Langton
[various) @whatdotheyknow.com
19 December 2018
FOI 2018/02420
FOI 2018/04464
FOI 2018/04488
FOI 2018/04727
FOI 2018/04876
FOI 2018/06401
FOI 2018/07320
FOI 2018/07295
FOI 2018/09010
FOI 2018/09022
FOI 2018/09014
FOI 2018/09018
FOI 2018/10157
FOI 2018/10158
FOI 2018/10172
FOI 2018/11226
FOI 2018/11478
FOI 2018/12314
Dear Ms Langton,
Thank you for your Freedom of Information requests received on various dates between 26
August 2018 and 2 December 2018. You asked:-
FOI2018/02420
You have said that the Department retention period specifically
for customer data relating to direct mailing is 2 months:
Why is it that you still have a copy of the template letter
that you have said that you had sent?
What is the retention period of the template letters that you
confirm was the basis of the letters that informed Women
in respect of State Pension age direct mailing activity?
Please could you send me the document that you have
used to make this statement, i.e. the DWP Retention rule
procedure outlining this retention Period?
From a FOI Request your Ref: FoI 3344 DATE: 1 September
2017 The DWP had said: The Department wrote to all those
directly affected to inform them of the changes, using the address
recorded by HMRC at the time:
What does “at the time” mean?
Did the DWP get a list of the address recorded by the
HMRC in Jan 2012 in order to send letters to the people
date of birth 06/04/53 to 05/12/53 the mailing date was Jan
2012?
Did the DWP get a 2nd list of the address recorded by the HMRC
IN Oct 2012 and in Nov 2013 in order to send letters to the people
date of birth 06/04/55 to 05/04/1960 and this group of people had
the mailing date Oct 2012 to Nov 2013?
Please send me the details which you have on record.
The Department wrote to all those directly affected to inform them
of the changes, using the address recorded by HMRC at the time:
Please send me details of how many times and for which
period the DWP had been given the updated address
recorded by HMRC “at the time” in order to send out letters
between the 13 months between the dates Oct 2012 to
Nov 2013 otherwise many changes to people addresses
could occur please send me the information which you
have on record.
How many times did the DWP received a list of the
address recorded by the HMRC at the time on each of the
mailing to the people for the 1995 Act and the 2011 Act,
please send me the information which you have on record.
FOI 2018/04464
Please send me a copy of the template letter that the DWP
had said they had sent to a Man born in May 1956 to
inform them of the changes to his State Pension age
increase as the result of the 2011 pension Act. (Please
could you make sure that it is only this template letter
supplied on this request and not any government links that
may show other samples of letters)you have said
previously that the originals letters sent out are not
available).
Please send me a copy of the template letter that the DWP
had said they had sent to a Woman born in Dec 1956 to
inform them of the changes to her State Pension age
increase as the result of the 2011 pension Act. (Please
could you make sure that it is only this template letter
supplied on this request and not any government links that
may show other samples of letters) you have said
previously that the originals letters sent out are not
available).
Please send me a copy of the template letter that the DWP
had said they had sent to a Woman born in Dec 1956 to
inform them of the changes to his State Pension age
increase as the result of the 1995 pension Act. (Please
could you make sure that it is only this template letter
supplied on this request and not any government links that
may show other samples of letters) you have said
previously that the originals letters sent out are not
available).
FOI 2018/04488
How did the DWP inform the economically inactive women
on the 2011 Spa Pension act change?
Was anything extra done by the DWP to advised women
who were at a disadvantage by being identified as
economically inactive women, which is showed by the
DWP report as above.
With many women who were on long term sick and
disabled, they would have regular communication with the
DWP, by means of letters and regular notification on
benefits etc, did the DWP advise any of the Women which
the DWP had identified as economically inactive (who
would have been effective by the 2011 Pension act) in any
of the DWP communications other than the letters that
were sent between January 2012 and November 2013.
FOI 2018/04727 From my recent Freedom of Information Request FOI2018/0105
Date: 21 August 2018… one of my questions was: Please could
you send me just the copy of the template letter and any leaflets
which were sent to women who was born in Dec 1954 that
informs them of changes to the state pension?
