Ministers will retake the government’s December 2024 decision to refuse compensation to women affected by state pension age changes, after material from 2007 about the effectiveness of pension forecast letters came to light. Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told MPs on 11 November that reviewing the decision does not commit the government to paying redress and confirmed the High Court has been notified.
Retaking a decision is a procedural step in administrative law: the original determination is set aside and remade in light of new evidence. McFadden said work starts immediately and he will update the Commons once conclusions are reached; no timetable has been set. The new evidence relates to research undertaken in 2007 on how pension information was received.
The December 2024 position remains the baseline being reconsidered. Then–Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall accepted the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration for a 28‑month delay in writing to affected women and apologised, but rejected compensation, arguing there was no evidence of direct financial loss and that a flat‑rate scheme would not be fair or proportionate to taxpayers.
The 2007 evaluation matters because ministers have previously argued unsolicited letters have limited impact. Government records and ministerial statements indicate that only around one in four people recall unrequested letters, with earlier mass mailings showing low recall and little effect on behaviour-evidence the department cited when rejecting a compensation scheme.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s final report in March 2024 concluded the Department for Work and Pensions committed maladministration in its communication between 2005 and 2007, and recommended payments on its Level 4 scale-£1,000 to £2,950 per woman-while emphasising the need for Parliament to ensure a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot compel payment.
Scale and cost have driven political contention. Campaigners say about 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed, while estimates based on the Ombudsman’s recommendation put a potential total bill at up to £10.5bn if applied to all eligible women. Ministers previously rejected that approach on cost and fairness grounds.
The WASPI campaign continues separate litigation. A judicial review of the government’s 2024 refusal is listed for 9–10 December 2025. The court has capped WASPI’s exposure to government legal costs, allowing the case to proceed without risking financial ruin, and the government has been informed of the retake to the court.
In parallel, some MPs have sought a legislative route. A Private Member’s Bill introduced on 5 March 2025 would require ministers to publish proposals for a compensation scheme covering women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960. Any eventual scheme would require parliamentary approval and funding.
The legal and policy context spans three Acts. The 1995 Pensions Act set equalisation of women’s pension age with men’s, phased from 2010 to 2020. The 2011 Pensions Act accelerated the timetable so women reached 65 by November 2018, with state pension age then rising to 66 by October 2020. These steps were justified by governments on longevity and affordability grounds.
Separately from any remedy question, the current State Pension age is 66 for men and women and is legislated to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. The Government Actuary has been commissioned as part of the statutory review process, but this does not affect whether compensation is paid.
Kendall’s 2024 response relied on awareness polling from the mid‑2000s indicating most women knew the age was changing; critics counter that departmental papers from 2006–2007 show many did not understand how changes applied to them specifically-supporting the case that delayed or unclear communications removed opportunities to plan.
Campaign positions remain far apart. The Ombudsman’s Level 4 guidance implies awards between £1,000 and £2,950, whereas WASPI has argued for at least £10,000 per woman. Policy design choices-flat‑rate versus tiered awards, eligibility tests and delivery capacity-will determine both cost and feasibility if ministers ultimately depart from the 2024 stance.
For the public, no compensation scheme currently exists. Regulators and campaigners have warned repeatedly about scam websites claiming otherwise; official information should be taken from government or the recognised campaign rather than third‑party “claims” portals.