WASPI Campaign Secures DWP Reconsideration Deal: Compensation Decision by February 2026

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has agreed to reconsider compensation for millions of women born in the 1950s who were affected by rises in the state pension age, following a legal settlement with the WASPI campaign. A fresh decision is now due by February 2026 after the government paused a judicial review that had been scheduled for early December 2025.

Campaigners described the agreement as a breakthrough, although no compensation is guaranteed, amid long-running claims that the DWP failed to properly notify women of the changes. As part of the settlement, the department will also cover more than half of WASPI's legal costs.

Background to the WASPI Dispute

The WASPI campaign, representing Women Against State Pension Inequality, focuses on around 3.8 million women born between 1950 and 1960 who faced abrupt increases in their state pension age from 60 to 66. Legislation in 1995 and 2011 accelerated these shifts, but many women argue they received insufficient notice, leading to financial hardship, delayed retirements, and lost earnings.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigated and, in March 2024, found the DWP guilty of maladministration for poor communication. It recommended compensation ranging from £1,000 ($1336) to £2,950 ($3,942.4) per affected woman, depending on the severity of injustice experienced. However, in December 2024, the government rejected a blanket scheme, citing a potential cost of £10.5 billion ($14.0 billion).

This sparked backlash, with 105 MPs voting in January 2025 to accept the PHSO findings and urge redress. WASPI launched a crowdfunding drive in March 2025, raising funds for legal action, and secured High Court permission in June for a judicial review, deeming the case arguable.

Details of the Reconsideration Deal

The settlement emerged on 2 December 2025, just days before a High Court hearing scheduled for 9-10 December. The DWP committed to a 12-week review of its prior rejection, incorporating evidence like a 2007 internal report not shown to ministers, which highlighted flaws in pension forecast communications. Under the terms, the government will make best endeavours to decide by 24 February 2026, without defending the ongoing challenge.

WASPI withdrew the review but retains the right to restart proceedings if the outcome disappoints. A key element is the DWP's pledge to pay more than half the campaign's legal costs, amounting to £180,000 ($240,552.0) as a fighting fund. This hardly came as a surprise, given mounting pressure from cross-party support and public scrutiny.

Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden had signalled in November a willingness to revisit the decision, acknowledging procedural oversights. The deal avoids immediate court costs for taxpayers while reopening the door to potential financial redress for those who planned lives around outdated pension expectations.

Reactions and the Push for WASPI Compensation

Angela Madden, WASPI chair, said: 'Yet again, WASPI has held its nerve and yet again, virtually at the steps of the court, the government has backed down.' She welcomed the speedy reconsideration but warned of renewed action if fairness is ignored. A DWP spokesperson countered: 'This is a mischaracterisation; the WASPI campaigners have agreed to withdraw their judicial review following our commitment last month to retake the decision.'

Support groups like the National Pensioners Convention echoed calls for genuine commitment, noting the emotional toll on women. On X, the official WASPI account shared an update on the £180,000 fighting fund from the DWP, highlighting ongoing efforts to secure payouts for millions.

Implications include possible tiered payments if approved, though the government stresses this rethink implies no automatic award. As of 15 December 2025, WASPI urges affected women to stay informed via its channels. The review process continues amid parliamentary debates, with advocates pressing for swift resolution to address the long-standing grievance over state pension mishandling.