Daphne and Tim: ‘It has taken us years to work through the complaints procedure, with the support of Steve Webb’
A victory over the state pension for a Surrey woman offers ‘a glimmer of hope’ for others who are being denied full back payments on lost money.
Tens of thousands of older women are receiving nearly £1.2bn in government pension arrears after being shortchanged for decades, a scandal exposed by our columnist Steve Webb and This is Money.
But some women receive only a year of back pay and an increased state pension in the future – all depending on when they and their husbands were born, and only if they file a proactive claim now.
Daphne, pictured with her husband Tim, successfully complained about mismanagement by the Department of Work and Pensions.
On top of her previous £1,200 arrears, This is Money estimates that she will receive another £10,000 in arrears, plus interest and compensation.
The couple, both 80, were helped in their case by Webb, who says it is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of other people who have missed out on higher state pensions.
The decision in favor this week was made by the Independent Case Examiner, a body that handles maladministration complaints against the DWP.
However, it only examines 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 further investigation.
“It was their fault, not mine”
Daphne reached state pension age in 2003 and Tim did that 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 get a higher rate if she submitted another state pension form, but Tim was told on the phone that no forms needed to be signed and none were ever issued.
“When I first found out that I could have had a higher pension for more than a decade, I was surprised and amazed,” says Daphne Bennett (last name changed at her request).
‘When I claimed and was told that it could only go back one year, I thought it was unfair. It was their fault, not mine.’
She saw coverage of underpaid state pensions in 2020 when she was earning around £60 a week and receiving £1,250 while her state pension was increased by £24 a week.
She complained to the DWP about mismanagement, saying that if she had ever been told she had to fill out a second claim form to get a raise, she would have done so.
The DWP rejected her complaint, but the Independent Case Examiner overturned that decision and ordered that the increase be retroactive to 2008, plus interest and compensation for ‘distress and inconvenience’.
She says, “It has taken years to work our way through the complaints process, with the support of Steve Webb, but I am delighted that my complaint was upheld.”
Daphne is a retired accountant, while Tim worked in the computer industry.
She says: ‘My husband reads the papers carefully and I would of course have submitted a second application for the higher state pension if someone had told us that was how the system worked.
“I hope 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 they will all make amends.”
Webb, a former minister of pensions who is now a partner at consultant LCP, believes Daphne’s groundbreaking case offers a “glitter of hope” that other women can claim compensation, when she and their husbands followed all the proper procedures but never received the necessary claim form.
He adds that when cases are dismissed by the DWP’s independent case investigator, there is still a chance that the parliamentary ombudsman will decide in favor of the wider group of women in a similar situation.
‘The old processes for drawing women’s attention to the fact that they have to apply for state pension twice were hopelessly inadequate.
“It has been suggested that women should have gone to the Employment Office to get an information booklet or told their husbands to tick a box on a form.
“The magnitude of the problem shows that there was a systemic problem, and it seems very likely to me that many women, like Daphne, never got the claim form they needed. I hope this groundbreaking case will lead to many thousands more women getting justice.”
What does the DWP say?
As confirmed by a court last year, married women whose husbands have reached state pension age after them, but before March 17, 2008, are legally required to apply for an increase in their state pension benefits. says a DWP spokesperson.
“Our priority is to ensure that pensioners receive the financial support they are entitled to and the actions we take now will correct the historic underpayments of successive governments.”
DWP: The action we are taking now will correct historical underpayments by successive governments
The DWP adds that it has accepted the recommendations of the Independent Case Examiner in Daphne’s case, but this does not mean a change in policy nor does it bring additional people under the scope of the ongoing correction for underpayments.
Married couples who are legally required to claim an increase in the benefit because their spouse reached the state pension age before the amendment to the law in 2008 must still do so.
A 12-month retroactive effect is a long-standing part of Social Security law, and there are no plans to change this position.
The DWP tells us it has taken a number of steps to inform women of their entitlement to a state pension increase, including information sent about four months before a customer reached state pension age.
Contact the Pension service on 0800 7310469 or look online here.
What if you think you are not getting enough old age pension?
If you are a woman and you suspect that you are being underpaid and your husband has reached state pension age before 17 March 2008, you must immediately and proactively file a declaration with the DWP.
The DWP says that in cases where a year’s delinquent payment is due, it will accept the first letter or telephone communication from a customer questioning his or her state pension entitlement as the valid application date.
The overdue period of 12 months is then determined on the basis of this claim date.
In other words, this means that women should not be left out of pocket for the subsequent time it takes the DWP to process their claim.
But it would be wise to keep a record of the first date you call or a copy of your first letter so you can prove it if necessary.
Aside from Daphne’s victory by complaining of mismanagement, there are four “loopholes” where we know women with “cases before March 2008” could get a bigger payout. This concerns dates of birth, deferral of the state pension, whether you have submitted a complaint in the past and whether you only have a small ‘ongoing old-age benefit’.
How do you fight a year’s overdue payment?
Many older women who have only received a year’s arrears are fighting with the government for full arrears, despite the parliamentary ombudsman saying she will not interfere with the government’s decision to give them only a payment for to give a year.
The old processes for alerting women to claiming their state pension twice were hopelessly inadequate
Steve Webb and This is Money are supporting women in their full payout campaign, and we will report on any further developments.
You can still file a complaint with the DWP and there are two ways to appeal this matter.
– Appeal: Claim that the law has been applied incorrectly; if the RDW rejects this, as in all cases known to us to date, you can ask for a ‘compulsory review’ of your complaint, followed by a tribunal.
Since every appeal we know of has been unsuccessful, you may have a better chance if you file a complaint about maladministration
– Complain about mismanagement: this is about how the DWP managed the system; you should first complain to the DWP – give as many details as possible, including that important documents were sent to spouses – then to an independent case investigator and then to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
In all cases it is worth asking your MP to bring your case to the attention of the DWP as well.
If you go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, your MP will need to sign your form as part of the process.
If you have already gone to the Ombudsman and been informed of his decision not to intervene in arrears, you can go back to your MP and ask for their support in getting the Ombudsman to reconsider.
We like to hear from people who have gone to the Ombudsman and been turned down. Please write to Steve Webb at pensionquestion@thisismoney.co.uk and put OMBUDSMAN in the subject line.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on it, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and use it for free. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to compromise our editorial independence.