Get a year of super-useful advice
Get the best deals, avoid scams and grow your savings with expert guidance all year for only £36.75 – that’s 25% off.
Join Which? MoneyOffer ends 8th January 2026
Waspi ruling: government to revisit decision on compensation
The government has previously said compensation could cost around £10.5bn
With a background in financial journalism across national titles, Ruby loves helping people take control of their money and specialises in pensions, tax, banking and benefits.
Grace is Money editor at Which?, on the hunt for ways to help people save with smart tips, deals and hacks. She was named Personal Finance Journalist of the Year 2025.
The government is reconsidering its decision to deny compensation to 1950s-born women affected by state pension age changes.
Campaign groups including Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) and BackTo60 argue that women weren’t properly informed about the increase and deserve compensation.
After the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigated, the government refused redress in December last year, saying women were aware of the changes.
But the rethink follows the emergence of a new document ahead of a legal challenge against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) next month.
Here, Which? outlines what you need to know – from the ombudsman’s findings to the upcoming court case and the potential for compensation.
What happened to the women's state pension age?
Until 2010, women received their state pension at age 60. A phased timetable saw the state pension age rise rapidly for women from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2018.
These changes were first announced in the 1993 Budget and put into legislation in The Pensions Act 1995.
Originally, the plan was to phase in the rise between 2010 and 2020, however, the coalition Government accelerated the shift in 2011 in a bid to reduce the cost of the state pension system.
The new pension age of 65 for women was introduced in 2018. Further increases – which were introduced as part of the Pensions Act in 2011 – accelerated the rise to 66 for everyone from between 2018 and 2020, with another increase planned for a hike to 67 by 2028.
Campaign groups argue that many women born in the 1950s have lost out significantly and were not properly warned of the changes, as there was a 28-month delay in sending letters informing the 3.6 million affected by the changes.
- Find out more: state pension age calculator
The PHSO investigation
An investigation was launched by the PHSO back in 2018, and it published two reports of its findings in July 2021 and in December 2024.
The Ombudsman investigated complaints that since 1995 the DWP failed to provide adequate, accurate and timely information about state pension age reform. It did not investigate the legislation change itself.
The report's findings:
The PHSO found the DWP guilty of 'maladministration' for failing to adequately inform women about increases to the state pension age, concluding they needed at least 28 months' more notice.
Additionally, the DWP was criticised for poor communication regarding National Insurance (NI) qualifying years, especially after the 2014 Pensions Act changed the requirements for the full state pension, leading to widespread misunderstanding.
The DWP's complaint handling was also found to be inadequate, marked by delays and insufficient investigation, although no fault was found with the Independent Case Examiner (ICE).
While communication failures regarding the 1995 Pensions Act affected complainants' sense of control over their finances, the Ombudsman found no direct financial loss.
However, the poor complaint handling did cause affected women unnecessary stress, anxiety, and confusion.
How much compensation was recommended?
When an injustice is found, the Ombudsman can recommend next steps, including compensation. The amount of compensation is rated on a scale of one to six, with six being the most severe.
Based on its investigation, the PHSO recommended a Level Four compensation range where payouts range from £1,000 to £2,950, to reflect a ‘significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a normal life.’
The PHSO also recommended that the DWP apologise for its failings and provide similar remedies to all others affected by the identified maladministration.
- Find out more: how much do you need to retire?
The government's view on compensation
The DWP was not legally required to follow the PHSO’s recommendations. After the report was published, former Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced that while the government accepted the PHSO’s findings and apologised for the maladministration, it would not provide compensation.
At the time, Kendall said: 'Given the great majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, the government does not believe paying a flat rate to all women – at a cost of up to £10.5bn – would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.'
The government emphasised research showing 73%-90% of women in the affected age group were already aware of the changes, arguing that earlier letters would not have significantly improved awareness.
Looking ahead, it pledged to improve communication, stating: 'We are committed to setting clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so people can properly plan for their retirement.'
- Find out more: could the state pension age rise to 71?
The latest update
On Tuesday, Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told MPs the government will revisit its decision on compensation for 1950s-born women affected by state pension age changes.
The move follows the discovery of a 2007 DWP evaluation on the effectiveness of automatic state pension forecast letters. Further checks will now be carried out to ensure no other relevant documents or surveys have been missed.
McFadden told MPs: 'I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration.
'We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that the government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.'
According to reports in The Guardian, senior Whitehall sources believe the new evidence is unlikely to materially change the government’s position but said the review is necessary because of an upcoming High Court judicial review against the DWP, scheduled for 9 and 10 December 2025.
Campaigners have called this a 'major step forward' but are now pressing the government to act quickly.
- Find out more: the women battling the government for a fair state pension
