How the fight for women’s pension pay turned toxic
A challenge to the rise in pension age has been thrown out of court. Now fundraisers are clashing over whether this costly battle should go on . . .
ON the eve of last week’s crucial judgment on women’s state pensions, the Backto60 campaign declared ‘full restitution’ was on its way.
thousands of women left poorer by the rise in their state pension age had invested their hopes and their money in a court victory that could see them receive their state pension backdated to the age of 60.
hours later, a crushing blow was delivered as judges unanimously dismissed their legal challenge.
there is no doubt 1950s-born women were badly treated by successive governments over the state pension age hike. And many rightly still feel a burning injustice. But now, after its resounding defeat in court, Backto60 is facing questions about its aggressive demands and how it spent supporters’ money.
the campaign group’s fight for full payment of their pension won support from thousands of women. Indeed, few would argue its moral cause was not just. Little wonder it has so far raised more than £230,000.
Last week’s Court of Appeal judgment dismissed complaints of age and sex discrimination, but also underscored fundamental problems with the legal case.
Yet Backto60 is still determined to appeal to the Supreme Court, in a move that would cost supporters tens of thousands of pounds more.
In a Youtube video posted last week, campaign director Joanne Welch hit out at the judgment.
She said: ‘We are strong and will never retreat.’
‘WASTE OF MONEY’
BACKtO60 raised more than £81,000 to take its challenge to the Court of Appeal after its defeat at the high Court last year. A message on the Crowdfunder website read: ‘Our track record is exemplary: each time we have raised funds, we have delivered everything we promised and more. With your support, the win will be secured.’
But last week’s judgment laid bare that ‘full restitution’ was never a possible outcome of the costly court case — even if Backto60 had won. the judges also ruled that the Government had no legal obligation to let women born in the 1950s know their pension age was rising.
Furthermore, the court said the legal action was launched more than 20 years too late for it to have any power to award compensation.
Pension lawyer Jennie Kreser, former legal director at the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, told Money Mail: ‘ the Backto60 campaign was never ever going to succeed. Some very vulnerable women contributed as they felt hard done by. It was just a complete waste of their money.’
ASKING TOO MUCH?
CRITICS fear Backto60’s unwillingness to accept ‘crumbs’, or anything other than ‘full restitution’, has done more harm than good.
Baroness Altmann, a former pensions minister (see her opinion, right), says: ‘Maybe I would have been able to make some progress on helping those in hardship, but they [Backto60] made it clear they weren’t going to accept that.
‘I would not recommend anybody to put money in to take this case up to the Supreme Court. even if they win, it’s not a victory that will give them their pensions back to the age of 60. It’s misleading to say it is a possibility, especially in the light of this strong clear verdict.’
the Government has estimated Backto60’s demand to reverse the pension age increase for women would cost at least £200 billion.
Pensioner Judith Bywater, 66, says she was blocked from the Backto60 Facebook group for disagreeing with its militant approach.
She says: ‘they have let the Government off the hook. they have stopped any reasonable debate on the subject with their greed.’
A CAUSE DIVIDED
ANOTHER group opposed to the way the Government handled the rise in state pension age is Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality). Waspi had sought legal advice about the prospect of winning in court, but was advised to focus on political lobbying and asking the ombudsman to investigate fears women affected were not effectively warned of the hike in their state pension age.
As a result, the group concentrated its efforts on complaints to the Parliamentary and health Service Ombudsman on grounds of maladministration. But the investigation had to be put on hold when Backto60 launched its legal action.
Pensions consultant John Ralfe says: ‘What [Backto60] have always been after is utterly bonkers politically and legally. Waspi were a little more circumspect and realistic. they have been completely overwhelmed by Backto60.’
SPENDING QUERIES
FORMER supporters who donated to the Backto60 cause also now complain they are being silenced when they ask about strategy and spending. One woman who donated said she was ‘excommunicated’ — removed from the Backto60 Facebook group and blocked on twitter — after asking questions. the 61-year- old, from the east Midlands, says: ‘I have been asking on the site where our money has been spent and how much is left. I’ve been told it is not my concern. But it is.’
Another former supporter says she was blocked after donating £25. She says: ‘they are really toxic.’
Liz Morris, 66, donated £30 for the Judicial Review, but was blocked on twitter and Facebook after asking for information on spending. She says: ‘they are asking for more and more money, but it’s never been transparent.
‘ Backto60 has done more harm than good. Perhaps by now we could have had something for somebody.’
Kay Clarke, cofounder of the 1950s Women of Wales support group, says she has also been blocked by Backto60 online.
the 65- year- old, who donated £25 to the Judicial Review, says: ‘A lot of
followers think they are going to get every penny back. I subsequently found out this is not true and am very disappointed they have wasted so much of our precious time at our age.’ Margaret rimington started the original petition to the Government to reverse the state pension back to 60 for women. She wrote on Twitter: ‘ I’m not happy about the way Backto60 has gone. It was a great group when I and others were moderators. ‘To block anyone who has donated is a disgrace in my opinion. I was even blocked myself for asking to reduce the hours the moderators were working.’ Waspi raised money for legal fees using CrowdJustice — a site that ring-fences donations so they can only be spent on legal fees whereas Backto60 used Crowdfunder, which passes the donations directly to the fundraiser — after taking a 3 pc fee.
Academic and public health expert Allyson Pollock has reported Backto60 to Crowdfunder after being used, without her permission she says, in a campaign to raise money for a documentary about the women’s plight. She adds: ‘It appears there is no record or accounts as to how funds have been spent.’
A Crowdfunder spokesman says: ‘our terms and conditions clearly set out that the agreement to support a project is between project owner and backer. And, whilst we always encourage projects to clearly state what they will do with the money they raise for the project, we do not promise a project owner will do as they say on their crowdfunding page. In practice however, we have very few examples of successful projects knowingly not delivering on their project aims.’
. . . BUT FIGHTING ON
BACKTo60 campaign director Joanne Welch told Money Mail she’d still go to the Supreme Court, adding: ‘ Crumbs are not acceptable.’ When asked about whether supporters might have been misled into believing the court case could bring full restitution, she said: ‘We have a righteous cause and everything we do, we do with a clear conscience. Everything we have crowdfunded for, every promise, we have kept. These people who think they know better than a world- class legal team — sorry they don’t.’
But Mrs Welch hung up before we could put any more questions to her. She did not did not respond when sent questions asking for information on spending and if she had taken a salary from donations.
The legal case was first launched by Julie Delve and Karen Glynn, but was supported by Backto60. After losing the Judicial review the two women were each ordered to pay costs of £10,000 each. The Court of Appeal loss will cost them no more than £50,000 extra.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman says: ‘ The Government decided 25 years ago that it was going to make the State Pension age the same for men and women as a long- overdue move towards gender equality.’