WASPI

[Tristan]

A lot of talk about WASPI over the last few days. Am I the only one who has very little sympathy? I suspect many are bullshitting when they say they didn't know the pension age had changed. And even if they didn't, surely they should take some personal responsibility. Deciding when to retire is a big deal that I'd expect anyone to do a little bit of actual research into before going ahead. I'll be annoyed if younger generations have to spend billions bailing them out when their own deal in life is considerably less good than those born in the 50s.

[Imrael]

I do know what you mean - the idea that you dont know what pension age is and and dont check before retirement does somewhat baffle me. Pretty sure I was aware of it, and very sure I knew what mine was.

[Gfamily]

Given that we're always told that pension planning has to be done on as long term as possible, it was always likely to be a problem that this generation of women had their pension eligibility date changed twice, and had an addition made to the years needed to qualify for full entitlement.
The reported inadequacy of the notification of the changes and what it would mean in person for the women, would have compounded the problem.

[IvanV]

The irony of the name Women Against State Pension Inequality is that the initial movement of the pension age from 60 to 65 was precisely to remove inequality between men and women. That distinction was found untenable.

This is the official pension age timetable showing what changed in 1995 - when equality for women was phased in - and also in the subsequent 2007, 2011 and 2014 acts when further increases and speeding ups were brought in. Though it shows the outcome of all of those, and which applies, it doesn't show how some people had changes in stages as new acts came in.

So in 1995, women born from 1950 on would retire at an increased age. As it was phased in, they would retire at 61, and retiring at 65 was applicable to those born in the late 50s. They had at least 15 years notice.

Then in 2007, the state pension age was increased to 68 for everyone, in a slow process. The full extension to 68 applied only to those retiring in 2044, but there were sliding scales. Under this, some people might have had only about 10 years notice of additional year before retirement.

Then in 2011, all these sliding scales were speeded up, so that those women born in 1953 and later would now retire at at least 65 rather than 63. Now that change was perhaps at rather short notice, only 5 years notice for some. Though of course they should have realised already 16 years previously that they were not going to be retiring at 60.

The 2011 act also sped up the introduction of the 66 and 67 pension age. Now those born after 1961 would retire at 67. But for women, the net effect of this act was upto another 3 years delay in retirement. But all changed had at least 8 years notice.

Then the government came along in 2014 and sped up the retirement at 67 and 68. It also provided for a regular 5-yearly review, intending to increase these retirement dates, or speed up their introduction, should people show signs of living longer. Though I suspect in practice government budgets might also be relevant.

So the government didn't actually write to everyone and tell them they would be retiring later than they thought. Apparently the court indicates that probably would have been a good idea. But if anyone had talked to anyone about their pensions, if they had read any of the correspondence from their pension provider, it should have been transparent to them. I was well aware of the 1995 Act, and that my retirement age was delayed. In fact, I was thinking they really ought to do that a bit faster, was unsurprised when they did revisit it to speed it up. I didn't specifically notice that the 2011 act delayed my retirement date from 66 to 67. But I did notice my pension providers' annual correspondence telling me I was now expected to retire at 67.

Clearly we made a major change in women's retirement date from 60 to 65, precisely to bring in equality, with at least 15 years notice. But the speeding up of that, adding up to 2 years, could have come at as little as 5 years notice for some born around 1953. Then that was increased to 66 and later 67 and 68 for everyone, and for some the notice period for that could have been as short as 8 years.

But the idea that someone should now be able to retire on a full pension at 60, simply because the government did not specifically write to them to tell them, is clearly bonkers. It reintroduces the unfairness that it legislated away. At 15 years notice, I think people had their heads buried in the sand if they didn't realise that was going on. Those who only got 5 years notice of a further 2 years working when they might have thought they were retiring at 63, I have a little sympathy that was rather short notice. It would have been a protection to explicitly write to people. And even say explicitly that the fact of the letter does not mean that the government might not later legislate to increase the pension age further. But basically it is your own responsibility to think about your retirement. I've never trusted the government to give me all that it seemed that they might at some date, which is why I have always saved a lot.

[dyqik]

LOL at the idea that people, particularly women who stayed at home to raise kids for a chunk of their working life, had any pension provider to talk to other than the government.

[Imrael]

There was a round of TV interviews this morning, and IIRC they had an NHS employee and a teacher, both of whom had occupational pensions.

I think there are 2 issues. As gFamily notes, changes even a long time before pension age can mess up plans. But this isnt what the report is criticising - as I understand it the complaints are about the amount of notice of the changes was sent out and/or made available.

[jdc]

Report here: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defa ... issues.pdf

There's stuff in the report about sh.t communication, and sh.t responses to complaints from the DWP. Which sounds about right for them.