The DWP Response was: Please see enclosed a copy of the
template letter, as requested. There were no leaflets issued with
this letter.
Has the DWP in the FOI given the wrong information or is
it that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions Mr Guy Opperman has given the wrong
information to the House of Commons.
Please could you forward me the written everdence that
the DWP had used to make the statement that The DWP
has said there were no leaflets issued with this letter.
Please could you forward me the written everdence that
the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions Mr Guy Opperman had used to make the
statement to House of Commons that The DWP has said
there were no leaflets issued with this letter.
When the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions Mr Guy Opperman speaks on facts with
regards to State Pension communications who would
normally supply him with information?
FOI 2018/04876
Why is there different message especially of the wording
on the start of the letters which I have copied to the same
group of people Letter 3 6/4/55 – 5/4/1960 (men and
women affected) Mailing Date Oct 2012 – Nov 2013
Approx. Volumes 4.6m both copies of the letters set by the
DWP FOI Ref: VTR 3235 Date 13/08/2015 and foi Ref:
VTR 3902 DATE: 5 October 2015
The DWP had replied to the same question but have
replied to both FOI with different sample of the letter sent
to this group of people does this mean that wrong letters
went out to this group of people 6/4/55 – 5/4/1960 ?
In the Pensions Act 1995 SCHEDULE 4 rule 4 says A
woman born after 5th April 1955 attains pensionable age
when she attains the age of 65. Please could you point out
in the letter sent out to men and women who were born
between 6/4/55 – 5/4/1960 (men and women affected)
Mailing Date Oct 2012 – Nov 2013 Approx. Volumes 4.6m
where in the letter the DWP had advised of the 1995
Pension Act?
In the VTR3730 30 September 2015 freedom of
information the DWP had said that the birth dates of
women of 6.10.52 – 5.4.53 showed that the Date of mailing
was Oct 2010 when it was reported in the Freedom of
Information Request VTR 3235 Date 13/08/2015 was
Letter 2c 6/10/54 – 5/4/55 (men and women affected)
Mailing Date Feb 2012 which is correct information?
The start of both the copy letters that the DWP had sent to
Foi VTR 3235 and VTR3730 had different words and
information have the DWP replied back to the foi with
different letters to the same group of people ?
From a Freedom of Information request Ref: VTR3732 DATE: 18
September 2015 In which the below person ask the questions set
out below: “In a recent Freedom of Information Request you state
that "Between April 2009 and March 2011, the Department mailed
all women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953,
informing them of their State Pension age under the 1995
Pensions Act." The DWP had replied back as: “The mailing
campaign based on Pensions Act 1995 was stopped in March
2011 to allow for the outcome of Pensions Act 2011. Pensions
Act 2011 changed the timetable for equalisation; mailing based
on Pensions Act 1995 was therefore halted in March 2011.”
Were different letters sent out to men and women when
informing both sexes of changes to the Pension Act?
Men were not affected by the 1995 Pension Act and only
were affected by the 2011 Pension Act, therefore a
different message would have to be given to both sexes
please could you send me what differential messages were
send to inform men and women on the 1995 and the 2011
Pension Acts to both men and women Born between
6/4/55 – 5/4/1960
FOI 2018/06401
The DWP had made forceful statement of fact There were
no leaflets issued with this letter, yet Number CBP-7405,
16 October 2018 parliament was told in answer to a PQ in
January 2018 that the letters had a accompanying leaflet
to those affected, between January 2012 and November
2013 who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.
Are Djuna Thurley: Richard Keen who's name is on this
House of Commons Briefing Paper work for the DWP and
where did they obtain this wrong information, unless the
DWP has not told the truth.
Has the DWP supplied the wrong information and who in
the DWP gave this summary of who was written to when
was given in answer to a PQ in January 2018
FOI 2018/07320
Which is telling the truth is it The Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
who said:
Those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 changes were
sent letters between January 2012 and November 2013,
which involved sending over 5 million letters with an
accompanying leaflet.
