When PHSO decided in 2017 to intervene on behalf of the WASPI women and ‘speed up’ maladministration cases many believed that action was finally being taken to deliver justice. Two years later and PHSO have yet to commence any investigations on behalf of these women. What went wrong?
Changes to state pension age were originally brought in by the Pensions Act 1995 and at that time it was stated there would be 15 years notice for changes to pension arrangements. But the Pensions Act of 2011 brought forward the timetable and increased state pension age to 66 for both men and women. Little or no notification was given by the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) to those who were affected, in particular 50’s born women, many of whom were expecting to receive their pension at 60.
As realisation grew, complaints were made to the DWP regarding the way they handled the changes to pension arrangements and seeking recompense for the hardship caused as a consequence. Approximately 3.3 million women have been affected and many have become destitute due to lack of income.
In November 2017 the DWP had fully processed just 6 complaints from a total of 4,557 submitted. Commonspace article 27.11.17
The DWP’s Independent Case Examiner (ICE) set up a team of just three case managers from existing resources to deal with these complaints and as they made slow progress, thousands more joined the end of the queue. ICE was clearly overwhelmed. On 30th November 2017 it was reported that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) would intervene in order to ‘speed up’ the process; this coupled with a vote of support in the House for improving transition arrangements, gave encouragement to many WASPI women that their long fight was coming to an end.
THIS WEEK HAS turned out to be a hopeful one for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign, with an intervention from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to speed up its maladministration case against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), followed closely by a unanimous vote of support in the House of Commons. commonspace 30.11.17
It was unusual for the Ombudsman to step in at this stage as they regularly state that they cannot intervene in cases which have not completed the first stage investigation and neither are they permitted, by legislation, from investigating cases where there is an alternative legal remedy. A FOI request in December 2017 asked PHSO for confirmation that their decision to intervene at this stage was permitted by law. They were, after all, working alongside the very body [ICE] they would later be holding to account. Prior to this announcement by PHSO #backto60 One Voice campaign announced (18th November 2017) that Michael Mansfield QC agreed to represent them and fund raising began in earnest to Judicially Review the actions of the DWP. Despite access to alternative legal remedy and a possible conflict of interests, PHSO agreed to work with ICE to identify sample cases for investigation as part of a bid to ‘streamline’ the DWP case handling process.
Given that the Ombudsman’s intervention was intended to hasten the delivery of justice it has done just the opposite. A year was apparently ‘lost’ in negotiation as it was not until October 2018 that PHSO announced they would investigated 6 sample cases. In the meantime ICE closed down all the WASPI complaints waiting for attention. Now all hopes for recognition of injustice rested with the Ombudsman. Just one month after selecting the 6 cases PHSO put all investigations on hold when in November 2018 it was announced that a Judicial Review had been granted.
We considered the impact of the judicial review on our proposed investigation and reached the view that it would not be practical or proportionate for us to investigate while similar and related issues were being considered by the court. Ombudsman.org
The Ombudsman is generally very strict on its observance of access to alternative legal remedy. It will close down cases on the basis that the complainant has/had an opportunity for legal recourse even when the complainant has made no mention of any such intention. It is a value judgement on the part of the Ombudsman as to whether or not it is ‘reasonable’ for the complainant to resort to legal remedy due to the discretion allowed in their legislation.
The PHSO promise of intervention in 2017 gave false hope to WASPI women
that action was being taken on their behalf.
Why did PHSO use Ombudsman’s discretion in 2017 to become involved in cases which, at that time, had not fully completed the internal complaint process and which would most likely be the subject of legal action?
