The DWP has defended its reasons for deciding not to compensate the WASPI women as campaigners call for a judicial review into the decision.
Labour ministers told Parliament at the end of 2024 that there would be no payouts for the WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) generation of 1950s-born women.
The women were affected when their state pension age jumped up from 60 to 65 and then to 66, with many unaware of the change.
An investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the DWP‘s efforts to inform the women of the change found there was ‘maladministration’, as a key letter should have been sent out sooner to warn the women, with the Ombudsman recommending payouts of between £1,000 and £2,950.
But the Government took a different view, arguing that most of the women knew of the change and that paying compensation would be a poor use of taxpayers’ money.
Now the WASPI campaigners have lodged a judicial review into the DWP‘s decision not to compensate, with an application lodged for the high court to consider taking up the case.
The DWP has now sent in its ‘summary grounds of resistance’, setting out its case for the legal review. The department said that while the Government accepted the Ombudsman’s finding of ‘maladministration’, it disagreed with the watchdog’s approach as to whether or not the women looked at in its investigation had suffered ‘injustice’.
The DWP also argued that the Ombudsman did not take account of research evidence about getting an unexpected letter, which indicated that only a quarter of people who get an unsolicited letter remember receiving it or reading it.
Presenting its reasoning, the department said: “The question whether an earlier letter would have had any effect on complainants’ state of knowledge was clearly material to the extent of any injustice they had suffered as a result of maladministration, when the identified maladministration was, precisely, the failure to send letters earlier.
“At the very least, the SSWP (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) was certainly entitled so to conclude. The SSWP consequently rejected the approach taken by the PHSO, which she considered assessed injustice on a false premise.”
The DWP has also disputed WASPI’s application for a costs capping order for the judicial review, which would limit the fees that WASPI would have to pay if it loses the case. You can read the DWP‘s summary grounds of resistance in full on the WASPI website.
A fundraiser for WASPI’s legal case has raised more than £185,000 to date. Reacting to the DWP setting out its position, WASPI said: “Our legal team are analysing what has been said and will prepare a detailed reply which we will publish in the next few days.
“The headlines are pretty much what we predicted in our last but one update. The gist is, ‘We are the Government, it’s for us to decide what to do about the Ombudsman’s report, we have been rational, so there’s nothing to see here, Judge, and don’t make a cost capping order as that’s unfair’.
“We are confident all of their points can be answered, and our case will get permission to proceed to a full judicial review hearing.”
A DWP spokesperson said previously: “We do not comment on live litigation. 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, we do not agree with the Ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy and that is why we have decided not to pay compensation.”