Or is it the DWP who had given the details in the Freedom
of Information Request Ref: FoI 4590 Date: 22nd
November 2017 Which when you add up those women
who were affected by the Pensions Act 2011 changes
were sent letters between January 2012 and November
2013 adds up to 5,771,000, please could you supply Mr
Guy Opperman Briefing Notes etc.
Does this mean that 771,000 people did not get sent a
Letter by the DWP to inform them of the 2011 Pension Act
if what The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) said was true and
not misleading to the general public and of the House of
Commons?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions (Guy Opperman) had said Those affected by the
1995 Act changes were sent letters informing them of the
change to their state pension age between 2009 and 2011,
with letters sent to 1.2 million women.
This total is wrong as it shoud be 1,160769 Women who
were sent letters informing them of the change to their
state pension age between 2009 and 2011 according to
the FOI 4590 Date: 22nd November 2017
Why did The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) over estimated this
figure and not report the correct total as the DWP had
done.
What was the document used by the The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy
Opperman) in order to not have the correct deails which he
gave to the House of Commons, please could you supply
Mr Guy Opperman Briefing Notes etc.
Why November 2017 did The Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
said , the Department wrote 5.77 million letters to the
people directly affected, to inform them of changes to their
state pension age.
Why after 4 month gap did The Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
in his statement which is recorded From House of
Commons Hansard At 1.19 pm 08 February 2018 Volume
635 was a reduce total of people by 771,000 that were
sent letters by the DWP between January 2012 and
November 2013 against his total of 5.77 million letters 4
months before?
Does this mean that the DWP had found out that some
people including women out of this 771,000 people that
was reported short, did not have any letters sent out to
them at all? the figure was comfirmend by The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions (Guy Opperman) as set out above, if you cannot
trust the man in charge who can you trust?
Please send me the brief or documents that The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions (Guy Opperman) he used for both statements as
above, I would like to know which documents he used to
make the two contrasting amounts that he had used, and
what details he has seen that made such a drastic shortfall
of People who did not receie letters that informed them on
the 2011 Pension Act.
Please could you give me the split on men and women
who were the ones from the 771,000 that Guy Opperman
had reported on.
FOI 2018/07295
Did the letter of the 17 October 2018 followed the DWP-
wide Working Letter(2) guidance to ensure accuracy of
content and communication.
Did the letter of the3 March 2017 followed the DWP-wide
Working Letter(2) guidance to ensure accuracy of content
and communication.
Why did it take the DWP a long time to correct the
information on the new template letter from my original
letter of the 3 March 2017 it had taken 1 year and 5 days to
amend the template letter which had misleading
information.
I am very concern that J Barrett DWP Complaints &
Correspondence Acting Senior Team Manager had given
conflicting information in his letter to me 17 October 2018,
he had written “This amended template letter was not
issued to any previous customer who had already received
a response on the old template letter, prior to 5 April
20187, he had indicated that Women had this letter sent
prior to 5 April 2018 as well prior 5 April 2017, how can this
happen ?? is this correct or again has the DWP made a
misleading mistake, in reply to a letter that had corrected
the original mistake?? 20187 is an indication over both
periods??
Guy Opperman had made this statement between August
2016 and May 2018, The Department for Work & Pensions
(DWP) received and investigated 7,835 complaints from
people affected by an increase to the women's state
pension age. Please could you tell me how many did the
DWP had complaints from Women of the 1950's group
which you had called the Waspi Women in previously FOI
up to the change of the template response prior to 5 April
2018.
FOI 2018/09010
Did The DWP failed to follow Section 10 of the FOI Act
specifies that a public authority must comply promptly, and
no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of
the request, or is this review outside the FOI Act period,
also did the DWP not keep me updated of the progress of
my request..
Did The DWP failed to follow the Code of Practice
Freedom of Information Act 2000, with regards to not
informing me of the person who had reviewed request
number IR2018/04494 and by not advising me the review
was done by someone who did not deal with the original
request., and with a more senior member of staff not used
to review the request.
Please could you advise me how many complaints had the
DWP had in connection to not receiving adequate notice of
changes to the State Pension Age (Spa) which you the
DWP had notice that ICE had place this group of Women
as (Waspi).