Perhaps this article from Civil Service World, January 2018 explains the motivation. Speaking about government departments such as the DWP Rob Behrens, Ombudsman says;
…there is “goodwill towards us because people recognise that the ombudsman is the last in the line for complaints, and departments understand they rely on the ombudsman for relieving them of issues they can’t deal with”. Civil Service World Jan 2018
It was clear that both DWP and ICE could not deal with the continual flood of WASPI complaints. Having ‘relieved them’ of their burden PHSO then ‘paused’ all activity due to impending legal action. PHSO could have used their discretion to scope investigations to look specifically at aspects of DWP/ICE ‘maladministration’ as this matter was not subject to legal scrutiny, but they chose not to. WASPI women should note that historically, PHSO uphold very few cases against either the DWP or ICE as can be seen below. (no data yet available for 2018/19). Parliamentary stats 2017/18 (p.7)
Amanda Campbell CEO at the Ombudsman’s office was asked by Dr Rupa Huq MP to explain the delay in dealing with the WASPI cases. Ms Campbell’s response does not consider for one moment the urgency and desperation many WASPI women face as they struggle to survive year upon year without their state pensions. Have the WASPI women been given false hope by the PHSO intervention only to be let down?
phsothetruestory 
The 638 complaints were only those from 2019-20. Previously to those dates there had been thousands more – all unique cases. A ‘representative’ number of only 6 cases out of the thousands received was a pitiful number. Cherry picked no doubt. Despite the Ombudsman’s promise that these ‘representative’ cases would be investigated thoroughly very quickly (and apparently Ombudsman according to the national newspapers had put pressure on the Independent Complaints Examiner to hurry up to work through cases prior to them being received at PHSO), these cases had still sat in a pile. Ombudsman had said regardless of waiting on the decision of the Judicial Review by another pensions group, which in any case was dealing with a completely different issue and one of discrimination against 1950s women and CEEDAW issues, the cases would be dealt with. As always PHSO have sat on them and nothing has progressed. Just waiting in the wings to close the lot down.
The overwhelming amount of evidence against the Government on the 1950s womens’ pension issue must bring success at the High Court Appeal in the next days for the Backto60 group that has brought this particular case. The Ombudsman will then have to deal with the ‘maladministration’ issue. But as always the cases will be pushed to the nearest waste bin. Absolutely disgusting.
LikeLike
You are right Anne. The Ombudsman intervened inappropriately as the first and second stages of the complaint process were not complete, in order to ‘speed up the process’ and deliver justice for these women. However, many months later these 6 sample cases are still waiting for resolution. It makes you wonder if they are waiting for the court decision hoping it will close down all these WASPI complaints forever.
LikeLike
Ombudsman’s Annual Report – page 32
‘Complaints about communication of changes to women’s state pension age
In 2019-20, we received 357 complaints about the Department for Work and Pensions’ communication regarding changes to women’s state pension age, first introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and affecting women born after 6 April 1950. This brought the total number of complaints we received on this issue to 638, before we decided to stop accepting new complaints and instead proceed to investigate a representative sample.’
Click to access The%20Ombudsman%E2%80%99s%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202019-2020_Website.pdf
LikeLike
Unfortunately the sample cases have still not been investigated. The decision of the J R on this issue is due soon. No doubt PHSO will soon close all the cases if the decision goes against the Waspi women.
LikeLike
Very sad reflection of the times. Work all your life then goalposts moved! How many women would have bothered to work so hard and studied in their own time and expense if they knew this would happen. Still working at 65!! No notice given 😪
LikeLike
Very true but even when an injustice is acknowledged the level of compensation is insulting. There is no justice.
LikeLike
An excellent and very enlightening blog highlighting the processes at play for the thousands of 1950s women who have taken their individual complaints to the DWP and have been fobbed off with standard responses through several stages. The complainants had then been happily referred on to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) working through a stressful and wearying process as ICE tried to dilute their cases and scope out important points. Then waiting up to 18 months to two years only for the cases then to be abruptly closed down with no investigation and with the convenient suggestion of going on to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) – the dustbin at the end of a long line of office desks? Women have now been directed by the Ombudsman to no longer send further cases as supposedly the common themes of complaint are similar. Only 6 so called ‘representative’ cases were taken but still awaiting the decision as to whether they will be investigated or not! But the individual cases of 4,500 plus women are not all the same. Women have unique cases of how they were failed by various elements of maladministration at the DWP, failure of notification, misinformation from out-of-date DWP websites and many other such failures of duty. All of these issues have affected women in different ways and given varied outcomes and problems to women depending on their own individual circumstances. Yet the Ombudsman with solid evidence is still yet to decide whether to investigate and those cases with other concrete evidence will never be heard. It’s a nasty business altogether and all very familiar to those with experience of the PHSO systems.
