State Pension Age Announcement

The Government announced today that women affected by the equalisation of the State Pension Age will be given a much-needed respite and will now wait a maximum of 18 months to claim their pension.

This will really help the 330,000 hard-working women born between December 1953 and October 1954 who would have been hit hardest, having to wait between 18 months and 2 years longer for their State Pension.

We welcome the changes that have been made – they have listened to our concerns and we appreciate that it is a significant financial commitment from the Government, amounting to around £1 billion, in what is a difficult time.

We would have liked the changes being made to have gone further. Having faced uncertainty twice already, these women must not be affected by any further changes to their state pension age again without sufficient notice.

All of us at Age UK would like to thank the thousands of women up and down the country that have helped our campaign.

*This blog has now been updated. Our sincerest apologies for any confusion caused by our previous post which stated 6 months instead of 18 months.

 Find out more about the Government’s announcement

Author: Michelle Mitchell

Charity Director, Age UK

33 thoughts on “State Pension Age Announcement”

  1. DEVASTATED you’ve changed the wording from 6 months to 18 months.
    Earlier you said :”The Government have just announced that women affected by the equalisation of the State Pension Age will be given a much needed respite and will now wait a maximum of six months to claim their pension”
    It now reads 18 months.
    Thank the government for what, retiring at 65 and a half instead of 66, what a big deal.They will be thanked in the next election when all the
    women, their familes and their friends don’t vote for them !

  2. Well I’d like to thank Age Uk for their efforts in this campaign (though not for the earlier blog which made us think we only had 6 months on top of the 64years we’d been promised) six months is better than a kick up the backside but (and I hope I am proved wrong) it looks to me like instead of working until I’m 66 I’m going to be working until I’m 65½, that is if I am physically able to do so for another 8 years! I don’t really think the coalition have listened to us at all, they haven’t taken account of our worries about working so long or of managing for money if we’re unable to work that long, or of our concerns about finding employment if we lose, or can’t physically keep on managing, the jobs we have now. Yes they listened to the roar of disapproval but I think the changes they have made are more in the spirit of trying to keep women’s votes than through compassion for our plight.

  3. I agree with Barbara the campaign has amounted to nothing. They have given us the bare minimum. It does nothing to help thousands of women who are worried that they will not be capable of working in manual jobs until 66. The women worst affected are still the worst affected. 6 Months is nothing.Though I thank you for fighting this issue, I cannot agree when you thank the Government and say that they have listened. They have listened to nothing and never will. Their disregard for honest hard working people is breathtaking.

  4. This blog has now been updated. Our sincerest apologies for any confusion caused by our previous post which stated 6 months instead of 18 months.

  5. So the government thinks it is OK to be unfair to certain women born between 1953 and 1955 by only 18 months instead of 24 months, does it? I for one think it is still unacceptable. Especially when the National Insurance Fund, which is used to pay out all state pensions, has a surlus in it of over £40 billion. The government “borrows” this money and uses it for non pension related purposes. It is absolutely disgraceful.

  6. Thank you to Age Uk for your campaigning.
    I have to agree with Ruth however, in her summation. And at the end of the day, what is a billion pounds to the government, especially spread out over such a time period? I’m sure they waste a hell of a lot more than that on the amount of hot air expended through the House of Commons.
    As usual, we are paying for the greed and incompetence of others. One thing’s for sure, I do not intend to work until 65 and a half or whatever my new random retirement age is, especially as my husband will be 70 by then and, as a home support worker, I am in quite a physical job. I say random because of this age acceleration business. However, as I say, I do not intend to work for that long. I will use the extra time I have to work and the extra money I earn, to live at retirement level, as I would have done had I retired at a normal age, and save the rest, which should enable me to work some of those years and then ‘retire’ on the money I’ve saved until such time as I qualify for the state pension, therefore funding my own ‘retirement’. I’m damned if I’m just going to do what I’m told!
    I appreciate that others may not be able to do the same, especially if the only wage earner, but neither my husband nor I have a private pension and, having finished our mortgage, we are both trying to save as much as possible for our retirement. I am therefore trying to find a happy medium between working for ever and saving enough to fund a decent lifestyle.

