1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Retired 2008 due to ill health, pension then expected to get 2016,

Discussion in 'Retirement' started by redgrape, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. redgrape

    redgrape New commenter

    Due to ill health I was forced to take early retirement at age 52 in 2008 & expected my SP at 60 but this will not happen for me now until I'm 66. I did not know about these changes until 2010 ( would be 65 then changed in 2011 to age 67,
    I've been living off my TP since then & cannot work due to getting the higher tier rate through an autoimmune disease which cannot be cured so I cannot make up any of my pension.
    I feel angry about my position after working all my life ( just a short gap when I had my 2 children) and basically feel cheated from my SP because the gov wanted to rush it all through without really looking at those born in the 1950s.

    Has this happened to anyone else? How do others feel about it all? I have signed the WASPI petition online.
  2. Piranha

    Piranha Star commenter

    Wasn't the change in the state pension age for women to 65 announced sometime in the 1990s, so it was not rushed through? The previous arrangement was most unfair on men (who got the pension later and had a shorter life expectancy to enjoy their pension), so with the desire for gender equality, it had to change sometime. Whenever that happened, it was going to hit somebody, so it was right to give plenty of notice. I sympathise wiith your particular circumstances, but agree with the principle of the change.
  3. pjmteach

    pjmteach New commenter

    Write to your MP
    Visit Him/Her
    Parliament's Backbench Business Committee has confirmed a debate led by the Scottish National Party MP Mhairi Black has been scheduled
    in the chamber of the House of Commons for the afternoon of Thursday 7 January.
    It is not fair that you made decisions based on information you had when it was all changed so near to your retirement date.
    I understand the need for Pension Reform but it has all happened much too fast for those of us born in the fifties.
    The recent State Pension Review -Sept 2014 states that everyone will now be given 10 years notice of changes to
    SPA. That was not the case for me

    Women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 October 1954 are affected by both the equalisation of the state pension age to 65 and the rise of the state pension age to 66.
    I have taught all my working life.I enjoyed time at home with my kids when they were younger.
    Nothing in those days made me doubt the governments promise to look after me when I reached 60

    Luckily I will have a Teachers Pension which is now worth app £10,000 p.a.after 27 years service - not enough to live on in this part of the country!

    My aim was to retire at 60 and manage on my lump sum teachers pension until my State pension kicked in at 63 -
    Then within a year of retiring I find my SPA has increased to 65y 8mths.Devastating! Not enough time to do anything.

    Fortunately I was persuaded not to retire at 60. I am still teaching but finding it increasingly demanding and I know my
    cherished 4 and 5 yr olds deserve a younger more dynamic teacher. The prospect of carrying on until I am 65+ is abhorrent.
    Please don't feed me the standard line about the aging population etc and the need to increase SPA. I do understand this.
    I just question the unfair
    speed at which these changes are to be implemented.
  4. applecrumblebumble

    applecrumblebumble Lead commenter

    See my other post - 1995 this was decided so about 10 years notice then
    I was supposed to get my state pension when I was 65 missed it by 1 month now have to wait until 66.
  5. Yoda-

    Yoda- Lead commenter

    The link may be of some interest to you.

    Your situation is going to be debated.

    "Although there has been backtracking since, many women born in the 1950s have been given too little time to adjust their finances to a later state retirement age. For many, the result will be financial hardship. Steve Webb, Altmann’s predecessor at the Department for Work and Pensions, was in charge when the 2011 changes were made. A Minister no more – indeed, an MP no more – he admitted it had been a ‘bad decision’."

    Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-grips-pension-gripes-2016.html#ixzz3w6MyV9BA
  6. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    If you were 52 in 2008, you must have been born in 1956, and will therefore get your pension at 66, not 67. People born in/after 1960 go to 67. (Not that it is much consolation)
  7. Piranha

    Piranha Star commenter

    As @applecrumblebumble points out, much of the change was announced in 1995, over 20 years ago. The old system was grossly unfair on men; indeed, it was illegal under the EU directive which requires equal treatment of men and women.

    As far as I can work out (and I may be misreading something), a woman born in 1956 would have received her state pension at age 65 following the 1995 legislation, which changed to 66 in 2011. In other words, exactly the same change as for men.
  8. annsue

    annsue New commenter

    Parliament will debate this petition

    Parliament will debate this petition on 1 February 2016.

    You'll be able to watch online at parliamentlive.tv

    Other parliamentary business

    House of Commons debates the effect of state pension age equalisation on women born in the 1950s
  9. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    .... and nothing will be done, because the majority in the house are those lovely "caring" conservatives.
  10. coaltown1

    coaltown1 New commenter

    Apparently the changes were made in 1995 but were not reported widely. I was born in February 1955 and was not made aware of these changes until 4 - 5 years ago! I was 57 and was not planning to retire at 60 because I only started teaching at 42. In fact when I spoke to a friend of mine in finance when I was training to be a teacher she calculated that I would have an ok pension by the time I was 60. The forecast I was given 4 - 5 years ago was 64 and 10 months, subsequently put up to 66. Not quite the same as a man! This was a total surprise to me.
    I am totally for equalisation of pension ages. What I am aggrieved at is the fact that I and thousands of other women were not given enough notice to plan for these changes. In fact the lawyer in charge of my divorce settlement in 1996 was also not aware of these changes.
    I am lucky that I have my health still but so many do not and do not have that pension they believed they would have to fall back on.
    My colleague retired last year and now gets her pension - she is 63. I am 18 months younger yet have to work 3 years longer. The acceleration of these changes is unfair.

Share This Page