The DWP has said it will make a new decision on whether or not to provide compensation to 1950s-born women affected by state pension age increases
The WASPI campaign has revealed how it will respond to the DWP’s forthcoming decision on compensation. The department announced at the close of 2024 that no financial redress would be offered to 1950s-born women, championed by WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) alongside other advocacy organisations.
WASPI, however, rejected this conclusion outright, launching an application for judicial review scheduled for December 2025. Facing the possibility of the high court deeming its decision unlawful, the DWP reversed course late last year, citing fresh evidence requiring examination.
Legal representatives from the DWP subsequently entered discussions with WASPI’s team, reaching a settlement outside the courtroom. The agreement included a £180,000 contribution towards WASPI’s legal expenses and a ministerial commitment to deliver a fresh determination within a three-month window, reports Leicestershire Live.
‘We will look at his reasoning’
When questioned about its criteria for potentially mounting another high court challenge against the updated decision, WASPI campaign chair Angela Madden explained: “Any legal action will need to be based on the foundation of the decision being unlawful.
“So when Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden updates the house on his decision we will have to look at his reasoning.”
WASPI maintains the DWP failed to adequately notify the cohort of 1950s-born women that their state pension age would rise from 60 to 65, subsequently reaching 66. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) previously investigated the matter, concluding there was ‘maladministration’ by the DWP.
In a 2023 report, the watchdog determined the Government ought to have sent letters to the women sooner, and recommended compensation payments between £1,000 and £2,950.
In its earlier ruling, the DWP acknowledged the maladministration but fell short of adopting the compensation recommendation. Ahead of the DWP’s forthcoming decision, Ms Madden said: “Obviously the decision most palatable to us will be the Ombudsman got it right based on the six test cases he considered.”
MPs divided over WASPI compensation
The compensation question has created divisions amongst Westminster MPs, with many individual parliamentarians championing different levels of redress. Certain political parties have maintained consistent support for the campaign throughout the years, including the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and the SNP.
Nevertheless, some politicians have contended the women should not be entitled to any compensation. Other MPs have put forward a means-tested approach, whereby more affluent pensioners would receive reduced payments.
Angela Madden tackled questions about why affluent pensioners deserve compensation, making it crystal clear: “Because they have suffered injustice.”
She broke it down: “As with any wrongdoing there needs to be blame – the DWP have accepted maladministration; and injury – the Ombudsman found that we had lost the opportunity to make the right decisions about our retirement because we had the wrong information = grounds for a claim.”
The campaign chair put it bluntly: “Wealth or poverty doesn’t come into it.”
Following the out-of-court settlement, the DWP’s fresh decision is expected to be made public by early March.