  7. BETRAYED – The Government have done nothing to help me, the campaign has been a waste of time – I am 60 in September 2013 but have to wait until March 2018, 4 and a half years – its too late to save any money to cover these years. When I started work in 1969 I paid in for a pension to start in September 2013. Now I will end up on the dole !

    I agree with Barbara, once upon a time I retired October 2013 aged 60, then it was March 2017 and now its March 2018 WOW YIPPEE will I live to get my pension.

    We need to keep campaigning. We are the “GOT AT” agegroup.

  9. I don’t even see how the government are saying it’s costing them a billion, this isn’t money they are giving us it is money they were planning to take off us by delaying our pensions, they haven’t it from us yet as we were still beavering away thinking we were retiring at 64. The laughable thing is we’re still going to be paying in even more contributions after the dates we should have retired so they’re going to rake it in for an extra 18months even if they figure they are “losing” 1billion by knocking a few months off. All they are knocking off for me is five months.

  10. I’m guttered because I have to wait until I’m 66 to get my Pension. I’ve just had my 56th Birthday. I only work Part time because I had Cancer 3 years ago and have not the staminer to work full time. I live in Norfolk where wages are low, so I just can’t save for my Retirement. I am so Angry at the extra years.

  11. Have we stopped fighting this change?? All the campaiging, letters to MP’s marching etc for what… ‘no woman will have to wait more than 18 months instead of 2 years’ for their well deserved pension. I can’t see that this has helped the women in this age group one bit the class of 53 & 54 are all disportionately paying the price of an uncaring, unfair government. Surely its illegal to move the goal posts at this late stage??? I’m sure men wouldnt sit back and accept changes like this to their pensions. Come on Age UK and Saga dont give up on us now….

    1. Our protest group on facebook are still fighting. The bill goes to the Lords on 31/10/2011 for what they call ‘ping pong’ so we are emailing every Lord and Lady asking them to reject the meagre amendment of 6 months and make it at least a year’s cap ! Some positive comments are coming back but of course some think we should be grateful. We need as many of the women affected as possible to do the same ….we have a full list of Lords and Ladies on our facebook group ‘Protest against acceleration of state pension age rise’ and all are welcome to join us even at this late date.We can’t understand Age UK welcoming this small concession as it is not enough.Nor can we understand them not legally challenging it as a broken election promise AND discrimination against women born in 1953/1954

  12. It is even more insulting when you realise that the National Insurance Fund, which pays out all state pensions, has a surplus balance in it of around £40 billion. The money is ring fenced and cannot be used directly for other purposes. The government “borrows” this money for non pension related purposes when it should be used for things like the state pension. MPs like to use smoke and mirrors to deny the existence of the NIF but it does exist and it does have a huge surplus that could easily be used to pay women’s pensions on the original timetable.
    HMRC, NAO, GAD and DMO are all government departments whose reports verify the existence of the NIF.
    Perhaps if we could convince the Lords that the money is there, it might make their task a little easier. The Government Actuary Department (GAD) even report to Parliament that the surplus in the NIF is more than enough needed for normal day to day running of the state pension system and the money is there to pay all women’s pensions on time.

