This is regardless of whether 50s Women's complaint is Direct Discrimination and/or Maladministration, as both were scrutinised in the second CEDAW People's Tribunal, drawing on a wealth of evidence
" To Examine The Effect of the State Pension Age (SPA) on 1950s women (Women Born in the 1950s)"
An Offer of Mediation has been made
(see update 1: Letter to the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions)
Comment: Who needs the PHSO? (@Hawkins2Mac)
Remember:
- The PHSO's stage 1 findings, that were not challenged, included that there had been no maladministration prior to 2006. Do YOU believe that to be true?
- Dr Scutt's summary below indicates that Maladministration has been ongoing, ever since the failure to consult with 50s Women. Will YOU be satisfied with compensation from 2006 only?
- The PHSO is only investigating Maladministration, so any recommendation he makes will only compensate for that alone (from 2006), and not for Direct Discrimination. Will YOU regard the outcome of the PHSO investigation as justice served?
See summary explanation below as to how the Judge's Report supports ALL 50s Women, by Hon Dr Jocelynne Scutt:
The Judge’s Report addressed both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of age and sex, finding both proven in relation to 1950s-born women.
The Judges Report also addressed maladministration, finding it also proven in relation to the conduct or failure of the Department of Works and Pensions.
Maladministration arose in relation to:
1. Consultation and failure to consult with 1950s-born women;
2. No impact assessment;
3. Failure to notify 1950s-born women;
4. Where notification commenced, inept, spasmodic, and failing to use available paths or opportunities for notification in a systematic and focused way for all 1950s-born women.
1. Consultation and failure to consult with 1950s-born women
The High Court said in the judicial review ‘There had been widespread consultation with interested bodies before each of the [relevant] Pension Acts’ yet there was no consultation at all with the cohort directly impacted by the change. Clearly, the 1950s-born women constitute a group that qualifies as an ‘interested body’. To include this group in the consultation was an obligation not discharged or even, it would appear, considered. This evidences gross failure on the part of government and constitutes maladministration by the Department of Works and Pensions. To say ‘it was too difficult’ or ‘how could it be done’ is simply further evidence of failure on the part of the Department: the ‘too hard basket’ is a receptacle utilised too often by those engaging in maladministration.
2. No impact assessment
Where a government policy has such a crucial economic impact on a specific, identified and identifiable cohort an impact assessment is crucial. The failure to undertake an impact assessment in such circumstance constitutes administrative failure and evidences maladministration.
This change of 60 to 65 and the administrative action required to achieve it were such as to have a crucial economic impact on 1950s-born women. That economic impact related to:
- Employment - difficulties confronting women over the age of 60 years retaining or obtaining employment generally and particularly where notification to them of the change was lacking at any reasonable time or at all for them to rearrange their employment with proper notice; and
- Retirement - the problem of rearranging their retirement plans again with no or no proper notice.
3. Failure to notify 1950s-born women
Evidence of this failure is overwhelming. It does not have to be repeated here. As noted in the Judge’s Report, information on every taxpayer in the United Kingdom is available – the Department could have targeted 1950s-born women by direct mail, incorporation into P60s generally and 1950s-born women’s P60 notifications explicitly, etc.
4. Inept, spasmodic, failing to use available paths or opportunities for notification systematically, in a focused way or at all
Again, evidence of this is overwhelming and consistent with other documented failures on the part of the Department of Work and Pensions. As the Judge’s Report states, there are conflicting views as to the date any notification went out and it is clear that no notification was made to any of the 1950s-born women as to the 1995 Act’s changes, at least at that time or for many years afterwards. Notifications began going out to individuals when the age was raised to 66 years, a change impacting on male pensioners as well as women. This constitutes maladministration.
(Condensed by Hon Dr Jocelynne Scutt from Judge’s Report pp 11-14)
_________________________________
Whatever 50s Women's group you support, please sign this petition:
Sec of State to attend settlement talks
Ask YOUR MP to:
- Join Sir George Howarth's Alternate Dispute Resolution cross-party group and
- To sign Early Day Motion 1040:
#ADRnow #EDM1040