Ministers reject Waspi compensation claims after new review

Ministers have also refused to pay compensation to women affected by changes to the state pension age, sparking anger from campaigners who say millions have been left in the dark about changes that have disrupted their retirement plans.

The government re-examined the matter after the previously unseen document came to light, but concluded that compensation was inappropriate and unaffordable. Campaigners say around 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed about the increase in the state pension age, which was the same as for men.

The organization Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) said the latest decision shows “great contempt” for those affected.

Angela Madden, chairman of Waspi, (pictured) said: “The government has been kicking the can down the road for months, but it has come to exactly the same conclusion it has been seeking.

The government says that most of the women involved knew that the pension age was increasing, citing campaigns for many years to inform the public through leaflets, GP surgeries, television, radio, cinemas and internet channels. However, many women say they experienced changes later in life, leaving them with no time to adjust their finances.

In 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman recommended compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 for the women affected, after finding mismanagement in the way the changes were passed. Although the Ombudsman can make recommendations, he cannot force the government to take action, and ministers have also rejected this proposal.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Pat McFadden said the government accepted that letters informing women of the changes “could have been sent sooner”, echoing an apology made earlier by Liz Kendall.

However, McFadden said ministers also agreed with the Ombudsman’s previous conclusion that the delay had not led to “direct financial loss”. He added that the evidence suggests that most women would not read an “unsolicited pension letter”, even if it arrived early, and that those who do not know anything about pensions are also less likely to engage in this correspondence.

The latest revision was prompted by the discovery of a 2007 survey that had not been shared with ministers during previous negotiations. McFadden said officials have since checked to see if any other important documents were overlooked.

In a statement, the government said the flat-rate compensation scheme could cost up to £10.3bn and would be unfair because it would apply to many women who have already known the changes. Additionally, individual target compensation cannot be managed.

Opposition politicians criticized the decision. Liberal Democrat and pensions spokesman Steve Darling said the women affected would feel “absolutely betrayed”.

“They were given false hope in the fall, and that hope has disappeared,” he said.

The renewed refusal is likely to increase pressure on ministers as campaigners warn it will not last and confidence in the pension system has been severely damaged.