Ombudsman finds that WASPI women are owed compensation...

[Unravel_Morrison]

I don’t think that’s fair comment. I am not intending to, and would not, stick up for this government. But I was sticking up for accuracy.

If we are the worst country in Europe, we have to be worse than Armenia, because Armenia is a country in Europe. And we aren’t. So we aren’t. My point does not go beyond that.

I think it is fair unless you genuinely didn't understand that the original comment was talking about comparable other European countries.

Also, I do not understand why you picked a comparative country that is essentially Eurasian rather than being European.

 

[Angus]

It doesn’t really matter what you think though, it’s what the Ombudsman thinks that is the relevant thing.

According to what I have read the relevant opinion is going to be that of the government and MP’s as to whether the findings of the Ombudsman are acted upon.

I don’t think there is going to be a national clamour to find £10 billion to sort this out in view of the state of the nations finances.

 

[Unravel_Morrison]

According to what I have read the relevant opinion is going to be that of the government and MP’s as to whether the findings of the Ombudsman are acted upon.

I don’t think there is going to be a national clamour to find £10 billion to sort this out in view of the state of the nations finances.

That may be true but that is a dangerous thing to do for a government that is already leaking voters and may antagonise some of who have stayed with them.

 

[Scrote]

And I still can't really see how 3m people will have lost money because of the missing letter. It sounds like it would need a very specific set of circumstances which probably wouldn't apply to the majority.

Because it wasn't just a missing letter.

The bill to increase pension ages was passed in 1995 with a target date of 2010 and a timescale of 10 years.

In 2011 that was changed to being immediate (and an additional year was added to the retirement age).

So even if everyone got some form of communication prior to 2010 a women aged 59 might have expected to need to work, at most, two more years before retiring aged 61. The direct shift to retirement at 66 couldn't have been planned for. So in effect you have women from the ages of 55 to 59 being asked to suddenly change all their retirement plans even if they'd based them on the 1995 bill.

The fact that that the information that should have been provided got lost somewhere along the line just made it even more difficult for these women to make preparations.

Just think about the disruption last week caused by the M25 having a minor section closed. Imagine that no notifications had been made and everyone was suddenly expected to make alternate arrangements for weddings, holidays, hospital visits etc. That is essentially what has been allowed to happen.

 

[Nano]

Because it wasn't just a missing letter.

The bill to increase pension ages was passed in 1995 with a target date of 2010 and a timescale of 10 years.

In 2011 that was changed to being immediate (and an additional year was added to the retirement age).

So even if everyone got some form of communication prior to 2010 a women aged 59 might have expected to need to work, at most, two more years before retiring aged 61. The direct shift to retirement at 66 couldn't have been planned for. So in effect you have women from the ages of 55 to 59 being asked to suddenly change all their retirement plans even if they'd based them on the 1995 bill.

The fact that that the information that should have been provided got lost somewhere along the line just made it even more difficult for these women to make preparations.

Just think about the disruption last week caused by the M25 having a minor section closed. Imagine that no notifications had been made and everyone was suddenly expected to make alternate arrangements for weddings, holidays, hospital visits etc. That is essentially what has been allowed to happen.

It doesn't make sense though. If pension dates were brought forwards then there would be a case because it means there was less time to plan. Moving pension dates back gives you more time to plan.

It's nonsense. People want benefits they they are not due. The compensation that the ombudsman has judged on is due to a technicality on poor communication.

 

[Scrote]

It doesn't make sense though. If pension dates were brought forwards then there would be a case because it means there was less time to plan. Moving pension dates back gives you more time to plan.

It's nonsense. People want benefits they they are not due. The compensation that the ombudsman has judged on is due to a technicality on poor communication.

When I started work I knew I'd have to pay x years to retire at y age. If someone said, "oh actually you can retire with a full pension 5 years earlier than y as long as you have x years" then that doesn't affect any plans I might have had.

If, when I reached age y, someone said, "oops, sorry - we forgot to tell you you can't retire until y+6" then it would directly affect any plans I'd made based on the retirement at y.

You aren't obliged to retire early, even if it's possible. You are stuck without a pension if you've planned to retire at a certain age and then the age requirement is increased.

 

[WilliamMunny]

Because it wasn't just a missing letter.

The bill to increase pension ages was passed in 1995 with a target date of 2010 and a timescale of 10 years.

In 2011 that was changed to being immediate (and an additional year was added to the retirement age).

