“Glimmer of hope” for hundreds of thousands of women who missed out on higher state pension
Pensions & benefits Personal finance
Hundreds of thousands of married women who missed out on a higher state pension have been thrown a lifeline this week as a result of a decision by the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), a body which deals with complaints of maladministration against the Department for Work and Pensions.
The issue relates to married women with low state pensions in their own right, but who used to be able to claim a 60% ‘married woman’s pension’ when their husband retired. Since 17th March 2008, the uplift from the woman’s own state pension to the 60% rate when their husband retired happened automatically (at least in theory). But prior to that date the married woman had to claim the uplift – even though she had already claimed her own state pension when she turned 60.
There is evidence that large numbers of women were not aware of this need to make a ‘second’ pension claim in order to get this uplift and missed out as a result. Where they have found out years later that they could have been on a higher pension they have only been able to backdate any increase for 12 months.
One of the main reasons why many women did not claim the uplift was that they simply did not know they had to claim for a second time – they simply assumed that having once claimed their state pension they would be paid whatever they were due. DWP measures to ensure women knew how the system worked were often highly ineffective – for example, they relied on information in leaflets which were not actually sent routinely but had to be requested, or they relied on husbands passing on forms to their wives.
But in a landmark decision, a woman from Surrey has had her complaint of maladministration upheld and DWP have been ordered to pay all of her missing pension plus interest and compensation. [See below]
|
CASE STUDY – Daphne Bennett [surname changed for confidentiality] Daphne Jones (80) and her husband Tim (80) live in Woking in Surrey. Daphne worked as a bookkeeper and Tim worked in the computer industry. The couple have a son and a daughter and three grandchildren. In August 2003, Daphne reached pension age and claimed her state pension. Because of gaps in her NI record, she received a relatively modest pension of £38.66 per week, based on an NI record of 42%. When Tim reached pension age in early 2008, he applied for his own state pension over the phone, and answered all the questions he was asked, including about his wife’s situation. At this point, Daphne became eligible for a 60% married woman’s pension (instead of the 42% she was receiving in her own right). But she would only be paid this higher rate if she submitted a further state pension claim form. However, Tim was told on the phone that no forms needed to be signed, and no claim form was ever issued to Daphne. It was not until 2020 that Daphne saw coverage about married women’s pensions and realised she could be on a higher rate. She duly applied and was successful (getting an increase of around £24 per week) but this was only backdated to 2019. She complained to DWP about maladministration on the basis that if she had ever been told that she needed to fill in a second claim form to get an uplift she would have done so. DWP rejected her complaint, but the Independent Case Examiner has overruled DWP and ordered that the uplift be backdated to 2008, plus interest and compensation for ‘distress and inconvenience'. |
It is important to note that any ICE decision only relates to the particular circumstances of an individual case, and indeed ICE have rejected several other similar complaints in recent months. Those cases have now gone on the Parliamentary Ombudsman for further review.
However, this ruling opens up the potential for other women to claim for compensation where they (and their husband) followed all the correct processes but were never sent the necessary claim form. There is also a chance that the Parliamentary Ombudsman may rule in favour of the wider group of women in a similar situation.
Commenting, Steve Webb, partner at consultants LCP said:
“After years of working with married women to challenge these antiquated state pension rules, we finally have a glimmer of hope. The old processes for alerting women to the need to claim their state pension twice were hopelessly inadequate. We’ve had it suggested that women should have gone to the Job Centre to get an information booklet or have been told that they had to rely on their husbands ticking a box on a form. The scale of the problem shows that there was a systematic issue, and it seems to me highly likely that many women, like Daphne, were never sent the claim form that they needed. I hope that this landmark case will lead to many thousands more women getting justice”
Daphne said
“When I first found out that I could have been on a higher pension for over a decade I was surprised and puzzled. Then when I claimed and was told it could only be backdated for one year, I felt it was unfair. It was their mistake, not mine. It has taken years to work our way through the complaints procedure, with the support of Steve Webb, but I’m absolutely delighted that my complaint has been upheld. My husband reads paperwork carefully and I would obviously have made a second claim for the higher state pension if anyone had actually told us that was how the system worked. I hope that those in positions of authority will look at what happened to me and accept that there are many other women in the same position and will put things right for all of them”