
Entire DWP submission to Ombudsman on women’s right to pension compensation leaked to this blog
All 3.5 million 50s born women including the six “test case” complainants should get no compensation because there has been no maladministration and no evidence of financial loss, the DWP has told Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Even if there were maladministration the submission says his report does not show “there was injustice as a consequence of that maladministration.”
Their 118 paragraph submission rejects his entire draft report and his modest proposal of £1000 compensation for the six test cases, which the department says is, anyway, too high.
The coruscating response to the Ombudsman in a document marked ” official sensitive” is highly critical of his findings, the campaign to get compensation by WASPI, and makes the extraordinary suggestion that many of the claims by women could turn out to be fraudulent.
The attitude of the officials to the claim explains the real reason why Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is against mediation as he is obviously being advised that the ministry has no case to answer and why the Ombudsman, who must be embarrassed by the language in the submission, has turned to Parliament as a last resort.
The findings must be a major blow to Angela Madden, the organiser for WASPI, who only last year claimed at the Labour Party Conference that the women would get £10,000 to £20,000 compensation from the ministry.
Much of the submission is devoted to the Ombudsman’s proposal that all the women who have similar circumstances must get similar compensation and fund set up to deal with the wider question of compensation for financial loss. This means that the department would have to examine each case in detail which , according to the paper , would mean employing 5,500 extra staff, and take away people from other work like paying people’s pensions on their retirement and awarding pension credit.
The submission says: “DWP would not have information on all 1950s-born women and we would have to source their information – for example, through HMRC. We would also need bank details in order to make an automated payment and these would be obtained through outreach and/or some way for citizens to provide their details. Such a scenario would take significant setting-up and would have wide ranging impacts on DWP’s other critical business, with likely costs of the digital aspects.” It says this would take 18 months to set up.
It is the fraud claim over financial losses that is most extraordinary.
The submission says: “We are concerned that the Ombudsman’s proposed recommendations would generate a major fraud risk and be hugely and disproportionately burdensome to implement.”
“… we expect that the existence of a scheme would result in many claimants endeavouring to provide such evidence. The Department would then have to try out many extensive and expensive investigations to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove financial loss. We expect that claimants will be
encouraged to make claims for financial loss and that template letters will be circulated to support such claims. The cost of living crisis may also drive increased volumes of claims.
“This seems to be an entirely unnecessary expense for the taxpayer given that the Ombudsman has found no sufficient evidence on the 6 sample cases, we found no sufficient evidence on the 10,000 cases, and we cannot see how sufficient evidence could be available.”
The submission does not even accept that that there was anything wrong with the ministry’s communication to 50swomen. The Ombudsman makes another modest proposal that officials report to him and the chairs of the work and pensions and public administration select committtees, Stephen Timms and William Wragg on what they have done six months after his report is published.
“”You have recommended that within 6 months of your final report we explain to you and the chairs of the WPSC and PACAC what we have done since these events happened or what we plan to do.
….”we do not agree to report to you and the chairs of the 2 committees within 6 months of your final report being published. Also, your findings relate to historic events. We are not clear on the benefit of
considering these events with the advantage of hindsight.”
I am not surprised this confidential submission was labelled ” sensitive”. It shows up the arrogant way officials behave towards 3.5 million elderly women, their disdain for remarkably modest proposals from the Ombudsman, dislike of organisations like Waspi for organising ” template letters” and a level of complacency they have in their administration of this vexed and prolonged process of raising the pension age. Their official attitude is little better than Boris Johnson’s quip during the Covid pandemic “let the elderly die”.
I have not bothered to either inform or contact the Ombudsman’s Office or the DWP on this leaked report as the Ombudsman is bound by law from commenting during an investigation and the DWP never comment on leaked documents.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue exposing what is really going on in government.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyPlease donate to Westminster Confidential
£10.00


