So even if everyone got some form of communication prior to 2010 a women aged 59 might have expected to need to work, at most, two more years before retiring aged 61. The direct shift to retirement at 66 couldn't have been planned for. So in effect you have women from the ages of 55 to 59 being asked to suddenly change all their retirement plans even if they'd based them on the 1995 bill.

The fact that that the information that should have been provided got lost somewhere along the line just made it even more difficult for these women to make preparations.

Just think about the disruption last week caused by the M25 having a minor section closed. Imagine that no notifications had been made and everyone was suddenly expected to make alternate arrangements for weddings, holidays, hospital visits etc. That is essentially what has been allowed to happen.

It wasn’t changed to immediate, it was still a phased increase but over 8 years instead of 10.

The additional year to 66 was a change that affected men and women alike.

 

[Nano]

When I started work I knew I'd have to pay x years to retire at y age. If someone said, "oh actually you can retire with a full pension 5 years earlier than y as long as you have x years" then that doesn't affect any plans I might have had.

If, when I reached age y, someone said, "oops, sorry - we forgot to tell you you can't retire until y+6" then it would directly affect any plans I'd made based on the retirement at y.

You aren't obliged to retire early, even if it's possible. You are stuck without a pension if you've planned to retire at a certain age and then the age requirement is increased.

Well yes, you'd have to keep working, as is the intention with moving the pension age back, but you don't lose any money.

 

[Angus]

I just think on practical terms their will be little political will to spend circa £10 billion on this after the election whatever the rights and wrongs are off the case.

Neither party will commit to it before and the new government likely have other priorities.

 

[sherlock]

It doesn't make sense though. If pension dates were brought forwards then there would be a case because it means there was less time to plan. Moving pension dates back gives you more time to plan.

It wasn’t moved back, it was accelerated by the coalition government.

 

[sherlock]

Well yes, you'd have to keep working, as is the intention with moving the pension age back, but you don't lose any money.

What if you’d already given up your job as was the case for many WASPI women?

 

[Nano]

It wasn’t moved back, it was accelerated by the coalition government.

It was moved back in the sense their retirement moved from 60 to 65. They had an additional 5 years to wait (and plan).

What if you’d already given up your job as was the case for many WASPI women?

No it wasn't. 1995 they had the notification. I'm not sure there's going to be any sympathy for anyone that chose to retire in their 50s without looking up the date they'd get their pension. If they were savvy enough to plan to retire that early then they will almost certainly have known when they'd get their pension.

What is likely is that there were people that did retire early and knew they'd get the pension at 65 instead of 60 and now are hoping for some extra free cash.

 

[NYboro]

It was moved back in the sense their retirement moved from 60 to 65. They had an additional 5 years to wait (and plan).

No it wasn't. 1995 they had the notification. I'm not sure there's going to be any sympathy for anyone that chose to retire in their 50s without looking up the date they'd get their pension. If they were savvy enough to plan to retire that early then they will almost certainly have known when they'd get their pension.

What is likely is that there were people that did retire early and knew they'd get the pension at 65 instead of 60 and now are hoping for some extra free cash.

They did not get individually notified. That is the whole point.

 

[sherlock]

It was moved back in the sense their retirement moved from 60 to 65. They had an additional 5 years to wait (and plan).

No it wasn't. 1995 they had the notification. I'm not sure there's going to be any sympathy for anyone that chose to retire in their 50s without looking up the date they'd get their pension. If they were savvy enough to plan to retire that early then they will almost certainly have known when they'd get their pension.

What is likely is that there were people that did retire early and knew they'd get the pension at 65 instead of 60 and now are hoping for some extra free cash.

You seem very bitter about this, why does it bother you so much?

 

[Scrote]

It wasn’t changed to immediate, it was still a phased increase but over 8 years instead of 10.

The additional year to 66 was a change that affected men and women alike.

You're right. I misread. The date was brought forwards from 2020 to 2018.

They had an additional 5 years to wait (and plan).

I'm not sure why you aren't able to understand that they had planned things already. It's those plans that were wrecked.

If your boss just decided to defer your wages for a few months how would you pay your mortgage? You plan your finances (and life) around certain key pieces of information. even small, unexpected changes can have catastrophic effects in some circumstances.

Suggesting that increasing the pension age is some sort of bonus is ridiculous.

 

[Trug]

Oh, I'm loving that - bringing unfairness to males into a discussion.

