The government has accepted that there was maladministration in relation to how it communicated changes to women's state pension age (SPA), although it has rejected the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) proposed remedy.

As a result of this, the government confirmed that no financial compensation will be paid to 1950s-born women.

The PHSO launched an investigation to examine whether 1950s-born women suffered injustice because of maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) communication of SPA changes in 2018.

Whilst the ombudsman did not investigate the change in the SPA itself, it found that "thousands” of women may have been affected by the DWP's failure to adequately inform them that the SPA had changed.

In particular, the PHSO found that DWP provided adequate and accurate information between 1995 and 2004, and that DWP decision-making between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in starting to send letters to 1950s-born women about SPA changes.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, has since accepted the findings on behalf of the government, and apologised to those affected, as well as committed to the department learning lessons from this complex case.

However, the government said that the PHSO did not take into account evidence on the ineffectiveness of unsolicited letters, which showed that only one in four people remember receiving and reading letters that they weren’t expecting.

Given this, the government said that it could not accept that sending letters earlier would have had a significant impact on whether women knew their SPA was rising or increased their opportunities to make informed decisions.

The government also highlighted the "considerable efforts" that were made to communicate the changes, which included helplines, leaflets, TV adverts and adverts in women’s magazines.

It also noted that industry research, which was referenced by the PHSO in their report, also shows that 73 per cent of women aged 45-54 said that they were aware of SPA increases in 2004, rising to 90 per cent by 2006.

Whilst the government stressed that this was a "difficult decision and not one the government has taken lightly", it argued that a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5bn, cannot be justified given this evidence.

It also argued that it would be "impossible" to deliver a tailored compensation scheme taking into account individual circumstances that is fair, value for money and feasible, with PHSO's report itself acknowledges the cost and administrative burden of assessing he individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s.

And even if there were a scheme where women were invited to self-certify that they weren’t aware of changes to their SPA, and that they have suffered injustice as a result, the government noted that it would be impossible to verify the information provided.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, said: "The government has not taken this decision lightly, but we believe it is the right course of action…. because the great majority of the women knew the SPA was increasing sending letters earlier wouldn’t have made a difference for most and the proposed compensation scheme isn’t fair, or value for taxpayers’ money.

"I know there are women born in the 1950s who want and deserve a better life.

"They’ve worked hard … in paid jobs and bringing up their families. Many are struggling financially … with the cost of living, and fewer savings to fall back on. And they worry about their health, and how their children and grandchildren will get on.

"To those women I say, this government will protect the pensions triple lock so that your state pension will increase by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament.

"This government will drive down waiting lists, so you get the treatment you need, with an extra £22bn of funding for the NHS this year and next.

"And this government will deliver the jobs, homes and opportunities your families need to build a better life.

"I know that – on this specific decision – many 1950s born women will be disappointed. But we believe it is the right decision, and the fair decision."

However, LCP partner, Steve Webb, said that the decision raises "much wider issues than compensation over pension age changes, warning that the government's handling of the case could set an "extremely worrying precedent".

"If it is acceptable for a department to completely reject the findings of a report by the independent parliamentary ombudsman, this strikes a blow at the heart of the whole process," he stated.

"There is a risk that governments will now feel emboldened to ‘pick and choose’ when faced with a critical ombudsman report, effectively setting themselves up as judge and jury.

"Even if the government felt it could not afford to implement the recommendations in full, there were many options which would have offered some redress to those most affected.

"Outright rejection of the ombudsman’s report raises much wider issues than compensation over pension age changes, and MPs should not take this decision lying down."

---