The government has confirmed it will stand by its previous decision to not to pay compensation to the millions of women affected by past changes to the State Pension age, despite a high-profile review of the case.
The announcement, made on Thursday, 29th January 2026, has sparked fresh anger from campaigners who argue that 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed that their State Pension age was increasing from 60 to 66.
Who are the WASPI women?
The term WASPI refers to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group. The group represents women born in the 1950s, specifically those born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1960, who were affected by the 1995 Pensions Act.
This legislation initially planned to raise the State Pension age for women from 60 to 65, bringing it in line with the State Pension age for men. The change was due to be made between 2010 and 2020. However, the increase was fast-tracked in 2011 to bring the State Pension age for women to 65 two years earlier, by 2018. It then rose again to 66 in 2020, as did the State Pension age for men.
WASPI campaigners argue the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) failed to provide adequate notice about the changes, leaving many unable to adjust their retirement plans.
Why was the decision reviewed?
In late 2024, the government initially rejected calls for compensation, despite the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommending payouts of between £1,000 and £2,950.
However, a fresh review was launched in November 2025 following the discovery of a 2007 DWP survey which questioned the effectiveness of sending individual pension forecasts. Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden admitted this evidence had not been shown to his predecessor, prompting a reconsideration of whether the lack of communication constituted a reversible injustice.
Why has the government refused to pay compensation
Following the three-month review, McFadden told the House of Commons that the government has again concluded that no compensation will be awarded. The DWP based its refusal on several key arguments:
- Existing awareness: The government argued that research showed the vast majority of women born in the 1950s (up to 73%) were already aware their retirement age was increasing through leaflets, TV, radio, and press coverage.
- "Negligible Impact" of letters: Using a 2007 report as evidence, the government claimed that "unsolicited" letters from the DWP have a very low readership rate. They argued that even if letters had been sent earlier, most women would not have read or remembered them, so the delay didn't actually change what they knew.
- No direct financial loss: The government pointed out that the Ombudsman itself found no evidence that the delay in communication caused a "direct financial loss" (meaning the pension amount itself hadn't been wrongly calculated).
- Targeting the wrong people: The government argued that the women who most needed the information (those less knowledgeable about pensions) were statistically the least likely to read a letter from the government, making a letter an ineffective tool for the most vulnerable.
- Cost to taxpayers: A flat-rate compensation scheme was estimated to cost up to £10.3 billion. The government stated this would not be a "fair or proportionate" use of public money, especially since it would pay billions to women who already knew about the changes.
- Verification difficult: To pay only those who actually suffered an injustice would require the government to verify the personal circumstances of 3.5 million women. They argued it is impossible to prove now, 20 years later, who genuinely didn't know the law was changing and who would have acted differently if they had received a letter.
The government argued it is better to support women through maintaining the 'triple lock' (which will increase the State Pension by up to £2,100 over this parliament) and by increasing the uptake of Pension Credit for those on the lowest incomes.
Response from WASPI campaigners
The WASPI group has reacted angrily to the news. Angela Madden, the chair of WASPI, branded the decision a "disgraceful political choice".
She stated: "The government has kicked the can down the road for months, only to arrive at exactly the same conclusion it has always wanted to... We stand ready to pursue every avenue in parliament and in the courts to secure the justice that has been so shamefully denied."
What happens next?
The group is now seeking legal advice regarding a potential new judicial review. While the government hopes this decision will draw a line under the issue, opposition parties and cross-party groups have criticised the move.
For now, the State Pension age for both men and women remains at 66, with a further increase to 67 scheduled between 2026 and 2028. You can learn more about the State Pension by reading our article 'How much is the UK State Pension?'.
MTTM AI (beta) 