Women have put up with shocking treatment for 000's of years - no rights, no votes, et al

Bloke on message board gets a bit angsty cos men had to work a bit longer than women to get a pension

And as for them not knowing - I don’t believe that. said Since 1973
Well my wife didn't know, she wasn't told and has never seen a letter informing her. There are millions like my wife

 

[WilliamMunny]

And as for them not knowing - I don’t believe that. said Since 1973
Well my wife didn't know, she wasn't told and has never seen a letter informing her. There are millions like my wife

Don’t tell her that Trug, better off saying she is one in a million!

 

[Nano]

You're right. I misread. The date was brought forwards from 2020 to 2018.


I'm not sure why you aren't able to understand that they had planned things already. It's those plans that were wrecked.

If your boss just decided to defer your wages for a few months how would you pay your mortgage? You plan your finances (and life) around certain key pieces of information. even small, unexpected changes can have catastrophic effects in some circumstances.

Suggesting that increasing the pension age is some sort of bonus is ridiculous.

I do understand but it's not the same at all.
If you haven't retired yet and you have to work longer then you haven't lost anything because you keep working. I fully understand that it changes plans but that happens. My pension has been changed multiple times since I started working so I have had to adjust my plans. It's not as good as previous generations have had it but it is what it is.

It's not a bonus, it is worse to retire later but it is not deserving of compensation.

You seem very bitter about this, why does it bother you so much?

I'm not bitter about it at all. I just don't agree that there was anything wrong with them bringing the retirement age in line. To do that there has to be someone who is the first person to be affected and I get that they think it's unfair because they have just missed out but the phased approach was better than just setting a date and changing it for everyone.

And as for them not knowing - I don’t believe that. said Since 1973
Well my wife didn't know, she wasn't told and has never seen a letter informing her. There are millions like my wife

We don't get told individually about everything. There is personal responsibility. I don't believe 25 years notice isn't enough and ignorance is a terrible excuse. Why did she think she was supposed to retire at 60? I bet she never received anything informing her of that either.

 

[Trug]

I do understand but it's not the same at all.
If you haven't retired yet and you have to work longer then you haven't lost anything because you keep working. I fully understand that it changes plans but that happens. My pension has been changed multiple times since I started working so I have had to adjust my plans. It's not as good as previous generations have had it but it is what it is.

It's not a bonus, it is worse to retire later but it is not deserving of compensation.


I'm not bitter about it at all. I just don't agree that there was anything wrong with them bringing the retirement age in line. To do that there has to be someone who is the first person to be affected and I get that they think it's unfair because they have just missed out but the phased approach was better than just setting a date and changing it for everyone.


We don't get told individually about everything. There is personal responsibility. I don't believe 25 years notice isn't enough and ignorance is a terrible excuse. Why did she think she was supposed to retire at 60? I bet she never received anything informing her of that either.

We don't get told individually about everything. There is personal responsibility. I don't believe 25 years notice isn't enough and ignorance is a terrible excuse. Why did she think she was supposed to retire at 60? I bet she never received anything informing her of that either.

She was told when she left school at age 15 when her retirement age was going to be., as all kids in her year were. (and indeed, I was told the same about my retirement age when I left school at age 15).She has no interest in politics and she couldn't even tell you who the prime minister is or even what a political party is never mind what party is in power. Women had been suppressed and always have been and still are. There are millions of women like her.

 

[Nano]

We don't get told individually about everything. There is personal responsibility. I don't believe 25 years notice isn't enough and ignorance is a terrible excuse. Why did she think she was supposed to retire at 60? I bet she never received anything informing her of that either.

She was told when she left school at age 15 when her retirement age was going to be., as all kids in her year were. (and indeed, I was told the same about my retirement age when I left school at age 15).She has no interest in politics and she couldn't even tell you who the prime minister is or even what a political party is never mind what party is in power. Women had been suppressed and always have been and still are. There are millions of women like her.

Could you not have told her?

I'm sorry but I don't believe anyone could be so ignorant of the world we live in that they don't even know who the prime minister is and they spent 45 years clinging to a letter (which I see no evidence existed) without realising things might change. I know she's your wife and you know her better than me but it sounds like a very sexist way to view all women as ignorant and incompetent.

People make out that this group of people are hard done by old ladies who don't know better but they were 35-45 when this legislation was passed. Prime of their adult lives. It was all over the news and media, on the TV etc for the next 15 years.