Why is there an investigation into State Pension age for women?
The PHSO website explains that the 1995 Pensions Act and subsequent legislation raised State Pension age for women born on or after April 6, 1950.
Women complained to the PHSO that DWP did not adequately communicate these changes. They say they have experienced financial loss and a negative impact on their health, emotional well-being or home life as a result.
It said: “We have received a significant number of similar complaints since we first proposed to investigate. Our review of the complaints shows that they relate to the same key issues. As we are currently investigating these key issues, we are not accepting any new complaints about them at present.”
Who is affected by the changes to State Pension age for women?
Women born on or after April 6, 1950 are affected by changes in State Pension age introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and further changes made in subsequent years.
To see how you are affected visit the GOV.UK website, here.
Investigation next steps
Stage one of the PHOS investigation looked at whether there was maladministration in DWP’s communication of changes to women’s State Pension age.
They looked at what DWP should have done to communicate the changes according to standards of good administration, and whether it did this.
They are now working on stage two of their investigation and considering whether the failings they have identified led to an injustice for the complainants.
PHOS are also considering complaints about:
- DWP’s communication about the number of years of National Insurance Contributions that are required to receive a full State Pension
- DWP’s and ICE’s (Independent Case Examiner) complaint handling
PHOS said: “If we find there was an injustice that has not already been remedied then we will proceed to the third stage and make recommendations to put things right.
“By law, we investigate in private. This means we can't provide further information about our stage two and three findings while those stages of the investigation are ongoing.”
When will stages two and three of the investigation be completed?
PHOS said: “It is not possible to say how long it will take to reach a conclusion. How long an investigation takes varies depending on its complexity and the amount of evidence to review.
“We have received further evidence for stage two. We need to review and consider that evidence.”
More information about the Ombudsman’s investigation can be found on their website here.
To keep up to date with this investigation, join our Money Saving Scotland Facebook group here, follow Record Money on Twitter here, or subscribe to our twice weekly newsletter here.
