The ongoing struggle of the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign is gathering momentum as legal experts express renewed optimism in their pursuit of compensation from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) The campaign has emerged in response to significant financial losses incurred by millions of women due to the DWP’s gradual increase in the state pension age from 60 to 65, which directly affected those born in the 1950s.
DWP: on the ropes over WASPI?
Last year, an independent parliamentary ombudsman put forward a recommendation for compensation ranging from £1,000 to £2,950 for the affected women, citing a failure by the DWP to properly inform them about these changes. However, the DWP rejected this compensation proposal, with work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall asserting in December that a total payout of approximately £10.5 billion would be unfair to taxpayers.
Legal representatives for the WASPI group are now preparing for a judicial review to challenge the DWP stance.
Caroline Robinson, a lawyer at Bindmans, expressed confidence in their position, stating:
Can such cases be won? Yes, they can… WASPI has a real chance of succeeding in a judicial review.
This is bolstered by the assertion that the DWP had admitted to maladministration concerning the timing and clarity of communications regarding the changes, which left many women unable to adequately plan for their retirement.
The DWP should have reached out to these 1950s-born women by December 2006 to update them on the changes, but letters were ultimately delayed until between April 2009 and November 2013. This oversight, as highlighted in a report from the parliamentary ombudsman, has left a trail of confusion and distress for countless women who were unaware of their changing state pension entitlements.
Not the best letter to write
In a recent turn of events, WASPI chair Angela Madden received what has been termed a “last minute” letter from the DWP regarding their legal challenges.
The letter noted that while the DWP acknowledges the maladministration and apologised for the delay, they maintain that data indicates that by 2006, up to 90% of affected women were aware of the state pension age changes.
This assertion, however, has faced scrutiny. Madden indicated that the WASPI group intends to consult their lawyers to assess if the information in the DWP’s letter undermines their claims before proceeding with their judicial review.
The legal team’s goal is straightforward: challenge what they view as an unjust denial of compensation for the injustices suffered by the WASPI women. Madden stated, “We remain determined to challenge it,” reinforcing the campaign’s unwavering commitment to secure justice for those affected.
Despite calls for support among ministers and concerns raised by various lawyers over the potential success of further legal action, the WASPI campaign stands resolute.
Notably, Baroness Ros Altmann, a former pensions minister, has voiced her belief that a reconsideration of compensation could be a possibility, arguing that the current rationale used by the DWP does not sufficiently account for the injustices at play.
DWP facing a judicial review
The campaign’s next steps are clear. They aim to present their judicial review claim by the end of this week, which, if given the green light by a judge, would enter a detailed examination phase, scheduled to occur over the next six to nine months.
Fundraising efforts to support the legal battle have so far exceeded £150,000, a testament to the tenacity and determination of the WASPI supporters as they strive for recognition and restitution of their rights.
As the legal process unfolds, the tension between the aspirations of the WASPI women and the DWP’s stance continues to polarise opinions. The outcome of any legal challenge could set a significant precedent in the ongoing discussions surrounding pension rights and the treatment of those affected by policy changes.
With the potential for a judicial review looming, the fight for justice and fairness remains at the forefront of public and legal scrutiny.
Featured image via the Canary