  13. I am absolutely disgusted at the government for increasing my pension age. I was born in January 1954 and have seen my pension age increase from 60 years to 63years and 10months and now 65 years and 4 months. I feel that we are being penalised for being the “willing horses”. There is no way that I can work that long. I have a spinal injury and yet claim nothing. We were promised a retirement age of 60. So much for the present government to keep the promise that we were given. I will NOT be voting for the present government in the next election. Liz

    1. I too was born In January 1954 and have been told the same as you, I have just read of a friend who will be 64 yrs 4 mnths 2days in January 2019 and she can retire on that date, how can this be right. My husband and I had made plans for my retirement which was originally November 2017 now I have to wait until May 2019.I started work when I was 15 yrs 4 mnths surely 50yrs working is long enough for anyone to deserve to retire, not just me but all women of the same age, is this not sex discrimination.My husband can retire when he’s 65.Sue

  14. What makes it worse is that now it’s going to be almost impossible to stay on the sick for very long.The government want people having cancer treatment to go for interviews to see if they are fit to work !! How would they like to do that themselves feeling weak and sick and worried they may not survive ! So there’s no chance of sympathy for women with age related pains who find it a struggle to go out to work,the government attitude is they’ll just have to get on with it. It makes me so very annoyed, I’m 64 and was lucky to be in the age bracket to retire at 60, I’d find it a struggle to have to go out to work.My sister is 57 and expected to work with osteo arthritis until she is 65 and 1/2 from the age of 15. She’s a widow so has no choice but to struggle on AND keep paying in contributions AND missing out not only on more of her own state pension but her late husband’s too.

  15. Unfair by 18 months? Who are you kidding? I am now 57 years old and I have to wait until I’m 66 to get a pension. I was born 2 months too early and have worked all my life. I now face destitution, how fair is that?
    How many other people have been given just over 18 months notice to prepare for the next 6 years? Is that leagal?

    1. I have written here before. I am 58, I was due to retire in September 2013 at age 60. Now I have to wait until March 2017. Four and a half years later. Tell me thats fair ? I think not.

  16. It’s not fair at all Lesley and we fought it all the way but we were trampled underfoot by the ConDems determination to push it through. We wrote to every MP and every Lord but the sympathetic ones were outvoted by the ones who don’t care about the unfairness to your age group. You’ve been hit twice like my sister and many more like you but it’s all cut and dried, you were well stitched up and a lot of us are very angry about that and our only hope is when Labour get back into power(and they will because the 500,000 women affected will never vote for Cons or Dems again, nor will their families ) is that they repeal the law. Although it doesn’t seem likely.
    I’m so sorry, we did our best but it wasn’t good enough.

  17. I still can’t get my head around that it was actually legal to take away pensions from women who are so close to retiring. Surely it should have gone to an appeal court somewhere… The Solar Panel ‘mistake’ by the government was overturned quick enough when it went to court, so why couldnt the womens pension ‘error’?????

    1. Because no one with enough clout would take them on !
      Not only are they robbing women of even more of their state pension and freedom they will be raking in more money from them paying in contributions from their wages longer. We pointed out how unfair that was when young people who have never worked are living on benefits they’ve paid nothing in for, but it was totally ignored. As older people are forced to work longer there will of course be even less jobs for young people. It’s unfair on both age groups ! If people who have worked from 15 years of age and were looking forward to their retirement were able to retire at the age promised to them it would free up their jobs for young people.

  18. I agree with you Lynne – perhaps Age UK could consult their legal advisers to see if a challenge could be made to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the basis of discrimination, including “age” discrimination. The argument being that people are being treated unfairly on the basis of their age and sex.

  19. I think this is a disgrace. Just because we are not dead doesn’t mean we can or want to carry on working. I started work at 16 and as far as I know the agreement was that no state pension was due until I reached 60. My husband reaches 65 at the same time so all our plans are useless. As for those males out there going on about equality, I did not see much of that when I started working for a bank. No pensions for females only males so why should I care about equality now.

  20. A lot of women are just finding out now as the letters of doom come out from the Pensions Service that they have to work longer, some still thought they would be retiring at 60 ! So they are just finding out they have been targeted twice and very unfairly too. The women who already knew about the first age rise and had re-adjusted their plans once now have to re-adjust them again ! The way it was worked out is totally unfair on those born in 1954 but the government didn’t listen to the protests of those of us who fought for months against this second age rise, they rushed it through regardless. The meagre 6 months concession was NOT welcomed by the women working from 15/16 years old to 65 and 1/2 , paying in 50 years of contributions when the new law says only 30 years will be required. The ConDems will feel the wrath of these women and their familes at the next election but apart from that there’s no more we can do without a supportive organisation behind us to challenge the meagre 6 months concession instead of welcoming it.

