Woman denied full arrears in state pension scandal wins landmark ‘maladministration’ ruling against DWP

Daphne and Tim:  ‘It has taken years to work our way through the complaints procedure, with the support of Steve Webb’

A state pension victory for a Surrey woman offers a ‘glimmer of hope’ for others being denied full backpayments of lost cash.

Tens of thousands of elderly women are receiving nearly £1.2billion in state pension arrears after being shortchanged for decades, a scandal uncovered by our columnist Steve Webb and This is Money.

But some women are only receiving a one-year backpayment and an increased state pension going forward – all depending on when they and their husbands were born, and only if they make a proactive claim now.

Daphne, pictured with her husband Tim, successfully complained about maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions.

On top of her previous £1,200 backpayment, This is Money estimates she will get further arrears of around £10,000, plus interest and compensation.

The couple, both 80, were helped in their case by Webb, who says it throws a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of other people who missed out on a higher state pension.

The decision in the favour this week was made by the Independent Case Examiner, a body which deals with complaints of maladministration against the DWP.

However, it only probes the circumstances of an individual case, and has rejected several similar complaints in recent months – all of which are now being referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for a further look.

‘It was their mistake, not mine’ 

Daphne reached state pension age in 2003, and Tim did so in early 2008. He applied on the phone and answered all the questions he was asked, including about his wife’s situation. 

She would only be paid a higher rate if she submitted a further state pension claim form, but Tim was told on the phone that no forms needed to be signed, and none was ever issued.

‘When I first found out that I could have been on a higher pension for over a decade I was surprised and puzzled,’ says Daphne Bennett (surname changed at her request).

‘Then when I claimed and was told it could only be backdated for one year, I felt it was unfair. It was their mistake, not mine.’

She saw coverage about underpaid state pensions in 2020 when she was on around £60 a week, and received a payout of £1,250, while her state pension was raised by £24 a week.

She complained to the DWP about maladministration, saying if she had ever been told that she needed to fill in a second claim form to get an uplift she would have done so. 

The DWP rejected her complaint, but the Independent Case Examiner overruled that decision and ordered that the uplift be backdated to 2008, plus interest and compensation paid for ‘distress and inconvenience’. 

She says: ‘It has taken years to work our way through the complaints procedure, with the support of Steve Webb, but I’m absolutely delighted that my complaint has been upheld.’

Daphne is a retired bookkeeper, while Tim used to work in the computer industry. 

She says: ‘My husband reads paperwork carefully and I would obviously have made a second claim for the higher state pension if anyone had actually told us that was how the system worked.

‘I hope that those in positions of authority will look at what happened to me and accept that there are many other women in the same position and will put things right for all of them.’

Webb, a former Pensions Minister who is now a partner at consultant LCP,  believes Daphne’s landmark case offers a ‘glimmer of hope’ that other women could claim compensation, where they and their husbands followed all the correct processes but were never sent the necessary claim form.

He adds that where cases are rejected by the DWP’s Independent Case Examiner, there is still a chance that the Parliamentary Ombudsman may rule in favour of the wider group of women in a similar situation.

‘The old processes for alerting women to the need to claim their state pension twice were hopelessly inadequate. 

‘We’ve had it suggested that women should have gone to the Job Centre to get an information booklet or have been told that they had to rely on their husbands ticking a box on a form.

‘The scale of the problem shows that there was a systematic issue, and it seems to me highly likely that many women, like Daphne, were never sent the claim form that they needed. I hope that this landmark case will lead to many thousands more women getting justice.’

What does the DWP say?

‘As upheld by a court last year, married women whose husbands reached state pension age after them, but before March 17 2008, are required by law to make a claim for an uplift to their state pension,’ says a DWP spokesperson.

‘Our priority is ensuring pensioners receive the financial support to which they are entitled and the action we are taking now will correct historical underpayments made by successive governments.’

DWP:  The action we are taking now will correct historical underpayments made by successive government

The DWP adds that it has accepted the Independent Case Examiner’s recommendations in Daphne’s case, but this does not represent a change in policy or bring additional people into scope of the ongoing underpayments correction exercise.

Married individuals who are legally required to make a claim for an uplift in payments because their husband reached state pension age before the change in legislation in 2008 still need to do so.

Backdating of 12 months is a long-standing element of social security law and there are no plans to change this position.

The DWP tells us it took a number of steps to inform women about their eligibility for a state pension uplift, including information sent about four months before a customer reached state pension age.

Contact the Pension Service on 0800 7310469 or check online here.  

What if you believe you are underpaid state pension?

If you are a woman who suspects you are underpaid and your husband reached state pension age before 17 March 2008, you should make a proactive claim to the DWP immediately.

The DWP says that in cases where a one-year backpayment is due, it accepts the first letter or telephone communication from a customer querying their state pension entitlement as the valid date of claim.

It then determines the 12-month backdating arrears period based on this claim date.

In other words, this means women should not be left out of pocket for the subsequent time the DWP takes to process their claim.

But it would be sensible to keep a record of the first date you phone up or a copy of your initial letter so you can prove it if necessary.

Aside from Daphne’s victory by complaining of maladministration, there are four ‘loopholes’ that we know of where women with ‘pre-March 2008 cases’ might receive a bigger payout. These involve dates of birth, deferment of state pension, whether you made a past complaint, and if you are only on a tiny ‘graduated retirement benefit’.

How do you challenge a one-year backpayment?

Many elderly women who only received a one-year backpayment are battling with the Government for full arrears, despite the Parliamentary Ombudsman saying it will not intervene in the Government’s decision to only hand them a one-year payment.

Steve Webb and This is Money are supporting women in their campaign for full payouts, and we will report on any further developments.

You can still complain to the DWP and there are two ways to challenge it on this issue.

– Appeal: Argue that the law has been applied incorrectly; if the DWP rejects this, as it has in all cases we know of so far, you can ask for a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ of your complaint, followed by a tribunal.

However, as every appeal we know of has been unsuccessful, you might have more chance if you complain about maladministration

– Complain about maladministration: This is about how the DWP ran the system; you should complain first to the DWP – give as much detail as possible, including that key documents were sent to husbands – then to an Independent Case Examiner, then to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

In all cases, it is worth asking your MP to press your cause with the DWP as well.

If you go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, your MP will have to sign your form as part of the process.

If you have already gone to the Ombudsman, and were informed of its decision not to intervene in backpayments, you can go back to your MP and ask for their support in getting the Ombudsman to reconsider.

We would like to hear from people who went to the Ombudsman and have been turned down. Please write to Steve Webb at [email protected] and put OMBUDSMAN in the subject line.

This post first appeared on Dailymail.co.uk