Campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) press on with their judicial review challenging the Department for Work and Pensions over the refusal to compensate women affected by increases in state pension age, citing inadequate communication as a key grievance.
Campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) are continuing their legal challenge against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as they await the outcome of a judicial review into the Government’s decision not to provide compensation payouts. The campaigners are contesting the DWP’s stance announced last year, asserting that the affected women were inadequately informed about significant increases to their state pension age.
The dispute centres on women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised from 60 first to 65, and then subsequently to 66. WASPI contends that the DWP failed to properly communicate these changes, leaving many women caught off guard and unprepared for the alterations that significantly disrupted their retirement plans.
A prior investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found evidence of “maladministration” by the DWP in how it communicated the pension age changes. The Ombudsman reported that a key letter, aimed at informing the women earlier, should have been issued but was not. It recommended compensation payments ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 for the affected individuals.
Despite this, the DWP rejected the Ombudsman’s finding, maintaining that a majority of women were already aware of the changes and that sending the letter earlier would not have significantly affected their knowledge or preparedness.
With both sides having submitted their cases in preparation for the judicial review, Angela Madden, chair of the WASPI campaign, outlined the next stage: “All the papers now will go forward to a judge who will decide whether there’s an arguable case or not. That’s the next step.” She added that there is no clear timetable for a decision due to court backlogs but expressed confidence in their position.
The DWP, in its defence submitted for the judicial review, stated: “The question whether an earlier letter would have had any effect on complainants’ state of knowledge was clearly material to the extent of any injustice they had suffered as a result of maladministration, when the identified maladministration was, precisely, the failure to send letters earlier. At the very least, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was certainly entitled so to conclude. The Secretary of State consequently rejected the approach taken by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which she considered assessed injustice on a false premise.”
Ms Madden characterised the DWP’s continued refusal to offer compensation as expected, saying: “They are going to fight us all the way, we knew that. They have done ever since we started these complaints eight years ago. It is just as we expected really.”
She also reflected on the contrasting positions of the Ombudsman and the DWP, remarking, “Of course, it’s the Ombudsman’s job to investigate. The DWP really are marking their own homework in saying we don’t need to do what the Ombudsman says because we did our job well enough so that you already knew.”
The WASPI campaign receives support from numerous Members of Parliament, including those from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, who have voiced support for compensation. Ms Madden noted ongoing parliamentary engagement: “We’re carrying on meeting with MPs and have seen a few in recent weeks and months. I think those who spoke out in the debates will keep speaking out on our behalf.” She also commented on the position of Labour Party MPs: “Some have gone quiet. I think it must be more difficult for the newer Labour MPs, who thought that supporting the WASPI cause was part of their party’s raison d’etre. They must be quite confused at the moment.”
In response to the judicial review proceedings following the service of documents, the DWP maintained a restrained stance, stating: “We do not comment on live litigation. We accept the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration and have apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women. However, we do not agree with the Ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy and that is why we have decided not to pay compensation.”
The legal challenge initiated by WASPI underscores ongoing disputes around the communication of changes to pension entitlements and the Government’s handling of the issue. The judicial review’s outcome will determine whether the campaigners can secure compensation for the affected women.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://theweek.com/personal-finance/waspi-women-may-finally-get-compensation-after-state-pension-age-changes – Supports the judicial review and DWP’s stance against compensation, detailing WASPI’s legal challenge and the Ombudsman’s maladministration finding.
- https://palihighway.org/waspi-2950-compensation-payment-in-2025-eligibility-dates/ – Details eligibility criteria and compensation amounts (£1,000–£2,950), corroborating the Ombudsman’s recommended payouts.
- https://pinecrestlakeupdate.com/dwp-waspi-compensation-2025-eligibility-deadlines-and-how-to-prepare-your-claim/ – Explains the 2025 compensation scheme’s eligibility, deadlines, and scope, aligning with ongoing legal efforts for redress.
- https://www.catholiccharitiessteuben.org/waspi-payouts-2025-who-qualifies-and-how-much-money-could-be-coming-your-way/ – Clarifies birthdate criteria (1950–1960) and financial hardship requirements, matching WASPI’s eligibility claims.
- https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9967/ – Provides legislative history of state pension age changes, validating communication failures cited in the judicial review.
- https://theweek.com/personal-finance/waspi-women-may-finally-get-compensation-after-state-pension-age-changes – Reiterates parliamentary support and DWP’s refusal to compensate, reflecting MPs’ divided positions as described by WASPI.
- https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/waspi-campaigners-accuse-dwp-marking-10134162 – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative discusses ongoing legal proceedings and recent developments, indicating it is current. However, the core issue dates back several years.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Key quotes provided, such as Angela Madden’s and the DWP’s responses, seem to be original to this context. However, they could be part of ongoing media coverage without an earlier online source.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from a reputable source, Leicester Mercury, which is known for local and national news coverage.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims and context align with long-standing disputes surrounding the WASPI campaign and pension age changes.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative appears to be current with references to ongoing legal proceedings. Quotes appear original, and the source is reliable. Claims are plausible within the context of the WASPI campaign.
