As Ombudsman watchers since 2013 members of PHSOtheFACTS have first-hand knowledge of the ways in which the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman allows public bodies off the hook. In essence, the Ombudsman can only recommend compensation if he finds ‘harm’ caused by ‘maladministration’. Despite the evidence, invariably the Ombudsman will overlook the most damning maladministration whilst at the same time minimising the harm, and then inform disappointed complainants that they didn’t ‘manage their expectations’. Will he get away with such trickery when concluding the investigation into the poorly communicated change of pension age for women born in the 1950’s?
Nicholas Wheatley – PHSOtheFACTS member
The Ombudsman has acted in a very strange manner in the WASPI investigation. Usually he investigates and then reports. In this case he has split the report into three separate reports. The first one was produced in July 2021. The current “leaked” one is due for publication in January 2023. Presumably the final report will be produced later in 2023 or even 2024. Meanwhile nearly 100 women born in the 1950s die every day, and will never see justice, while the Ombudsman slow-walks the report. No-one has questioned why the Ombudsman is following this drawn out method instead of just producing one report at the end of the investigation. It seems most likely that he is doing this for two main reasons.
First, by drip-feeding the bad news people can become inured to each part before the next part is produced. If it was all produced in one report there might be outrage across the country and in the media.
Second, the seriousness of the complaint can be gradually downplayed in each report in order to minimise any recommended compensation payments.
So in the first report the Ombudsman decided that, although there was a 15 year period before the change to the pensions was rolled out, there was only maladministration for a short period of 28 months after 2006 when, although they had finally realised that many women were not aware of the imminent change to their retirement age, the DWP took no action. This seems to be a bizarre argument because the Ombudsman has admitted that the information campaign by the DWP between 1995 and 2006 did not work properly. But he claims it was not maladministration because it followed standards that the Ombudsman thought were acceptable. So although there was service failure leading to appalling injustice for many women approaching pension age, there was, according to the Ombudsman, no maladministration.
The issues have been highlighted by investigative journalist, David Hencke, in his blog at Westminster Confidential. The link to his blog can be found here.
If David Hencke is correct about the details of the second report then the Ombudsman has downplayed the level of injustice as well. Although the women claimed that the increase in pension age caused them financial hardship and health issues due to the stress, the Ombudsman seems to have claimed that the injustice was limited to worry, confusion and emotional stress. How much compensation is a few years of worry, confusion and emotional stress worth?
It’s also noticeable, if David Hencke is correct, that the Ombudsman has also pulled another couple of his favourite tricks, which at PHSOtheFACTS we are all aware of, but which will confuse anyone who thinks that the Ombudsman is a champion of justice.
First, he blames the victims by claiming that they should have been aware of the changes to the state pension age.
Second, he refuses to believe that the 28 months of maladministration led to the financial losses claimed.
Victim blaming and refusing to believe what complainants tell him are straight out of his usual playbook, but they probably haven’t been seen in a major investigation in the eyes of the media before. But Ombudsmen are held in such undeserved high esteem will anyone question his approach when the final reports are released and will the WASPI women have legal recourse to challenge the findings of the so-called independent Ombudsman?
phsothetruestory 
The Code of Conduct did cover maladministration in those 13 years but the PHSO has concluded that the DWP met the relevant standards.
The biggest issue is assuming that a whole decade of women led the same lives which is far from the truth. Considering the amount of 50s’ women who are now complaining of getting a lower state pension due to being contracted out, it isn’t even true to say that all 50s’ women have only a state pension as their sole income.
Yes I am a woman and a 50s’ woman as well. Like many I kept myself aware. Just like 3.8m women didn’t lead the same life, 3.8m women are not all in agreement.
LikeLike
You appear to be saying that as not all 50’s women suffered from the changes to the pension arrangements there has been no injustice.
LikeLike
Disappointed once again we seem to not matter ? Yet we worked from age 14 to 66 ! Looked after grand parents parents and children saving the gov a lot of money .
LikeLiked by 1 person
My managed expectation was I would retire at 60 as per the information on the government gateway website in 2015 when I was aged 57 after looking at this I then asked for a Forcast it was this reply that said I would not get my pension till I was 66 ..This is the ONLY letter I had received from Gov ..and it was me asking them …NOT them informing me
LikeLiked by 1 person
As with all the campaign groups, there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the PHSO”s role. He cannot interfere with Primary Legislation as in the case of the SPA rises. They were all done legally through proper consultation and debate in Parliament and Lords.
So that leaves maladministration and that period of 28 months where the DWP did not meet the standards set out to them by the Civil Service Code. That is all that the PHSO can determine.
Most of the campaigners talk about the effect of the actual SPA rises and not the effect of the maladministration. It’s an important distinction as the rises would have happened anyway even if no maladministration. The majority of the campaigners have actually admitted to being able to do no differently even if they’d got a letter on Day 1 back in 1995.
As to why the PHSO has deviated from his normal routine of investigate and report there could be various reasons. One could simply be that the campaigners have been pushing for information. The other could be the leaking of Stage 1 by David Hencke. I’m pretty sure that the PHSO chose to release Stage 1 officially rather than have the biased snippets coming from Hencke who is of course working with BT60 and is totally against Waspi. It’s notable that all the attacks on Waspi have come from BT60 and yet they have never reciprocated and attacked BT60.
LikeLike
Excellent summary, Lesley
LikeLike
There can be no doubt that the decision to raise the pension age over such a steep timeline has caused hardship to women born in the 50’s. The lack of communication compounded the problem, resulting in many women only discovering the change when they were due to collect their pension. Was a risk assessment carried out before this policy was put in place? Basically a whole cohort of women has been thrown under the bus.
