The campaigners have filed for a judicial review of the DWP’s decision in hopes they could still secure compensation
As the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign continues its fight for Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) compensation, a legal expert has suggested that an often-overlooked factor could bolster their case. The WASPI campaigners have lodged an application for a judicial review of the DWP’s decision not to award compensation.
This follows a recommendation from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that payouts ranging from £1,000 to £2,950 should be made. Both sides’ legal teams have submitted their initial documents outlining their respective positions, with the high court now set to decide whether to hear the case.
The WASPI women argue that they, along with other women born in the 1950s, were inadequately informed about the increase in their state pension age from 60 to 65 and then 66. Many claim they were unaware of this significant change, which disrupted their retirement plans.
An investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found ‘maladministration’ in the DWP’s attempts to notify the women of the change, suggesting that a crucial letter about the alteration should have been sent earlier. However, the Labour Government announced at the end of last year that there would be no compensation for the women, arguing that most were aware of the change and that sending letters earlier would have had little impact.
As WASPI’s latest legal challenge progresses, some legal experts believe they stand a good chance of overturning the DWP’s decision and potentially securing compensation. John Beck, an attorney and founding partner at Beck & Beck Missouri Car Accident Lawyers, has highlighted a crucial aspect of the WASPI dispute that could tip the scales in their favour.
He elaborated: “WASPI’s judicial review filing looks slender on traditional public law grounds – Parliament lawfully amended the state pension age. But it has one route that British commentators sometimes underplay: procedural fairness.
“If the campaign can show the DWP treated 1950s‐born women differently from every other group it notified about pension changes, a judge may decide the process itself was so uneven it breached legitimate‐expectation principles.” The legal expert such a finding could compel Government ministers “back to the table to design a remedy”.
He also said that Labour may alter its stance and offer compensation due to political convenience rather than legal precedent. Mr Beck explained: “Offering a capped, means‐tested settlement to WASPI claimants could defuse a noisy demographic ahead of an election while still costing far less than a drawn‐out court defeat plus interest.
“I have watched similar calculus push US states to settle highway‐accident class actions they swore they would fight forever.” Mr Beck thinks that the high court will consider the case based on the argument of procedural fairness, although the outcome remains uncertain.
However, he said that there are other factors that may lead Labour to reconsider its stance: “The very prospect of judicial censure, reputational damage, and electoral fallout gives the women real leverage for a negotiated compensation package-something the Government once insisted was off the table.”
WASPI’s public crowdfunding effort for the judicial review has amassed more than £187,000 to date. The activists are seeking a costs capping order to limit their expenses to cover the DWP’s legal fees in case they don’t win.
