WASPI campaigners have issued a stark warning to the Government, threatening legal action if it does not reconsider its refusal to compensate millions of women hit by changes to the state pension age. A watchdog has suggested compensation for 1950s-born women affected by the equalisation of the state pension age with men, but Sir Keir Starmer has dismissed the possibility, citing an unaffordable £10.5 billion cost.
The Women Against State Pension Inequality group has fired off a “letter before action” to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), signalling potential High Court proceedings unless the matter is settled. Angela Madden, the chairwoman, has vowed that WASPI members will not stand for the DWP’s “gaslighting” of their plight.
The campaigners argue that the Government’s rejection of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) report, which recommended payments of up to £2,950 per woman, is “legally wrong”. With a £75,000 Crowdjustice fund backing their legal challenge, the group has given the Government a 14-day ultimatum before proceeding with the case.
Senior Labour figures including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, who previously supported the WASPI cause while in opposition, but are now facing scrutiny. Approximately 3.6 million UK women have been impacted by the retirement age adjustments first outlined in the 1990s to align with men’s retirement age.
The Government has been embroiled in controversy over the delayed notification to women born in the 1950s about changes to their state pension age. The blunder, which occurred more than a decade ago under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, involved a 28-month delay in informing these women of the changes, an error for which the Government has since apologised.
Despite research suggesting that by 2006, 90 per cent of women affected were aware of the pension age revision, WASPI campaigners argue that the lack of timely communication caused significant financial distress and upheaval in retirement planning.
Madden expressed her frustration, saying: “The Government has accepted that 1950s-born women are victims of maladministration, but it now says none of us suffered any injustice.”
She believes this stance is not only outrageous but also legally incorrect. Ms Madden continued with determination: “We have been successful before and we are confident we will be again.”
She urged the Secretary of State to engage in discussions about compensation, stating: “But what would be better for everyone is if the Secretary of State now saw sense and came to the table to sort out a compensation package.”
She warned that without such action, the Government would be defending the indefensible, potentially in court.
A Government spokesperson responded to the criticism, acknowledging the maladministration and the apology issued for the delay in communication: “We accept the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and have apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women.
“However, evidence showed only one in four people remember reading and receiving letters that they weren’t expecting and that by 2006 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was changing.
“Earlier letters wouldn’t have affected this.
“For these and other reasons the government cannot justify paying for a £10.5 billion compensation scheme at the expense of the taxpayer.”