What this issue has highlighted to the many who have followed it with the hope of compensation, is the fact that the two mechanisms for dealing with a public grievance are unfit for purpose. Judicial review is tightly restricted by the law and recourse to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is a long drawn-out process that more often than not leads to disappointment.
Accountability and justice are sadly lacking in our democracy and we the people just have to suck it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you look back at all the information then yes you will find that all the appropriate risk assessments were made. The timeline could hardly be considered steep with the main change from 60 to 65 being announced in 1995, implemented in 2010 and initially meant to complete in 2020. Rises were basically two months at a time so earlier 50s’ born only had a few months. The “steep” timeline came from the 2011 Act but instead of concentrating on this, Waspi went after an Act already 20 years old and five years already begun.
These rises did not just affect 50s’ born women. They affected all women born from 6th April 1950 onwards. Those women born in the 60s’ and 70s have had 7 and 8 years added on to their SPA.
Some people really have struggled but it’s wrong to say a whole cohort has struggled.
LikeLike
If the appropriate risk assessments were made then what measures were put in place to stop women from falling into destitution as they waited for their pension? Why can’t the Ombudsman look into these important aspects as part of his investigation? It was indeed the 2011 act which made the process steep for those women born in the 50’s, including myself. The premise of ‘equalising’ and compensating for an increase in life expectancy are flawed as 1950’s women never received equal pay throughout their working lives and life expectancy has stalled. The money used to pay pensions has been paid in by the people and their employers – it was not a benefit paid out from government coffers in the first place. You appear to be saying that as only some women struggled it is acceptable but the truth is that a whole cohort have had money taken from them that they expected to get as pension payments with very little notification.
LikeLike
The PHSO cannot look at things that are not in his remit. He can only look to see if there was maladministration and if so what effect that had. The maladministration period has been identified as 28 months and it’s that period that will decide any compensation due.
As to it not being a benefit, it’s been a Contributory Benefit since 1925. That fact is important as it’s the key to everything that’s happened. It’s not a pension scheme.
LikeLike
The point is Lesley, why can’t the Ombudsman look at things like the risk assessment? Clearly, it was flawed as a significant number of women fell into destitution when they were forced to wait for their pensions. Not carrying out a robust risk assessment should be maladministration, as harm was caused as a result. I paid in for my pension from the outset of my working life – well over 40 years of payments. My employer also contributed to the final pension pot. This is not a handout from the government. It was sold to me as a pension scheme and for the vast majority of that time, a pension scheme I could claim at 60. If a private company changed its payout arrangements it would be deemed as misselling.
LikeLike
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK state pension system. It’s a Contributory Benefit as I said and not a pension scheme. Nobody has sold it to you.
The PHSO cannot and does not investigate Government Acts of Parliament. That is done via Parliament and the Lords. The Pension Acts are Primary Legislation.
The PHSO’s only remit is to see if the DWP has carried out its obligations as per the Civil Service Code. The DWP doesn’t set Primary Legislation, it simply carries out what Parliament has passed.
As to a private pension paying out later this happened in 2010 when the minimum age that you could access a pension changed from 50 to 55 overnight. Parliament made that change through an Act of Parliament and pension companies had no option but to follow legislation.
LikeLike
You use the terms ‘pension’ and ‘contributory benefit’ interchangeably. You state that it was the ‘pension acts’ which control the payments yet it is not a pension but a benefit. This appears to be using semantics simply to create a counterargument. Surely it was for the DWP to carry out a risk assessment on behalf of parliament. This risk assessment was clearly flawed as a significant number of women fell into destitution. The limited scope of the Ombudsman allows this key aspect to be swept under the carpet. Parliament set the remit of the Ombudsman and put such restrictions in place in order to prevent proper scrutiny and accountability. Consequently, the Ombudsman is not fit for purpose if the purpose is to provide recourse to the general public. The private pensions were forced by a parliamentary act to change their pension arrangements. Had they chosen to do so themselves they could have been held to account by the public on the basis of misselling. The key element in this whole debate is that there is no effective mechanism to hold parliament to account and protect the public from harm.
LikeLike
Just because the Code of Conduct/service standards did not cover Maladministration for 13 of those 15 yrs does not mean it did not exist and ultimately could/should be disregarded. Again this is failings of those involved who initiated/devised the Code of Conduct. One thing that has cropped up again and again but persistently disregarded is “Common Law duty of care ” When legislation/laws have shortcomings/failings then there is always common law duty of care .
A lot of your argument seems to be heresay , eg, “women have admitted that even if they did know, there was very little they could do about it ?” You entirely miss the fact that this option of knowing was not available to us at the time. The simple fact is , the Government civil servants of the day chose the wrong cohort of women to inflict this on , we have fought all our lives for equality in the work place and had not acheived it, we have very little else other than our State pension to see us through our retirement. I am staggered by your opinion especially if you are a female as your name suggests .
LikeLike
Well said Cheryl Sloan 💜✊
LikeLike
‘How much compensation is a few years of worry, confusion and emotional stress worth?’
Level 3 (£500-950), but could become level 2 (£100-£450)?
Click to access Our-guidance-on-financial-remedy-1.pdf
Financial redress in 10 cases in 2014 involving death was between £100-£2,500 (nine of them were for £1,000 or less):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/compensation_amounts_involving_d#comment-55962
LikeLike
PHSO financial remedy recommendations in 2021/22:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/889879/response/2118492/attach/3/FOI%2000000286.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
LikeLike
I’m using the OMG here. Manage their expectations! The oft used phrase. They have a phrase book for sure don’t they?
LikeLike
If your expectations are justice and an impartial decision you will be sadly disappointed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correctly identified as ‘a swiz’ by Quintin Hogg, when the ombudsman legislation was debated in parliament in 1967, the swiz goes on!
LikeLiked by 1 person