The Ombudsman previously said the WASPI women should get up to £3,000 each
The WASPI campaign (Women Against State Pension Inequality) has provided a fresh update on their fight for DWP compensation. The group suffered a key setback recently when the DWP confirmed it would not be offering compensation.
This marked the second occasion the Labour Government has issued a statement on the matter. Ministers initially declared in December 2024 that no compensation would be forthcoming, but WASPI successfully secured a judicial review of that decision. The campaigners were scheduled to appear in court in December 2025, but ministers withdrew the decision at the eleventh hour, stating they would reconsider it based on new evidence. Legal representatives for the DWP then agreed to an out-of-court settlement, forking out £120,000 to cover WASPI’s legal expenses.
This prompts questions about whether WASPI will mount another judicial review challenge against the latest decision. In an update, WASPI said: “Since our last update, WASPI’s legal team have undertaken a careful line by line scrutiny of the Government’s new decision and the barrister team has been fully briefed; we will meet with them in the coming days.
“We will update you on our next steps once we have received their advice.” The WASPI campaign is among several organisations who represent women born in the 1950s, who were affected when the state pension age for women rose from 60 to 65 and subsequently to 66. Campaigners argue the women weren’t adequately notified about the alterations, and the DWP ought to have communicated the changes earlier.
A prior inquiry by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded there was ‘maladministration’ by the DWP, as they should have issued letters to the affected women much sooner. The watchdog proposed compensation payments to the women ranging between £1,000 and £2,950.
Government response
Labour has acknowledged this finding of maladministration, but decided against offering financial compensation. In setting out the second decision, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden informed MPs: “The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide range of public information, including through leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, on TV, radio, cinema and online.
“To specifically compensate only those women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women.”
Key lessons from the WASPI controversy
Grace Hardy, tax accountant at Hardy Accounting, highlighted several crucial takeaways from the WASPI situation. She said: “The overarching lesson is that the UK tax and benefits system is genuinely complex, changes frequently, and does not reliably notify those affected by changes.
“Treating your own financial position as something to actively and periodically review rather than something that will look after itself is probably the most valuable single habit anyone can develop.” She encouraged people not to presume that existing regulations will remain unchanged moving forward.
The accountant said: “Pension ages, tax thresholds, allowances and benefit rules are all subject to change. Any plan that depends entirely on current rules holding indefinitely is fragile.”
This word of advice is very topical, as the state pension age will soon be rising again. The eligibility age currently stands at 66 for both men and women and will increase gradually from April 2026, reaching 67 by April 2028.
Ms Hardy identified some other financial matters worth monitoring. She said: “Know what applies to you specifically. General media coverage tells you the average or headline rules.
“But your state pension age, your National Insurance record, your specific tax position, your pension entitlements these are individual. Use the Government Gateway to check your state pension forecast and National Insurance record.”
She also recommended seeking independent financial guidance on major decisions, including consolidating pensions, drawing down from defined benefit schemes, and inheritance planning. Ms Hardy said: “These are areas where mistakes are costly and often irreversible.”
