4M WOMEN AND THE RETIREMENT AGE BETRAYAL
Outrage as judges dismiss claim they should have been told more clearly about pension age hike
MILLIONS of women are up to £ 50,000 out of pocket after judges rejected their appeal against ministers’ handling of the rise in their state pension age.
Yesterday’s ruling means up to 4 million women must keep working after their state pension age was shifted from 60 to 66.
Tearful protesters chanted ‘shame on you’ outside the High Court in London, after judges rejected claims the policy was discriminatory based on age – adding that even if it was, ‘it could be justified’.
The claimants said they were never informed about the plan to increase their state pension age, and found out they would have to carry on working for up to six more years just months before they were due to turn 60. Those affected have lost out on up to £50,000 each, with officials estimating that the cost of reversing the adjustment would cost more than £180 billion.
Two women – Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63 – brought the legal challenge, arguing that the changes were discriminatory on the grounds of age and sex, and that they were not given adequate notice. But two judges dismissed their claims on all grounds. After the ruling, the
claimants’ barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, said many women born in the 1950s were now ‘on the brink of survival’. Campaigners vowed to ‘fight on’ and said they were considering an appeal.
The age at which women can claim their state pension – £168.60 a week – used to be 60. But since 2011, it has been gradually increased, and in November last year it came level with the men’s pension age of 65 for the first time. By 2020, the qualifying age for both sexes will be 66.
Mr Mansfield said the Government had ‘pushed women who were already disadvantaged into the lowest class you can imagine’. He added: ‘They’re on the brink of survival, and I’m not overstating that.
‘This group – especially the percentage of the group affected born in 1953 onwards – are increasingly having taken away from them four to six years’ worth of state pension.
‘We’re dealing with very serious sums: £37,000 to £47,000. I think any citizen would be concerned by that withdrawal.’
Earlier this year, Money Mail revealed how the Government publicised the changes in a series of baffling newspaper and magazine advertisements, featuring dogs and Monopoly boards, that appeared in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
But judges Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple noted that the new pension laws did not include a provision to notify the affected women, and ministers were not legally required to do so.
Joanne Welch, of the BackTo60 campaign, which supported the claimants, said the ruling was ‘ridiculous’. She added: ‘They told people about the TV licence, but we don’t need to know about our pensions? It’s an egregious constitutional disregard not to tell anyone. No