They go through the sample cases so you can see what the complainants were actually complaining about and which elements the ombudsman agreed with.

See Annex C for info on the levels of injustice and amounts of compensation.

[El Pollo Diablo]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women won't have bothered to read any detail about it and won't click the link to the report jdc just posted, here are some quotes:

2. Research reported in 2004 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act knew their State Pension was 65, or between 60 and 65. The research report said it was ‘essential’ that particular groups, including ‘women who would be affected by the change’, should be
appropriately targeted with accessible information on the equalisation of [State Pension age]’.

3. Also in 2004, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions publicly stated that too often people do not understand how information about pensions related to their own retirement prospects. He said the Government needed to help provide people with individually tailored information simply explaining their situation and options.

4. DWP failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information when making decisions about next steps in
August 2005. That was maladministration.

5. In 2006, DWP first proposed direct mail to women whose State Pension age was between 60 and 65. It then failed to act promptly on that proposal, or to give due weight to how much time had already been lost since the 1995 Pensions Act. That was also maladministration.

8. However, research also showed that too many people did not understand their own situations and how the new State Pension affected them personally. The gap between awareness and understanding was highlighted by the Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office. DWP did not adequately use this research and feedback to improve its service and performance. In this respect, DWP did not demonstrate principles of good administration. That was maladministration.

9. We find that some aspects of DWP’s complaint handling reflected applicable standards, including that information about how to complain was easily available and that it took a proportionate approach to similar complaints. But DWP did not adequately investigate or respond to the complaints it was considering or avoid unnecessary delay. In these respects, DWP did not demonstrate principles of good complaint handling. That was also maladministration.

That's less than 10% of the way through the document.

[Tristan]

Yes, I've been reading through the report and the sample complainants, extracts of which I'd already seen, and it's not really doing much to increase my sympathy.

[Stranger Mouse]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

[bagpuss]

Don't forget that these women are of a generation, especially those born in the first half of the 1950s, that were not only generally discouraged from taking responsibility for their own finances, but actively and legally prevented from doing so when they were young adults. And while the 1975 equality act may have meant they were legally entitled to take full responsibility, it takes a lot longer for attitudes and normal practice to change*.

Many of these women will have been married to men who were completely in control of the family finances, except for the housekeeping money graciously entrusted to her to buy food and cleaning products, etc.

Of course they really should have been more aware of the changes and what those would mean to them, but many of the women in question simply didn't have the knowledge, skills or experience to enable that. And that is categorically not their fault.



*To anyone who doubts how slow things are to change, I present the case of a friend of mine who, in the early-mid 2000s, was not quite 40 and looking, along with her husband, to remortgage to enable them to build an extension. He was older than her and the bank refused their first application because he would be retired before the 25-year mortgage was paid off. She pointed out that she would not and they said that did not matter as his was the main name on the mortgage. Apparently, despite the fact that her income was several times his (she senior in Big4 consulting firm, he owner of one man band business), his name was first on the mortgage application because he was the man and the bank's IT system automatically put his name first and this could not be changed. They tried this with the wrong woman, however, her role at said consultancy being all about equality, so she quoted quite a lot of equality law at them and they apologised and approved the application. But this shows just how much, even 30 years after the 1975 equality act supposedly did away with this kind of thing, women were expected to be subservient to their men in matters of finance.

[Stranger Mouse]

Don't forget that these women are of a generation, especially those born in the first half of the 1950s, that were not only generally discouraged from taking responsibility for their own finances, but actively and legally prevented from doing so when they were young adults. And while the 1975 equality act may have meant they were legally entitled to take full responsibility, it takes a lot longer for attitudes and normal practice to change*.

Many of these women will have been married to men who were completely in control of the family finances, except for the housekeeping money graciously entrusted to her to buy food and cleaning products, etc.

Of course they really should have been more aware of the changes and what those would mean to them, but many of the women in question simply didn't have the knowledge, skills or experience to enable that. And that is categorically not their fault.

IMO this is spot on

[dyqik]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

It's not an assumption when they are doing it right in front of you.

[Tristan]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

No you're not.

[Gfamily]

.
Of course they really should have been more aware of the changes and what those would mean to them, but many of the women in question simply didn't have the knowledge, skills or experience to enable that. And that is categorically not their fault.

IMO this is spot on

I'd say that the situation as Bagpuss described is a classic description of institutional sexism.
Not recognising that its effects are real and are ongoing, is evidence of continuing institutional sexism.