It would have to be questioned by fee paying members of Waspi Ltd why Bindmans, who were appointed legal advisers by Waspi Ltd at huge financial cost and using the money thousands of women had crowdfunded for a legal case, fielded Waspi women down the shadowy path to the Ombudsman’s house and Waspi still keen to pursue this course. Interestingly, ICE use much the same phrasing in their replies to complainants as the caseworkers use at the PHSO on all types of complaints. Are they all using the same standard manual for replies? Are the caseworkers all being trained by the same people? ICE use exactly the same tactics to try and scope out as much of the important area of complaint and evidences as they can, exactly as the PHSO also does and always just leaving anything in the complaint summary that can be easily manipulated. ‘All in it together’ springs to mind. And they call it being ‘independent’!
For well over 4,500 cases to be suddenly closed down at ICE having been sat there for up to 2 years and without any attempts at investigation, there is the smell of a rat! As stated in this blog, it was unusual for the Ombudsman to step in as legislation does not permit them to intervene when the first stage of complaint has not been investigated as was the situation for the Waspi cases. Yet great excitement everywhere, both in Parliament, splattered over the media and among some trusting women when the Ombudsman suddenly ‘stepped in’ with a great fanfare to ‘intervene’ and save the day because it was not acceptable that women’s cases were taking so long to be investigated. Better still, why not save the day (for DWP, ICE and the PHSO) by closing them all down – it’s quick, it’s easy and lifts the burden from them all in an instant. No questions asked and no accountability!
When the Judicial Review by the Backto60 group reached the High Court what better way for Ombudsman to jump on board regarding the 50s women’s complaints of maladministration and turn it around that PHSO could not investigate whilst the Judicial Review case was running. There was a great deal of time when the 6 representative cases were in place at Ombudsman and all ready to go, for the investigations to have taken place; they were just kept on hold purposely and using the Judicial Review and now the Appeal to the Supreme Court is an excuse to do nothing, to delay further and eventually get rid of them.
There is something extremely sinister about the way the complaints of maladministration by the 1950s women have been handled. The delays which PHSO and others blame conveniently on Backto60’s Judicial Review and now the Appeal process, do not make any sense. There is no excuse for Ombudsman not to be investigating those areas that a Judicial Review by law cannot look at. But is this surprising with the track record of the PHSO? PHSO could have investigated the areas of complaint brought against DWP but they choose not to. What is also of concern is that Backto60 have been encouraged to drop their Appeal to the Supreme Court and then the 1950s womens’ case will be ‘sorted’ in Westminster. What ‘sorting out’ might that be? A pathetic offer that leaves most women who have been out there struggling for over 5 years already in an even worse position. Why would any group that has come so far at Judicial Review, with a valid case and concrete evidence and has the support of so many, not progress with what is part of the legal process they were accepted into and is their right to Appeal? I wonder how pleased PHSO would be if the Appeal had been withdrawn? PHSO would certainly have to finally and promptly come to the decision whether they were going to investigate the ‘maladministration’ complaints or not! They could no longer conveniently use the false excuse of legal action stopping them. But would the dustbins for the complaints be moved just that bit closer to the edge of the office desks at the PHSO?
