WASPI women welcome the strengthening of the fight for compensation for the change in retirement age | Personal finance | Finance

Changes to the state retirement age meant that many women born in the 1950s had to wait an additional six years – 60 to 66 – to reach retirement age. Some argued that they had not received sufficient notice of this, which created financial and social challenges, as well as tensions.

It has now been nearly a year since a major ruling was made by the Parliament and Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding changes to the state’s retirement age.

The Ombudsman considered that the DWP should have informed the women concerned more in advance of the measures aimed at raising the statutory retirement age.

This was deemed to be “maladministration” on the part of the department, due to a failure to provide sufficient notice of major changes.

To mark the upcoming anniversary, activists from a group known as Women Against State Pension Injustice (WASPI) have asked their MPs to pledge support for their fight.

READ MORE: Frustration as an 83-year-old Windrush pensioner forced to live on £74 a week

“By failing to meet this bar, millions of women have been disadvantaged, and some have been particularly hard hit.

“I want to see this mistake corrected, and so I am very happy to support the Barrow and Furness District WASPI Group in Parliament. »

Hilary Simpson, chair of WASPI’s national steering group, said she and the women affected were still awaiting the ombudsman’s decision on compensation.

However, she added that she “expects Parliament to accept it without quibbles and to apply it fairly and without delay”.

Ms Simpson said: “All opposition party leaders have affirmed their commitment to this, but Tory MPs have been slower to come forward. We are very grateful to Simon for his support.

A DWP spokesman previously told Express.co.uk that the government decided more than 25 years ago to equalize the pension age for men and women, as part of a breakthrough long overdue towards gender equality.

He insisted he was backed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, who found he acted lawfully and did not discriminate on any grounds .

Leave a Comment