Backto60 case dismissed by Supreme Court, but WASPI Gloucestershire now pins its hopes on Ombudsman However, it`s important to be clear from the start, and as we said in our initial statement on CrowdJustice, that despite the extraordinary response we`ve received to this call from CrowdJustice, more donations will likely need to be collected in the future. to follow a file until it is closed if we have discussed the issues with the DWP before. The trial was the last hope for “full reparation” for what women call discrimination in the way the retirement age was set between men and women. There are many examples on www.waspi.co.uk of how the dramatic inability to communicate and engage with women has impacted women`s lives, leaving some in real poverty, dependent on food banks and the generosity of others. Others are forced to have their carefully saved retirement nest disappear while waiting for retirement and face the prospect of a severely underfunded retirement without being able to rely on their savings in an emergency. An earlier investigation into Webb`s freedom of information found that in 2019, the DWP discovered it was making mistakes in such cases and that a corrective exercise had begun. But the former minister says he has heard many times about women being falsely told they are not entitled to a pension. The Supreme Court denied the Backto60 campaign leave to appeal the decision, which rejected its claim that raising the retirement age for women born in the 1950s was discriminatory. Two plaintiffs, supported by Backto60, argued that aligning the legal retirement age for women born in the 1950s “unlawfully discriminates against them on the basis of age, sex and age and gender combined.” The Supreme Court sided with the government in October 2019, after which the campaign was allowed to appeal. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the High Court case and unanimously dismissed Backto`s appeal60. Subsequently, the campaign appealed to the Supreme Court, but was denied leave to appeal. The Supreme Court said it dismissed the organization`s appeal because it did not file the lawsuit within the time limit. The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaigned on the same issue as Backto60, although they argued that it was not about the illegality of the state`s increase in the retirement age, but about how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communicated the changes.
The Waspi management team commented: “Waspi will continue its efforts to obtain compensation for all women of the 1950s affected by the change in our legal retirement age.” While we are aware that raising the retirement age was not illegal, we continue to pursue our maladministration complaints about how the DWP failed to communicate these changes. The effects of this miscommunication will be detrimental to the Waspi women for the rest of their lives. “Our campaign continues, marked by the setbacks we have had to overcome since 2015, but determined to see it through.” The BackTo60 movement had campaigned for the 3.8 million women affected by the proposed increase in the statutory retirement age to receive the amount of pension they would have received if the statutory retirement age had been maintained at 60. In the 1995 Pension Act, the Government initially set a timetable for bringing the retirement age of women into line with that of men. In the 2011 Pension Act, the government accelerated this increase to complete by 2020. However, some of the affected women experienced a further increase when the government raised the statutory retirement age for both sexes to 66. The government had previously estimated the cost of reversing the change in the retirement age for women at £181.4 billion by 2025/26. “These women have been waiting for compensation for many years. We cannot wait any longer. We call on the government to agree on fair and appropriate compensation instead of allowing the vicious cycle of government inaction to continue.
Activists have confirmed they will appeal the decision, and a crowdfunder has been set up to support the possible appeal. The challenge facing activists (if an appeal is allowed) will be to convince the Court of Appeal that the government`s actions in passing the laws were discriminatory and did not fall within the discretion granted to Parliament to pass laws. If the appeal is successful, the judges of the Court of Appeal may make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1997, resulting in a change in the legislation. They may also make use of their powers of interpretation under article 3 of the Criminal Code to award compensation to the persons concerned. However, the barrier to successful judicial review is extremely high, and even recent successful cases such as R (Johnson et al.) and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[6] have failed to succeed due to discrimination. Other previous cases, such as R (at the request of the Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v. Mayor Of London,[7] have shown that the Court seeks to recognise the democratic legitimacy of laws passed by Parliament in relation to allegations of discrimination under Article 14. Thank you for your support of WASPI. We can now tell you more about the status of our legal challenge. Things have taken a frustrating amount of time, with delays we haven`t caused, but we and Bindmans continue to do everything we can to make sure we move as quickly as the legal system allows, and to make sure we get the best possible outcome for all WASPI women. Susan Beevers, WASPI`s Legal Director, commented: “This is reinforced by the fact that in Phase 4 of the DWP complaint process, women are advised to respond to their case manager within 10 days. As you will understand, this in itself is a problem for many women.
This is all the more frustrating because in the same letter asking us to respond quickly, we are also told that AIC is only now investigating the cases they reached in April and May 2016 – a one-year backlog! “In some cases, women have been told they are not eligible if the correct figure is above £4,000 a year,” Webb says. “What worries me most is the number of other women who simply trusted what the DWP told them and are now struggling to get by without the pension to which they are rightfully entitled.” As a first step, we will examine whether there have been abuses in the DWP`s communication on changes in the retirement age for women. Maladministration occurs when an organization does something wrong or provides poor services. We will look at what DWP should have done to communicate changes in women`s retirement age, and if so. Hilary Simpson, Director of WASPI Gloucestershire, said: “Although the BackTo60 case and the Ombudsman`s inquiry looked at separate issues, women in the 1950s now hope that the Ombudsman`s findings on maladministration will be published as soon as possible.” Our initial focus will be to obtain advice on judicial review, alongside the preparation of documents to assist in dealing with maladministration complaints. Our ambitious goal will mark the beginning of funding that will allow us to enter into legal correspondence with DWP and pursue legal challenges identified by the legal advice we seek. We will probably have to look for other ways to pursue a case until it is closed if we cannot resolve the matter with the DWP in advance.