WASPI update as three issues seen as vital to compensation payouts | Personal Finance | Finance

WASPI campaigners (Women Against State Pension Inequality) will need three key elements to coalesce if they are to get their long-awaited compensation, a legal expert has warned.

The DWP said at the end of last year that there would be no compensation for the women, a decision the campaigners are now seeking to challenge by applying for a judicial review.

The WASPI campaign represents women born in the 1950s who were affected when their state pension age increased from 60 to 65 and then 66.

They claim they were not properly informed of the change, with many unaware of the important policy change. They say it ruined their retirement plans.

A previous report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found there was ‘maladministration’ in how the DWP communicated the change, recommending payouts ranging from £1,000 to £2,950.

But Labour ministers said in December 2024 that there would be no compensation, arguing most of the women knew of the change and it would have made little difference to let them know sooner.

Now the WASPI campaign has asked for a judicial review of the decision at the high court, with both the campaign group and the DWP having presented their initial papers, to outline their respective cases.

Legal experts have shared their views on whether or not the legal challenge will succeed, and if the WASPI women will finally get their payouts.

Brad W. Huffman, attorney and senior partner at Huffman & Huffman, warned that even a successful judicial review for WASPI does not guarantee payouts.

He said: “A judge can quash the refusal and require fresh consideration, but cannot sign the cheques. Practical compensation depends on three forces working together: a clear judicial finding that the decision‑making process was unlawful, sustained political pressure in Parliament, and public opinion that the cost is justified.

“I have seen liability established in injury cases, yet payment still requires steady pressure. Translating legal success into money is never automatic.”

He said that as things stand, the chance of the women getting compensation are “possible but far from certain”.

Looking at the Ombudsman’s previous investigation into the matter, Mr Huffman said: “The DWP already stands on record for maladministration.

“It told hundreds of thousands of women too late about the rise in state pension age, and many suffered real financial loss. Acknowledging that failure yet refusing any remedy leaves a gap that judicial review is designed to test.

“The core submission is that ministers made their ‘no‑compensation’ decision without properly weighing their own admission of unfair treatment. Courts do not rewrite policy, but they do insist on fair and rational process. That is the lever the claim presses.”

Another legal expert, John Beck from Beck & Beck Missouri Car Accident Lawyers, said there is one particular element of the dispute that could be decisive 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.”