Ministers will retake last year’s decision to deny compensation to women affected by state pension age changes, after new evidence surfaced that was not shown to Liz Kendall at the time. Pat McFadden told MPs that revisiting the call does not mean payments will follow, but confirmed the High Court has been notified ahead of a two‑day judicial review listed for 9 December. Around 3.6 million women born in the 1950s could be touched by the outcome. The Guardian first reported the rethink and cited McFadden’s reference to a 2007 evaluation, with no firm timetable yet for the review.

This row sits on years of official findings. In March 2024 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) concluded the Department for Work and Pensions committed maladministration by delaying letters about the reforms, and proposed compensation broadly in the £1,000–£2,950 range. The government accepted the maladministration and a 28‑month delay, but rejected pay‑outs in December 2024, arguing most women already knew the age was rising and a flat‑rate scheme-costed up to £10.5bn-would not be fair to taxpayers.

What’s new is the evidence ministers say was missed. According to Commons remarks reported today, the material comes from 2007 and relates to how effective letters were in alerting people to their retirement age. The PHSO’s own documentation shows DWP research from 2006–07 finding high awareness that state pension age would rise, but significant confusion about when changes took effect personally-precisely the communication gap at issue.

The legal context matters. WASPI campaigners are pursuing judicial review of last December’s no‑compensation decision. Their court updates show a costs‑capping order has been agreed-important because it limits what the group would owe the government if they lose-while fundraising continues to cover their own fees. Today’s ministerial rethink may affect the scope or timing of that hearing, but the court will ultimately decide if dates shift.

For readers who prefer the policy timeline: Parliament legislated equalisation in the 1995 Pensions Act, with implementation accelerated in the 2011 Act. Equalisation to 65 was brought forward to November 2018 and the state pension age then rose to 66 by October 2020 for men and women. These are settled facts; the dispute concerns how the changes were communicated to those most affected.

Public finance is the other thread. A level‑4 remedy at PHSO rates implies a one‑off cost of £3.5bn–£10.5bn depending on eligibility and design. The government’s December stance framed that outlay as neither fair nor proportionate, and said individualised assessments would be unworkable at scale. Retaking the decision reopens those trade‑offs, but does not automatically change the fiscal maths. We’ll be watching for whether any scheme, if proposed, is flat‑rate or targeted by notice period and impact.

For households, the practical message is not to pre‑spend a payment. If a remedy emerges near the PHSO band, a typical £1,000–£2,950 award would be meaningful but not transformative. Think of it as a chance to rebuild an emergency buffer, clear expensive borrowing, or cover essentials like energy and council tax. If nothing changes, focus turns back to maximising existing entitlements and smoothing cashflow through the final working years or early retirement.

Benefit interactions are an under‑reported risk. One‑off payments can affect means‑tested support unless ministers explicitly disregard them in regulations. Until we see any scheme design, assume ordinary capital rules may apply and take advice before moving money between accounts or gifting to family. If you claim Pension Credit or Council Tax Reduction, ask the local office how a lump sum would be treated before it lands.

Planning still matters regardless of compensation. If you have not yet drawn your state pension, deferring under the post‑2016 rules increases income by about 1% for every nine weeks you wait-roughly 5.8% a year-though break‑even depends on health, tax and other income. If you already claimed, review whether private pensions, ISA cash and part‑time work are aligned to cover inflation‑linked bills.

What to watch next: the Department for Work and Pensions’ retaken decision; whether the 9–10 December hearing proceeds as scheduled; and any select committee scrutiny that follows. Our read is simple: a path to compensation now exists in principle, but it will be shaped by legal risk, evidence from 2007 now in play, and the Treasury’s tolerance for a one‑off bill. We will update readers when ministers set a timetable.