WASPI hopes renewed as little-known factor could force compensation | Personal Finance | Finance

As the WASPI campaigns continues its battle to secure DWP compensation, a legal expert has said a little-discussed factor could help them get payouts.

The WASPI campaigners (Women Against State Pension Inequality) have filed for a judicial review of the DWP’s decision not to provide compensation, after the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman previously said there should be payouts ranging from £1,000 to £2,950.

The legal teams for both sides have sent in their initial documents to set out their respective positions with the high court now to consider whether or not to take up the case.

The WASPI women claim they and other 1950s-born women were not properly informed of their state pension age increasing from 60 to 65 and then 66, with many unaware of the important change, throwing into disarray their retirement plans.

An investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded there was ‘maladministration’ in the DWP’s efforts to inform the women of the change, arguing that a vital letter about the change should have gone out sooner.

But the Labour Government announced at the end of last year that there would be no compensation for the women, saying that most of the women knew of the change and it would have had little effect to send out letters sooner.

As the latest legal bid from WASPI moves forward, some legal experts think they have a good chance of getting the DWP decision overturned and even finally getting compensation.

John Beck, attorney and founding partner at Beck & Beck Missouri Car Accident Lawyers, said there is one key element of the dispute that could swing it in WASPI’s favour.

He explained: “WASPI’s judicial review filing looks slender on traditional public law grounds – Parliament lawfully amended the state pension age. But it has one route that British commentators sometimes underplay: procedural fairness.

“If the campaign can show the DWP treated 1950s‑born women differently from every other group it notified about pension changes, a judge may decide the process itself was so uneven it breached legitimate‑expectation principles.”

He said such a finding could force Government ministers “back to the table to design a remedy”. He said Labour may also changes its position and grant compensation due to political expediency rather than because of legal precedent

He explained: “Offering a capped, means‑tested settlement to WASPI claimants could defuse a noisy demographic ahead of an election while still costing far less than a drawn‑out court defeat plus interest.

“I have watched similar calculus push US states to settle highway‑accident class actions they swore they would fight forever.”

Mr Beck said he believes the high court will take up the case due to the procedural fairness argument, although it’s less certain who will win.

But he said there are other factors which could prompt Labour to change its position: “The very prospect of judicial censure, reputational damage, and electoral fallout gives the women real leverage for a negotiated compensation package—something the Government once insisted was off the table.”

A public fundraiser by WASPI for the judicial review has raised over £187,000 to date. The campaigners have applied for a costs capping order to limit how much they would have to pay to cover the DWP’s legal fees should they lose.