Martin Lewis issues new State Pension age change compensation warning to all WASPI women
Martin Lewis and the charity Independent Age have joined forces with Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaigners to warn millions of 1950s-born women not to fall for fake websites urging them to claim compensation. The financial guru warned scammers advertising 'compensation over the change in State Pension age seems to be a new trend'. WASPI said that 3.6 million women have been affected by changes to their State Pension age and is urging them to stay alert following a sharp rise in fraudulent websites claiming that compensation is available. Only the UK Government has the power and means to issue any compensation. However, some of the fake websites falsely claim that ' DWP announces £3,000 compensation for 3.8 million WASPI women' while another labels itself as a 'Martin Lewis WASPI Calculator'. After a long-running battle for justice, the UK Government apologised for the mistakes it made in December 2024, but stopped short of setting out a compensation scheme for those impacted. In March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommended compensation at level four of its banding scale - between £1,000 to £2,950 per person - however, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall said this would cost between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. As a result, WASPI campaigners launched a High Court challenge, which is currently in progress, and opportunist scammers now seem to be using the legal battle to target unsuspecting women affected by changes to their retirement age. WASPI Chair Angela Madden said recent days had seen an 'alarming spike' in the number of scams, saying the behaviour of those preying on vulnerable women is 'nothing short of disgraceful'. She said any announcement on compensation for WASPI women would only ever come from the UK Government. However, no such scheme currently exists. Affected women have received emails from bogus groups asking for sensitive information. At least one WASPI woman in Derbyshire reported that she had been asked to provide copies of her birth certificate and bank details through an online form, before realising it was a scam. Ms Madden said: 'WASPI has fielded dozens of queries from women following an alarming spike in fraudulent websites appearing in recent days. The need for compensation is so urgent that it is the most vulnerable women who are at risk from scammers. The behaviour of opportunists who seek to exploit them is nothing short of disgraceful. 'Any announcement on compensation will only ever come from the Government. Anybody who has shared sensitive information or feels they are at risk should contact Action Fraud.' Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert, said: 'The word scammers underplays the danger of what are often organised criminal gangs using psychologically adept tactics to steal from people. They leach on to anything they can find, and compensation over the change in State Pension age seems to be a new trend. 'Even if they're not asking for money, they could be trying to take your information as part of a wider fraud. Be incredibly careful, don't click advertising or other links on social media, unless it is from a validated trusted source.' He added: 'And to be very plain, I don't do adverts nor allow anyone to use my name for endorsements. All my information will always be on my site MoneySavingExpert.com so if you can't find it there, and see it elsewhere, it's very likely a scam.' Fran McSweeney, Head of Services at Independent Age said: 'It's concerning to hear that older women are being asked for their bank details and copies of their birth certificates by potential scammers. Anyone can be a target in this way, and a scam will often take advantage of events in the news, such as a WASPI compensation scheme. 'While scams can be very sophisticated, there are things people can do to protect themselves.' She continued: 'Never be rushed into sharing personal details out of the blue and contact your bank if you think you've been tricked into revealing any of your banking details. If what you're told sounds unlikely or too good to be true, it probably is. 'Look out for unprofessional communication, such as bad spelling or grammar.' For more information on spotting scams, the Independent Age Scamwise guide can be found here or by calling the charity on 0800 319 6789 to request a copy. Ms McSweeney added: 'The important thing to know is that support is available.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Beware moving to the 'wrong' country in retirement... you could miss out on £70k in state pension
Choosing to retire to one of the 150-odd countries around the world where the state pension is 'frozen' could prove a £70,000 mistake, new research reveals. That is the vast sum you stand to lose if your state pension stays stuck at the current £230.25 a week, and misses out on the increases everyone else receives for the next 20 years. Many elderly expats live in a country where their state pensions remain at whatever amount they were set at when they moved - including popular destinations like Canada and Australia. Those people have lost out on an estimated £26,000 over the past 15 years, as attempts to persuade successive governments to unfreeze their state pensions have failed to date. Around 450,000 pensioners are presently affected, according to Interactive Investor, which looked back to work out what this has cost them, and ahead at the potential impact on people retiring abroad now. 