Now that the ‘Back to 60’ campaign has been consigned to the ‘failed’ box, it was probably only going to be a matter of time before a new scandal potentially affecting a cohort of women was going to ear it’s ugly head.
This one concerns women who paid a reduced National Insurance contribution placing a reliance on their husband’s state pension to support them in old age Women who retired under the old state pension system before April 2016 can claim a rate equivalent to 60 per cent of their husband's basic state pension.
This married woman's rate was paid automatically to wives when their husbands reached state pension age after March 17, 2008. Some did not get the increase because of a Government error and these women are able to receive every penny they missed out on.
But those who were entitled to the rate before that date were supposed to make a claim themselves. As a result, they are able to claim back only the money they missed out on over the past 12 months. These women are planning a complaint to the DWP and if that fails, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The interesting thing about this situation is that many women failed to claim because the letter informing them of their rights to do so were not sent to them...they were sent to the husbands.
In these more enlightened times that sounds horribly paternalistic and patronising. But these attitudes were of course the whole basis of the ‘married women’s stamp’ in the first place. It was expected that women would stop working when they had childcare responsibilities and divorce was perhaps less common than it is today. Nevertheless, it is possible that a claim would succeed if it can be shown that since it was not the benefit recipient that was told of the benefit, that amounted to maladministration and full compensation should be paid.
One of the failures of the ‘Back to 60’ cases was that they argued they had not been informed of the changes in State Pension Age. Unfortunately for them, the Government was able to assert that they HAD in fact been told - directly and in good time. The fact that they failed to appreciate the information was not the DWP’s fault. That may not run for this situation. Sending information to a 3rd party - the husbands - is a pretty weak defence.
Like so much in 2021 - watch this space...
