Waspi files judicial review claim
Image: Serenity Images23/Shutterstock
Pardon the Interruption
This article is just an example of the content available to mallowstreet members.
On average over 150 pieces of new content are published from across the industry per month on mallowstreet. Members get access to the latest developments, industry views and a range of in-depth research.
All the content on mallowstreet is accredited for CPD by the PMI and is available to trustees for free.
Campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality has filed for a judicial review of the government’s decision not to compensate women for maladministration in how their state pension age was communicated. In the meantime, the pensions minister has responded to a letter by the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Waspi issued its claim for a judicial review on 14 March. The government can now file its summary legal arguments in response, before a judge decides whether to permit the claim. If it is permitted, and if Waspi wins, the government would need to reconsider its decision not to pay compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 each for maladministration to 1950s-born women, as recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, costing taxpayers up to £10.5bn. However, a ruling in favour of Waspi would not mean the government would be required to pay any compensation.
The court filing follows a letter before action to the DWP last month, with the government responding on 10 March. Waspi said the government did not agree to publishing the response.
In rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendation to compensate women for receiving the Department for Work and Pensions’ letters too late, the government relies on two surveys. One suggests most people do not remember DWP letters, with the department saying that therefore sending them earlier would have made no difference to women’s awareness of the state pension age changes. The other survey suggested most respondents were expecting women’s state pension age to change in the future.
The DWP does not comment on live litigation, but a spokesperson said: “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. The government cannot justify paying for a £10.5bn compensation scheme at the expense of the taxpayer.”
Waspi issued its claim for a judicial review on 14 March. The government can now file its summary legal arguments in response, before a judge decides whether to permit the claim. If it is permitted, and if Waspi wins, the government would need to reconsider its decision not to pay compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 each for maladministration to 1950s-born women, as recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, costing taxpayers up to £10.5bn. However, a ruling in favour of Waspi would not mean the government would be required to pay any compensation.
The court filing follows a letter before action to the DWP last month, with the government responding on 10 March. Waspi said the government did not agree to publishing the response.
In rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendation to compensate women for receiving the Department for Work and Pensions’ letters too late, the government relies on two surveys. One suggests most people do not remember DWP letters, with the department saying that therefore sending them earlier would have made no difference to women’s awareness of the state pension age changes. The other survey suggested most respondents were expecting women’s state pension age to change in the future.
The DWP does not comment on live litigation, but a spokesperson said: “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. The government cannot justify paying for a £10.5bn compensation scheme at the expense of the taxpayer.”
Angela Madden, who chairs Waspi, said in her witness statement: “It is our members’ experience that they certainly would have read, remembered and engaged with letters concerning their SPa, had they received them. Many women have told us that the moment of receiving their individualised letters from the DWP was a very significant moment in their lives, when they realised they had made retirement and other plans on the basis of incomplete and incorrect information and that they would be far worse off than they had anticipated.”
Waspi points to a 2008 case, R (Bradley & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors, which was brought by members of the campaign group’s legal team. In this, the court had to deal with the relationship between government and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, ruling that where the work and pensions secretary rejects the ombudsman’s findings in favour of their own view, they must have a reason.
Waspi is crowdfunding its legal action and on Monday was just £750 short of the £180,000 target it had set. It will ask the court to grant it a cost-capping order, saying: “We cannot know how much the government is prepared to spend on its lawyers to defend its decision-making, but it is likely to be near to, or possibly even more than, the amount we are realistically able to raise through CrowdJustice.”
A cost capping order would limit the legal costs the winning party can recover from the losing party.
Waspi points to a 2008 case, R (Bradley & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors, which was brought by members of the campaign group’s legal team. In this, the court had to deal with the relationship between government and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, ruling that where the work and pensions secretary rejects the ombudsman’s findings in favour of their own view, they must have a reason.
Waspi is crowdfunding its legal action and on Monday was just £750 short of the £180,000 target it had set. It will ask the court to grant it a cost-capping order, saying: “We cannot know how much the government is prepared to spend on its lawyers to defend its decision-making, but it is likely to be near to, or possibly even more than, the amount we are realistically able to raise through CrowdJustice.”
A cost capping order would limit the legal costs the winning party can recover from the losing party.
Pensions minister replies to select committee chair
While the respective lawyers are preparing their arguments for a potential hearing, on 24 March, pensions minister Torsten Bell replied to a letter from Debbie Abrahams MP saying his department had considered various ways of compensating the women. The select committee chair had asked work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall to share “details of the compensation schemes you considered before making your statement in December and why particular schemes were not felt to be feasible or appropriate”.
In the reply, Bell pointed to the government’s response to the PHSO investigation, which lists the government’s arguments, including that the government is not legally obliged to notify those affected of a change in their state pension age.
As for compensation schemes, the government said the options of ‘blanket payments’ and self-certification would both involve “significant levels of unjustified payments”, which would be inconsistent with Managing Public Money principles.
