The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has agreed with campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality to reconsider a report into how the government communicated increases to women’s state pension age to 1950s-born women. A report on possible compensation for the affected women could be rewritten as a result. 

 

The settlement comes after Waspi launched a Crowdjustice appeal in February to fund a judicial review against the PHSO, saying there were inconsistencies in the ombudsman’s investigation. The appeal had an initial target of £100,000 and has to date raised more than £125,000. 

 

 

Waspi’s chair Angela Madden called the settlement “a real milestone on our very long journey to justice”. 

 

Describing the PHSO’s Stage 2 conclusions as “irrational”, she added: “We are delighted that [ombudsman Rob Behrens] has conceded on all the material points in our legal argument and will now reconsider his findings.” 

 

The concession is down to the substantial funding the Crowdjustice appeal has seen, Madden noted. 

  

With a general election due by January 2025, she called on political parties to commit to compensation for Waspi women in their manifestos.  

 

“With one of our number dying every 13 minutes, there’s not a second to waste in recognising the financial loss, hardship and trauma DWP’s incompetence has caused,” she added. 

 

A spokesperson for the PHSO said: “We are confident that we have completed a fair and impartial investigation. As an independent Ombudsman, our duty is to provide the right outcome for all involved and make sure justice is achieved. Given the legal challenge brought against us, we have agreed to look again at part of our stage 2 report. We hope this cooperative approach will provide the quickest route to remedy for those affected and reduce the delay to the publication of our final report.” 

 

 

PHSO produced a first report in July 2021 into how women’s state pension age changes were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, finding maladministration. In its second report, it argued that this maladministration “did not lead to all the injustices claimed”.  

 

The group said the ombudsman argued that none of the sample complainants had suffered injustice in the form of financial losses or loss of opportunities because of DWP maladministration, despite some giving up their jobs years earlier than they would have done otherwise. 

 

Waspi’s complaints centre primarily on the timeline of when the Department for Work and Pensions should have sent letters to raise awareness among affected women according to PHSO, and how the ombudsman then used this figure for its calculations.  

 

In the first report, PHSO concluded that 1950s-born women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes.   

 

In its second report, the PHSO then decided to assess the DWP communications on the premise that each woman affected would have received a letter notifying her of changes to her state retirement age 28 months earlier than it did. In the case of women who never received a letter, PHSO calculated the 28 months by reference to the dates women in similar circumstances received such letters. Waspi argues that this fails to take into account several pauses to the communications programme by the DWP. 

 

The PHSO has now accepted its approach to calculating injustice failed sufficiently to consider the potential effect of the pause periods. Depending on the outcome of PHSO revisiting its second report, it could also update a draft report on compensation for the affected women. 

   

The PHSO awards compensation according to a ‘severity of injustice’ scale with six levels, where levels 2 and 3 obtain a few hundred pounds in compensation, level 4 up to £2,950, and level 5 up to £9,950. Level six, compensated at £10,000 or more, would need to involve “profound, devastating or irreversible impacts on the person affected” and “circumstances where a reduced quality of life has been endured for a considerable period”.    

 
The ombudsman previously said that the High Court deciding against full reinstatement of pensions from age 60 for affected women means it cannot recommend this. 

 

   

Has the level of financial support for the Waspi challenge taken the PHSO and/or government by surprise?