??? A subject that has moved on. The case is in court at the moment and signs are that they will loose
Ah… Old news then.
Other half just cancelled her planned holiday in Barbados on the proceeds…
Hi Graham - sadly the judicial review didn’t go too well My better half is approx £42k down so far - not taking into account the fact her S1 was also put back 4 years which meant extended social charges in France for the same period. Bloody nightmare.
Vanessa was born 10 days too late to get it at 60…
Still, she got her teachers pension at 60 so not all bad and I got mine at 65 (born in '51)
WASPI have a different view on this:
It is quite apparent that there is no duty of fairness from the government.
You just have to look at the appalling withdrawal of WFP from pensioners here in France by the inclusion of Caribbean islands to prove that we have ‘warm’ winters.
This is all the work of the appalling IDS, who has just backed BoJo for the Tory leadership.
I am sure many women will not now be voting Tory anymore.
The Express reports that the cost of reversing the Pension decision will cost £181 billion.
It’s not really about reversing the decision - it was its implementation that caused the issues.
It amazes me that more affected women (and those close to them) aren’t up in arms. I honestly think it’s because they don’t understand how much they’ve lost at an individual level. This apathy is compounded by the fact a whole new batch become State pensioners every day and the ensuing reduction in financial pressure effectively puts the fight on the back burner.
WASPI have a different goal, which is fair enough. But their view on the situation is pretty similar as they too think it’s unfair and problematic for many women.
Hi, I am the author of that post. What you need to know is that they are two subsequent posts last week covering the judicial review as I covered it for bylinetimes.com . I was there for the whole two day hearing. the links to my two posts are
There is a hyperlink on both posts to get to the bylinetimes article.
The department’s arguments was solely that the 50swomen had no case, no remedy and the judge who granted the review should never have done so.
I suspect that this will not go down with the two judges, a man and a woman , who heard it. or they could have thrown it out then and there. So I wouldn’t be as pessimistic about the outcome.
Well since you were there I will believe your sense of optimism! Especially as one of the women affected, and even worse also affected by the change in qualifying years after I had decided to seek exemption from paying more NI (self employed low income). And I wasn’t alerted to that either. So not only getting my state pension later, but it won’t be the full amount!
So very much hope you are right🤞🏼
I would urge all 1950’s women permanently living in France to join the campaign on the Waspi International Facebook page.
Or if you’re based in the UK - join the UK campaign at:
Haven’t really been following this but I’m not totally sure I get the sex discrimination angle as men in that cohort had their retirement age put back as well didn’t they? - my own state retirement age has moved from 65 to 67 during my lifetime.
Rather depressingly I have just worked out that I have 2423 days left before retirement
The issue is that the goal posts were changed with little warning, and without being told. There was a timetable for increasing the pension age that was then accelerated.
I, for example, was due to get my full state pension in 2018. So in 2010 I worked out that I had my 30 qualifying years, so stopped working full time, went self-employed/part-time with a small income exemption from NI, and knew that financially that would see me through to 2018.
However, goal posts suddenly changed, and having moved to France, I now won’t get my pension until 2021, and it won’t be the full pension as the qualifying years have been increased to 35. Luckily although hugely pissed off, we can manage. Others can’t and are now in dire financial trouble.
Paul - it stems from the fact that ONLY women, an ONLY those women born in the 1950’s take the hit for the change in legislation. Your State pensionable age has shifted 2 years during your lifetime - for women the shift has been up to 7 years since 1995. Again, it’s not the equalisation of the pension age that is the issue - it’s the fairly brutal implementation of changes in the legislation.
ONLY women, ONLY those born in the 1950’s have picked up the tab.
For those living outside the UK the negative financial situation is even further compounded.
As I said I hadn’t been following it in detail - it does seem a bit iniquitous if it is only this group.
I had to look up ‘iniquitous’ - but yes, spot on!
You see - what’s happening is that, as more women become eligible for their State pension every day, the immediate financial pressure is alleviated for them - so they are no longer ‘an issue’. Eventually they will have all just drifted away - well and truly shafted by the legislation.
and it’s not even bleeding fair either Simon
I’ve just joined this thread. Very worrying as I’m a 1961 baby!
We too have been hit by the goalposts changing. Husband’s pensionable age put back 2 years whilst mines gone to 7. With our age difference in the mix too I’m now worried that my previously qualifying years won’t be enough to receive full pension.
When you’ve budgeted and planned thinking of all the possibilities, it’s always the one to which you have no control that hits the hardest.
If there is 1 good thing to come out of the bad it’s that we were one of the first fotunates to have our tax d’habitation refunded and subsequently stopped. It mayve been a small sum but has certainly taken the pressure off…unless it changes again, only 18 more months before OH receives his state pension to lighten the load!