  21. i too have just recieved my letter to say i cannot claim my state pension until may 2019. how can they do this. i had a pension forecast from them in late october 2011 with a retirement date of november 2017. are we supposed to be grateful for the 6 month “REPRIEVE” when we are having to work an extra 5 and a half years with very little notice.
    having planned for the last 30+ years to retire with my husband, who is 65 in september this year, it would seem it was a complete waste of time. i am totally disillusioned with this government.

  22. Did I read it correctly or am I dreaming??? How does the “not more than 18 months to 2 yrs” come in?
    I will be 60 in May 2013. I’ve received a letter from the DWP in Feb this year to say my retirement date will be Nov 2019, that’s 3 and 1/2 years, not 18 months or 2 years. They told me this the year before I am 60 – not much notice. Do we take it lying down?

    1. I am 60 in September 2013 and my retirement date is March 2018. Thats 4 and a half years extra. No we shouldn’t take it lying down, but the Government don’t care about us, there are not enough of us. No One cares !! Except us.

    2. We formed a facebook group ‘Protest Against proposed Accelerated rise of state pension age’ we have only 52 members but fought for a year, wrote to every MP and every Lord. Some of our members went to London, my own sister who was born in April 1954 and has been targeted twice by unfair age rises went to Blackpool to speak at a Union Meeting and to London to help present our petition. The result was 6 miserable months concession. Totally unfair on all the women affected but the ConDems rushed it through. Our only hope is that WHEN Labour get back into power we can convince them to repeal that law but it will need ALL the women affected to do that and many are just finding out now about the second age rise not having even known about the first. The Labour party, Rachel Reeves, the Unions and Age UK fought for us and everyone knows how unfair it is,only 30 years contributions will be enough in the future, my sister will have paid in 50 years by she can retire ! Robbed of her freedom, of her pension and still paying in to keep the many young unemployed in the benefits they have paid nothing towards.We haven’t taking it lying down and if anyone can think what else we can do please join our group as the people there are very annoyed at being the helpless few who do care.

    3. It would be a big shock to you Bee if you didn’t already know the women’s state pension age was rising, so you’ve just learned about TWO increases at once, that’s not a dream it’s a nightmare. We didn’t lie down all last year, we fought the government, but we only gained 6 months reprieve, I have an extra 18 months to work PLUS the 4 years from the first SPA increase, so I’ll be 65½ when I can claim my pension and not 60 as I expected all my life.

  23. I have only just started to think about retirement (I am 57) and although I knew something was changing to do with pensions I didn’t realise until I started reading up about it and I am absolutely disgusted that the government can get away with this. I my reckoning having to work an extra 6 years (dont think I am up to it anyway in this cut throat world of banking) is going to leave me over £30,000 worse off calculated at todays weekly pension figure over 6 years, am I working this out correctly? Thats apart from if I continue to work the additional NI contributions (and Taxes) that I will have to pay. Luckily I have paid into a small private pension so may be able to retire at 62 but the way I am feeling at present carrying on even that long seems really hard. All of the young people who are out of work I am sure will agree that we should retire to free up some jobs for them. I am not a particularly political person but am willing to join any campaign to help improve the situation for women who fall into this category of being badly penalised.

    1. You now only need 30 years of NI contributions to qualify for the maximum pension. If you take early retirement and your only source of income is pension, interest and dividends, you should not have to keep paying NI contributions. The basic pension is set to increase to at least £140 per week for people reaching retirement age within the next 2 or 3 years, so that is something else to factor in.

Leave a Reply to jackie jest Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s