|
Post by franklin on Mar 22, 2024 16:28:51 GMT
I knew about the change in the law at the time it was passed in 1995, and I was a 15 year old boy! The claims of maladministration may be legally correct but I don't have much sympathy, to be honest. I'm not sure myself how they can say they didn't know about the change either 🤔
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 22, 2024 16:31:42 GMT
I knew about the change in the law at the time it was passed in 1995, and I was a 15 year old boy! The claims of maladministration may be legally correct but I don't have much sympathy, to be honest. I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score!
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 22, 2024 16:34:53 GMT
I knew about the change in the law at the time it was passed in 1995, and I was a 15 year old boy! The claims of maladministration may be legally correct but I don't have much sympathy, to be honest. I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score! As I understand it, they probably won’t be compensated. The Ombudsman recommendations aren’t legally binding. Stand to be corrected on that. So they probably are looking for some public sympathy to pressure the Govt.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 22, 2024 16:35:19 GMT
I knew about the change in the law at the time it was passed in 1995, and I was a 15 year old boy! The claims of maladministration may be legally correct but I don't have much sympathy, to be honest. I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score! Moaning online is less hassle and more fun though 😆
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 22, 2024 16:40:16 GMT
I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score! Moaning online is less hassle and more fun though 😆 Indeed. I'm sure we both know folk who would forego a compensation payment in order to nurse an eternal sense of grievance.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2024 16:42:54 GMT
I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score! As I understand it, they probably won’t be compensated. The Ombudsman recommendations aren’t legally binding. Stand to be corrected on that. So they probably are looking for some public sympathy to pressure the Govt. Yes, I think so. The one thing politicians do know about the demographic of 'women of pensionable age' is that unlike the kids they do vote.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 22, 2024 16:47:05 GMT
It's a right mess the government have lost a challenge regarding changing Police pensions in 2015 on age discrimination grounds and are now having to contact retired officers and see if they owe them money too.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 22, 2024 16:48:28 GMT
I'm not sure they're asking for your sympathy. The ruling has gone in their favour. I wasn't overly sympathetic myself. However when you see Boris Johnson getting his legal fees paid by the taxpayer then any sense of grievance becomes fair game and so I do admire their collective will to get off their arses and do something about it and pursue a resolution. Makes a change from just moaning online. If you don't shoot you don't score! As I understand it, they probably won’t be compensated. The Ombudsman recommendations aren’t legally binding. Stand to be corrected on that. So they probably are looking for some public sympathy to pressure the Govt. They'll get paid eventually. Don't piss off the grey vote. Even Osborne in at the height of his Dickensian Austerity pomp understood that by preserving the 'Triple Lock'.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 22, 2024 17:09:45 GMT
As I understand it, they probably won’t be compensated. The Ombudsman recommendations aren’t legally binding. Stand to be corrected on that. So they probably are looking for some public sympathy to pressure the Govt. They'll get paid eventually. Don't piss off the grey vote. Even Osborne in at the height of his Dickensian Austerity pomp understood that by preserving the 'Triple Lock'. Corbyn (in 2019) had a plan to 'compensate'* them at a much higher level than the current proposals and that didn't work out too well. I tend to think (or hope) public opinion is moving away from endless handouts to the wealthier demographics but we'll see. Will anyone be brave to tell them they have to pay for social care? *bribe
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 22, 2024 17:14:02 GMT
They'll get paid eventually. Don't piss off the grey vote. Even Osborne in at the height of his Dickensian Austerity pomp understood that by preserving the 'Triple Lock'. Corbyn (in 2019) had a plan to 'compensate'* them at a much higher level than the current proposals and that didn't work out too well. I tend to think (or hope) public opinion is moving away from endless handouts to the wealthier demographics but we'll see. Will anyone be brave to tell them they have to pay for social care? *bribe To be fair I think there was a slightly bigger issue sloshing around the 2019 election. Thing is - if govt's got stuff right rather than collapsing under the weight of their own incompetence then compensation wouldn't need to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 22, 2024 17:25:48 GMT