'Many pensioners dream of spending their golden years overseas - whether it's for a warmer climate, an improved quality of life or to be closer to family and friends,' says Myron Jobson, senior personal finance analyst at II. 'But while the lifestyle may be appealing, it's vital to consider how such a move could affect your state pension entitlement.' > Beware moving to a 'frozen' country: Scroll down to find a map and a full list Your browser does not support iframes. The Government has struck deals to uprate state pensions with some countries, including the US and all those in the EU, but left many others out in the cold. If you move to a frozen destination, II estimates you face a near £70,000 deficit over 20 years. That is based on a 3.7 per cent state pension rise from April 2026, and a fairly conservative assumption of only 2.5 per cent-a-year increases after that. The full new state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year, and the triple lock means it is increased every year by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent, according to the prevailing economic data each autumn. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of the current parliament, and it will be politically difficult for Labour or any other party to drop it at future elections. II factored in a 3.7 per cent state pension rise for next year because that is the Office for Budget Responsibility's current inflation forecast for September 2025, which is the decisive month. Its figures above show the impact of a frozen state pension over shorter timeframes too, with the loss of £433 over just one year. What is your dream retirement destination? Check your state pension rights before deciding if it's affordable Your browser does not support iframes. II also calculated the effect of a frozen state pension on someone who moved to an affected country in 2010. That was the year before the triple lock was introduced by the Coalition government in 2011/12, meaning they wouldn't have benefited from any uprating under the pledge. Those expats have received nearly £26,000 less than someone with a National Insurance record that also earned them a full basic rate state pension, but who stayed in the UK or moved to an unfrozen country like Spain in retirement. II calculated the 15-year figure based on the old full rate basic state pension, which was reformed in April 2016. This is currently around £9,200 a year - though people on the basic rate also get hefty top-ups, called S2P or Serps, if these were earned earlier in life. II also worked out the impact if you moved to a frozen country 10, 5 years or one year ago, but based those figures on the full rate new state pension for this period. Myron Jobson of II says: 'If you move to a country where the UK has no uprating agreement, like Australia or Canada, your state pension will be frozen at the level you first receive it. 'That means you won't benefit from the valuable triple lock increases that pensioners in the UK enjoy each year, and over time, that can seriously erode your spending power.' Therefore, Jobson says planning ahead is key, and you should check whether your chosen destination is affected (see below) and make financial decisions and arrangements with this in mind. 'Consider topping up any gaps in your national insurance record to maximise what you're entitled to,' he says. 'Deferring your state pension can boost the amount you get, though it won't help with uprating in frozen countries. 'Most importantly, building a strong private pension pot can help provide the financial cushion you'll need to maintain your standard of living abroad, regardless of state pension freezes. 'It is worth considering seeking advice from a financial adviser to fully understand the implications of retiring abroad and plan accordingly.' Last year, a This is Money reader asked whether the then very new Labour government would end the freeze on state pensions if you move to some countries. Well-connected pension industry expert Henry Tapper, chair of AgeWage, replied: 'I'm sorry but I can give you no expectation that the Labour Government will be any more generous on this matter than its predecessors. 'While no civil servant I spoke to ruled out the possibility of rules changing, no one would give you any hope and the Labour party manifesto is silent on this matter.' Tapper noted: 'If you return to the UK or go to live in a country where the UK does pay state pension increases to UK expats, you can have increases for the time you are resident at your new location.' Regarding the 70-year history of state pension uprating overseas, he said: 'Whether you get state pension increases (lately with the triple-lock) or not, depends on a tax-treaty lottery. Some countries, including the US and Switzerland have treaties, some don't.' Tapper quoted a Government response to a petition which put the cost of paying expat pension increases between 2023 and 2028 at over £4.5billion, and a research briefing to MPs which stated: 'The Government has no plans to change the policy on up-rating UK state pensions overseas; the policy is longstanding and has been supported by successive Governments for over 70 years.' Will you get state pension rises if you retire abroad? Where are state pensions frozen? Whether an expat's pension is frozen or not depends entirely on where they move (Source: International Consortium of British Pensioners)
Wales Online
6 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
South Wales Guardian
6 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