[discovolante]

What Bagpuss said. Also speaking in much more general terms, and perhaps with reference to some of BOAF's posts in the cost of living thread (this one for example: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3098&start=550#p135446) a lot* of people really just cannot deal with paperwork. The reasons probably vary, from basic illiteracy and innumeracy to perhaps being overwhelmed by other things. The line between looking after people and personal responsibility can be a bit difficult to draw I think. I tend to err on the side of not letting people fall into financial ruin just because they aren't very good at managing money and paperwork, given how serious the consequences of that can be. Maybe it does partly depend on how hard up a person will be as a result of their mistake. If you have a decent occupational pension and your state pension was just a nice top up, maybe it's just tough luck, if you can't afford to pay your mortgage then maybe that's different.


*I can't really quantify this precisely, there is probably research somewhere so apologies for not looking into it...

[El Pollo Diablo]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

I'm not assuming bad faith sexism, I'm assuming gender-based ignorance. When a thread is about women and the first respondents are a bunch of blokes smiling and nodding at each other sagely about how the women should've known better, it's hard to ignore it as a factor.

[Tristan]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

I'm not assuming bad faith sexism, I'm assuming gender-based ignorance. When a thread is about women and the first respondents are a bunch of blokes smiling and nodding at each other sagely about how the women should've known better, it's hard to ignore it as a factor.

If the £10bn proposed to pay for this is only coming from younger women, rather than younger generations as whole, then you might have a point.

[Stranger Mouse]

And just to drive home the point, because the men complaining here about compensation being given to women

Am I the only one getting annoyed by the tendency of some posters to automatically assume bad faith sexism on the part of whomever they are debating?

I'm not assuming bad faith sexism, I'm assuming gender-based ignorance. When a thread is about women and the first respondents are a bunch of blokes smiling and nodding at each other sagely about how the women should've known better, it's hard to ignore it as a factor.

I find your response unconvincing.

[Stephanie]

If people want to continue griping about this, take it to another thread

[IvanV]

Of course they really should have been more aware of the changes and what those would mean to them, but many of the women in question simply didn't have the knowledge, skills or experience to enable that. And that is categorically not their fault.

IMO this is spot on

The government did not do enough. And frankly I think the government should send everyone under pension age a public pension statement every x years, where x doesn't have to be 1 but needs to be less than 5, and needs to happen additionally every time they change something. Currently you have to apply for a pension statement, and I'm sure a computer just spits it out. So I'm pretty sure they don't do that, because they prefer you not to know.

But there is much misdeed and immorality on this planet, which is perfectly legal. So when does it reach the point where you are owed compensation? Disco's point about the level of damage is relevant. I never claimed on the mortgage mis-selling thing, though I could have done, because I knew perfectly well I understood exactly what I was doing and what risks I was taking when I took out that investment-backed mortgage, even though the risks were not properly explained to me. So morally I did not feel entitled to anything. But as we have seen with the Post Office cases, when it's case by case then they'll all be dead before anything happens, for they'll argue the toss and maladministration I think is often a feature rather than a bug.

Meanwhile, even writing to some people wouldn't work. And when have you done enough that they have no right to any compensation, if they don't have the knowledge, skills or experience to understand, or in many cases even open, the letter.

Let me tell you a story. The person who is technically my wife's stepfather wasn't opening any letters. We discovered just a couple of months ago now. He probably didn't open them because he doesn't really understand them. His late wife, my mother-in-law, used to do that. He's not suffering from dementia, he's just simple. So was his late wife, but it seems not quite as simple as him. And so he was unaware he was still paying monthly charges on a mobile phone contract that he'd never cancelled, though he stopped using the phone many years ago. He was unaware a drinking "friend" had emptied his bank account, because - for a second time - he made the mistake of trusting that "friend", and for a second time been taken for two or three thousand pounds by him. And so the DDs to pay the mobile phone charges failed. And so a debt built up. He was unaware he had been taken to court over it, and judgment entered against him for an amount 10 times more than the original debt. He was unaware that his bank account had been attached to recover the debt, and so his basic pension going into the account will first go there. I think my wife has paid off his debts. And we are trying to make sure that my wife's sister, who is after all technically also his step-daughter, and who lives 2 mins walk from him, does actually go their regularly and check what is going on, rather ignoring him because it smells, even though social services send a weekly cleaner to his flat.

The mobile phone company were, course, utter bastards. It was very hard even to stop the ages old contract. They absolutely weren't going to think about whether they had any responsibility in relation to continuing to collect charges on a long disused phone. For legally they are, it seems, allowed to be bastards. Which is something that comes to my mind when I think about whether someone is due compensation from people due to their bastard behaviour when such things that are, ultimately, our own legal responsibility. Even if we don't have the knowledge, skills and experience to deal with it. For in most areas of life, we don't get any right to compensation for that, we are lucky if we manage to stop them skinning us.

The government are being held to a higher standard here, and perhaps that is right. But at what standard does compensation become due and how much and in what circumstances? The mortgage and pension mis-selling cases did result in commercial companies paying a lot of compensation. But that was because they had actually broken the law.