It's a right mess the government have lost a challenge regarding changing Police pensions in 2015 on age discrimination grounds and are now having to contact retired officers and see if they owe them money too. Is this a relatively new twist? It allseems rather complex My understanding was the Government conceded it was discriminatory on age grounds and then the PFEW lost a Tribunal that they too discriminated on very similar grounds the WASPI women are claiming against DWP I've probably got it completely wrong
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 22, 2024 17:33:00 GMT
It's a right mess the government have lost a challenge regarding changing Police pensions in 2015 on age discrimination grounds and are now having to contact retired officers and see if they owe them money too. Is this a relatively new twist? It allseems rather complex My understanding was the Government conceded it was discriminatory on age grounds and then the PFEW lost a Tribunal that they too discriminated on very similar grounds the WASPI women are claiming against DWP I've probably got it completely wrong It certainly has a sting in the tale. Bye.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 22, 2024 17:35:43 GMT
Is this a relatively new twist? It allseems rather complex My understanding was the Government conceded it was discriminatory on age grounds and then the PFEW lost a Tribunal that they too discriminated on very similar grounds the WASPI women are claiming against DWP I've probably got it completely wrong It certainly has a sting in the tale. Bye. What sn odd person you are
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 22, 2024 17:37:51 GMT
It certainly has a sting in the tale. Bye. What sn odd person you are
Whoosh
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 22, 2024 18:21:55 GMT
It's a right mess the government have lost a challenge regarding changing Police pensions in 2015 on age discrimination grounds and are now having to contact retired officers and see if they owe them money too. Is this a relatively new twist? It allseems rather complex My understanding was the Government conceded it was discriminatory on age grounds and then the PFEW lost a Tribunal that they too discriminated on very similar grounds the WASPI women are claiming against DWP I've probably got it completely wrong I only found out a couple of weeks ago when I had some paperwork through. policepensioninfo.co.uk/#what-is-remedy
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Mar 24, 2024 11:13:25 GMT
Its a bit like us claiming compensation for at the earlier time having to work an extra 5 years while having a shorter life span. No it isn't
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 24, 2024 12:24:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 24, 2024 12:50:04 GMT
Even though many people are shit at personal responsibility, I expect there’s very few (single figures?) who genuinely didn’t know about the change.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 24, 2024 12:59:46 GMT
The Ombudsperson acknowledged that not all women were unaware or even if they were they may not have suffered financially It was a 5 year investigation and during that period they examined quite a number of cases of women who had complained to DWP to determine that a considerable number were both unaware and had suffered financially How would they go about examining nigh on 3M individual cases? The crux of the matter partially came down to the fact no changes had occurred for 50 years and therefore there was a duty on the DWP to advertise far beyond sending out some leaflets not even specifically targeted as those affected A large cohort of these women would have been married or in a relationship and their engagement with the workplace would have been intermittent due to caring duties of children or parents. Others had divorced and their settlements were based on retirement at 60. The bottom line for me is that I don't feel equipped to second guess the conclusions of an Ombudsperson who has spent 5 years investigating
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 24, 2024 13:30:23 GMT
The Ombudsperson acknowledged that not all women were unaware or even if they were they may not have suffered financially It was a 5 year investigation and during that period they examined quite a number of cases of women who had complained to DWP to determine that a considerable number were both unaware and had suffered financially How would they go about examining nigh on 3M individual cases? The crux of the matter partially came down to the fact no changes had occurred for 50 years and therefore there was a duty on the DWP to advertise far beyond sending out some leaflets not even specifically targeted as those affected A large cohort of these women would have been married or in a relationship and their engagement with the workplace would have been intermittent due to caring duties of children or parents. Others had divorced and their settlements were based on retirement at 60. The bottom line for me is that I don't feel equipped to second guess the conclusions of an Ombudsperson who has spent 5 years investigating There’s a difference between legality and common sense though, hence why there’s a million stupid warning packets on household items telling you not to stick plugs in various orifices. I don’t pay tax in the UK, so it doesn’t affect me one way or another how that money is spent. I’m still kind of shocked that someone approaching retirement didn’t reach out and speak to DWP (or a financial advisor) or anyone with more understanding of the situation to navigate the next step of their lives. It just seems blissfully ignorant and irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 24, 2024 13:48:54 GMT
