On 30 November 2018 a campaign group called Backto60 won the right to a Judicial Review of the Government’s handling of a rise in their state pension age from 60 to 65.
The group argue that women born in the 1950s have been disadvantaged by the increase of their state pension age from 60 to 65. In addition, they argue that they were not appropriately notified about the change.
The DWP has resisted calls to compensate for the change and dispute the call for the Judicial Review.
On 23 November, Djuna Thurley and Richard Keen published a House of Commons Briefing Paper, Number CBP-7405, on the same subject.
This document is extensive, running to 60 pages, but in the summary the document states:
The Government argues that the changes in the 2011 Act were debated at length and a decision made by Parliament, as part of which a concession was made to limit the impact on those most affected. It says it will “make no further changes to the pension age or pay financial redress in lieu of a pension.”
This clearly shows the stance of the Government on this subject.
This is clearly an area of concern for many women reaching a state pension age that has moved without their knowledge. The issues are if the Government should have done more to make them aware of the change and if in fact the change was discriminatory in the first place. We will have to await the outcome of the Judicial Review to establish what will happen next.
Please note that this document was prepared by a third party and as such Brewin Dolphin is not responsible for the content or able to answer queries on the topics dealt with. While we believe it to be correct at the time of writing, Brewin Dolphin is not a tax adviser and tax law is subject to frequent change. Therefore you should not rely on this information without seeking professional advice from a qualified tax adviser, who should also be able to assist you with any questions on the content.
This document was prepared as a general guide only and does not constitute tax or legal advice.