‘I only receive half of the state pension. Am I entitled to more?'
Write to Pensions Doctor with your pension problem: pensionsdoctor@telegraph.co.uk. Columns are published weekly.
Hi Charlene,
I have been arguing with the Pension Service (by post and over the phone), and during a recent conversation, I was told the justification of my reduced pension was due to 17 years of Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP).
I was born in 1944 and was deducted from the 39 qualifying years under the old system, meaning I needed 22 qualifying years for a full pension. I only had 11 qualifying years, meaning my entitlement is 50pc. This is what I currently receive, and I consider this to be unfair and a silly argument.
Having done some research, I believe that I'm entitled to more than just half.
My National Insurance record confirmed I am entitled to 17 years HRP and that I've paid 11 qualifying years' worth of contributions.
Does that not mean I have 28 qualifying years? With another three years of 'additional state pension', surely I should be getting far more than my current allowance?
Kind regards,
– Magdalena
Dear Magdalena,
As you've pointed out, you received the 'old' basic state pension, and would have reached your state pension age of 60 in 2004.
Women born before 1950 needed 39 qualifying years of National Insurance to get the full basic state pension.
Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was introduced to protect entitlement to the state pension for parents and carers. It was the forerunner to National Insurance credits which replaced HRP in 2010.
People who claimed child benefit or those claiming income support because they were unable to work due to caring for a sick or disabled person should have automatically received HRP between 1978 and 2010.
People who reached state pension age on or after April 6 2010 saw any full years of HRP converted to the new National Insurance credit system.
But those who reached state pension age before April 6 2010 benefitted from a reduction in the number of qualifying years needed for a full state pension. HRP wasn't a mechanism for giving you extra qualifying years which is why you don't have 28 qualifying years.
Your 17 years of HRP reduced the number of qualifying years you needed for the full basic state pension to 22. If you had 11 qualifying years on your National Insurance record too, you'll get 50pc of the basic state pension as you have half of the number of qualifying years you needed for the maximum. Without HRP, you would have only got around 28pc.
You've mentioned that you have some additional state pension. I can't tell you how much that should be as there was no set amount per year, but anything you get will be paid to with your basic state pension. It might be worth asking the Pension Service to confirm your additional amount.
There have been numerous errors made by the DWP when it comes to underpaying state pensions to women. Errors in relation to HRP were also identified because people claiming child benefit before 2000 did not have to input their National Insurance number as part of their application.
Given the scandals, I completely understand why you have questioned their methodology here. But unless you believe there are any missing years of HRP showing on your record, and you are entitled to more than 17 years, I think the Pension Service is correct on this occasion.
With best wishes,
– Charlene
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
19 minutes ago
- Sky News
'It's simply not safe': A thousand doctors write to MPs urging them to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients".
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
After five failed rounds of IVF, my partner died. I thought I'd go mad with grief... instead I took the most desperate measure and used his sperm to father the children I longed for: CHARLOTTE CRIPPS
At the time it felt like any other Tuesday morning in our two-bedroom home in Notting Hill, west London, but I can remember it all now with precise vividness. I was rushing around getting ready for my day's work as a journalist. Alex, my 48-year-old partner of ten years, was sitting on the bed scrolling through emails while our 12-week-old golden retriever puppy chewed on a chair leg. There was a peculiar smell. I was boiling some herbs in a heart-shaped Le Creuset dish on the stove – a special concoction from my Chinese acupuncturist. I was 40 and preparing for another IVF cycle (this would be our sixth attempt – we'd been trying for a baby for three years) and the drink was supposed to improve my fertility.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Nurses to vote on pay deal as potential strike looms
Almost 350,000 nursing staff in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be asked to vote from Monday on a 3.6% pay Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has already dismissed the award as "grotesque" and says the vote will be crucial in determining the next steps which could include a ballot for strike action.A bitter pay dispute saw nurses striking in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from late 2022 and through the winter. Some members of other health unions also staged walkouts over the possibility of another round of industrial action looming, the vote is being billed as the biggest single vote by the profession ever launched in the UK. Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland all announced pay awards following review body was a 5.4% average increase for resident doctors, formally known as junior doctors, 4% for consultants and other senior doctors, and 3.6% for nurses and other health General Secretary Professor Nicola Ranger said that the government had "once again put nursing at the back of the queue when it comes to pay"."Nursing is an incredible career, but despite being the most valued profession by the public we continue to be weighted to the bottom of the NHS pay scale and are set to receive one of the lowest pay awards."According to the Ranger, nursing staff in England have endured "over a decade of pay erosion", which has resulted in "skyrocketing" numbers of nurses quitting."It is time to show that nurses are valued and, from today, hundreds of thousands of nursing staff working in the NHS will give their verdict on whether 3.6% is enough," Ranger will doctors in England are already being balloted on strike action over pay. Other health unions are organising votes on the pay awards. All this may cast a shadow over a government 10-year plan for the NHS in England due in the next few Scottish government has already agreed a two-year 8% pay offer with health unions.