Should the government pay compensation to the women who got their pension age equalised with men from 60 to 65 and rising? Eeh? Que? Compensation for what? Have you had different pension ages for men and women? Isn't that odd? If anything women should have a higher pension age if that's the case, since they in general live longer. In Sweden apart from the eventual private pension savings, we normally as individuals have three parts: the ordinary general pension plus the service pension you get as an employee and the premium pension which in fact is a part of the general pension but you decide where to put the money by yourself. The pension age have risen during recent years. It's still 65 for some, but 67 for large groups now. Already they're talking about putting it at 70-75 somewhere. The truth lies within the demographic stats, we have too many old people in our population now, so we can't afford to pay out all the supposed pensions. Changes have to be made. In Sweden you can take out your service pension from 55 even though you decide to work to 65, 67, 70 or even 75 (which is the limit an employer can't refuse you to work due to age). The general pension and premium pension will be available at 63. So basically you can take out your pension, still work, end working and get what's called a guarantee pension for the rest of your life. The guarantee pension is somewhat lower but then you often get a housing benefit payment as well and when you sum up the two I'd say it's still about 75-80% of what a normal pension is. The guarantee pension is supposed to be given to people with lower life income, due to sickness, staying at home raising children or low paid and volunteer work.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 24, 2024 14:17:43 GMT
The Ombudsperson acknowledged that not all women were unaware or even if they were they may not have suffered financially It was a 5 year investigation and during that period they examined quite a number of cases of women who had complained to DWP to determine that a considerable number were both unaware and had suffered financially How would they go about examining nigh on 3M individual cases? The crux of the matter partially came down to the fact no changes had occurred for 50 years and therefore there was a duty on the DWP to advertise far beyond sending out some leaflets not even specifically targeted as those affected A large cohort of these women would have been married or in a relationship and their engagement with the workplace would have been intermittent due to caring duties of children or parents. Others had divorced and their settlements were based on retirement at 60. The bottom line for me is that I don't feel equipped to second guess the conclusions of an Ombudsperson who has spent 5 years investigating There’s a difference between legality and common sense though, hence why there’s a million stupid warning packets on household items telling you not to stick plugs in various orifices. I don’t pay tax in the UK, so it doesn’t affect me one way or another how that money is spent. I’m still kind of shocked that someone approaching retirement didn’t reach out and speak to DWP (or a financial advisor) or anyone with more understanding of the situation to navigate the next step of their lives. It just seems blissfully ignorant and irresponsible. Civille I've seen how other threads go down a rabbit hole and I don't want to get locked into another. I don't think it's Black and White so therefore I partly agree with what your saying Threading carefully with my words I believe it was mentioned in Ombudsperson Report level of Education and Financial nouse, were factors, apologies to everyone if I'm wrong
You identify in your post what part of the problem was)is as calculating entitlement never mind the age is complicated now never mind then and you could only approach DWP close to when you expected to retire. This was very much part of the Ombudspersons criticism of DWP in that when they saw the first number of people born in 1950 applying for pension and not receiving on age grounds they did nothing about it even though they knew it was a problem
Look at the Government Website today about confusion on State Pension Entitlement, it'll make your hair curl
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 24, 2024 15:30:12 GMT
Equality It only seems to work one way
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 19:09:04 GMT
Equality It only seems to work one way Not if you do something about it
|
|