The glossy website, full of smiling people on the PHSO website, the customer satisfaction tables with their results that don’t add up to the reality, the pleasant words in the communication letters to complainants and the ‘transparent’ public meetings that sing their praises, not to mention the annual ‘scrutiny’ meetings which bear all the resemblance of a well- rehearsed performance at the National Theatre, are an attempt to make the public feel ‘safe’ and that their injustices will be recognized and duly given recompense. Sadly, the 1950s women have been drawn into a process that will not offer them what they are hoping for. The PHSO is unlikely to ever bite the hand that feeds it.
LikeLike
Brilliantly put Anne. It is all a sham. A show of accountability where none exists.
LikeLike
WOW – it has just come to my attention that the PHSO assert that even though their results, for example reaching a ‘resolution’ without an ‘investigation’ is not welcome, complainants realize that they have ‘done some good by complaining’. However it does not state who benefits from doing some good by complaining. So one is left to assume that this is for the good of the PHSO and its associated domain(s), thus promoting the notion that complaining is the true path to follow (until you actually do) when there is a legitimate reason to do so. Sadly, it effectively appears to do some good for the continuum of enticement, so feeding the on-going pr.
LikeLike
This is another clear illustration of how the PHSO give false hope, followed by lame excuses to actually do nothing, despite the usual grand sounding (false) ‘speedy’ and ‘fair’ action they declare they are going to take. This in turn is backed by the ‘justice’ system which changes with the wind, or rather changes to suit bodies like the PHSO who in turn do not appear to help any citizen, but support the corruption of our ‘democratic’ government to ensure false hope wins along with the pr, which is wearing so thin lately with the population at large. Larger as the deceptions keep on publicly piling up in every direction. You can’t deceive all of the people all of the time and expect this is ok …
LikeLike
PHSO also won’t consider anything that isn’t in their scope to investigate which rests on a complainant relaying the correct information to the case worker. This also relies on the case worker interpreting the case correctly. I don’t agree with clinical advice being sought without the complainant knowing the questions to be asked. PHSO say if they did that then they wouldn’t be “independent”. Load of rubbish that is because they aren’t independent to start off with. In my case they went back to the Trust to clarify something but didn’t do that for me even though they now admit in hindsight they should have done for one point. That is obvious bias.
We’ve had Windrush, the pensions of these women being affected and on it goes. Look at how long it took the Hillsborough families to get anywhere. Pension rules were changed again in 2016 and this has affected me because from having my full years I am now short and unable to work due to my health. I only found out about that by accident. The whole system for many organisations in this country is a mess and it seems that if it is ignored long enough and time wasted, people either give up or die. Just not good enough.
LikeLike
Another appalling example of #PHSO corruption and covering for the state. What a surprise. They don’t care about the harm injustice they cause. They told me they don’t look at the detriment caused unless they first recognise the failing. This goes against their public statement on detriment and impact. But they never let a little thing like that stop them.
LikeLike
If they drag their feet long enough the problem goes away! Or so PHSO may think….it might come back to haunt them….
LikeLike
Its important to note that these are 6 x 50’s Womens INDIVIDUAL Maladministration Test Cases. (Not WASPI cases).- Discredited #Waspiltd due to their infighting in both 2017/18 had in fact left women high and dry after women c/funded for a Legal C/Fund for a 2 prong Legal attack, but, which they did not provide. The WASPI board split early 2018 and took legal docs to which they were not entitled away from the Ltd Company and blocked anyone who dared to ask where the legal/ monies had in fact gone. Bindmans unable to represent warring Waspi Boards left. The 6 test cases could and should have been processed well in advance of the JR, as their cases were in situ at PHSO from early 2018, and test case women appraised early on in 2018 that they were chosen. So from early 2018 to the launch of the JR the PHSO had more than ample time to process the 6 x test cases, but, chose not to, even although the High Court can not rule on maladministration. As no legal activity is current Nov 2018 there is again no excuse not to progress the test cases and women are yet again stymied, causing maximum distress/stress. Women must press their own MPs / Caseworkers/Reps
LikeLike
Thanks for the insight. Really no excuse for PHSO who have been sitting on their hands.
LikeLike
The PHSO misleading the service user again I see.
LikeLike