Also in the review request number IR2018/04494 the DWP had
said that:
Statement A
The change made involved updating dates and volumes to make
the information current. The information remains the same as
your version except for the following: "Between April 2000 and the
end of 2017, DWP has issued more than 20 million personalised
State pension statements to people who requested them".
I was however sent a template letter which was enclosed
with your letter linked to FOI2018/01917 date 17 October
2018 in which did have the additional information as outline
in Statement A, does the DWP mean when they say The
information remains the same as your version, this
template was sent as a sample and is not address or even
my name on the template, my version is my original which
version do the DWP mean?
Also in the review request number IR2018/04494 the DWP had
said that:
Statement B
The change made involved updating dates and volumes to make
the information current. The information remains the same as
your version except for the following: "Between April 2000 and the
end of 2017, DWP has issued more than 20 million personalised
State pension statements to people who requested them".
Which Version did the DWP added Statement B to as it
was not in my original letter or that in the template letter
which the DWP had said they sent out to Women after 5
April 2018.
Do the DWP have a third version letter in which this
Statement B was added.
Will the DWP be sending out updated letters to Women
who have already received response letters from the DWP
on complaints, which would include statement A and
Statement B because they were omitted from the original
letters sent out by the DWP prior to 5 April 2018 the
information added by the DWP after this period is of great
importance, and only confirms that the DWP had made
mistake again in not communication to a group of Women
who should had received such information, the DWP in
statement B said we also clarified how we contacted those
affected by the 2011 Act, well you have not given the same
clarity to the Women prior to 5 April 2018, if not longer as
the Statement B is not in the template version sent to me
date 17 October 2018.
FOI 2018/09022
Where did the DWP obtain the figure of 5 million men and
women when producing the above PENSIONS ACT 2011 -
Impact Assessments Summary, please could you show me
the documents which were used to get to the 5 million
people?
Where did the DWP obtain the figure of 5668000 men and
women who the DWP had said were written to who were
affected by the 2011 Pension Act, which is showed in the
Freedom of Information request Ref: VTR 3902 date 5
October 2015, please show me the documents in which
the DWP had used to obtain the people figure.
Were did the DWP obtain this figure of 5771000 people
who were affected by the 2011 Pension Act and was sent
letters by the DWP, this is a vast difference to what the
Impact Summary had said approximately 5 million men
and women ad difference of 771000 people, and against
the FOI VTR 3902 date 5 October 2015 which gave the
figure of 5668000 men and women, this is a difference of
103000 shortfall against the FOI FOI2018/01058 date 21
August 2018.
Which figure is correct on the letters that were sent to
people to inform them of the 2011 Pension Act ad all three
statements were supplied by the DWP is it the DWP
impact Summary or the two FOI requests that the DWP
had responded to.
The above link that the DWP had given is not on the internet, but
after reading the
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../pensions-bill-2011-
summary-of-impacts.pdf which shows the Summary of Impacts
Enactment state produced 21 November 2011 Royal Assent
gained 3 November 2011, it is the approximately 5 million men
and women.
Can you supply me the details which were on the DWP link
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/at
tachment_data/file/181462/pension s-bill-2011-ia-
annexa.pdf
FOI 2018/09014
Please could you send me the copy of the accompany
leaflet that The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) had said that the
DWP sent out to those affected by the Pensions Act 2011
changes were sent letters between January 2012 and
November 2013, which he said it involved sending over 5
million letters with an accompanying leaflet.
Was this leaflet given to Women only or was this leaflet
given to men as well, what was the message in this leaflet
would it have information of the 1995 Pension Act? Which
only affected Women.
FOI 2018/09018
As the original personal copies of Letters that the DWP
had sent to inform People of the changes to Pension Acts
are not available please could you SHOW ME the
Template letter that was sent to the Women were born
from date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 that informed
them of the Changes to SPA from the 1995 Pension Act
which had a direct 5 year increase to their SPA date.
As the original personal copies of Letters that the DWP
had sent to inform People of the changes to Pension Acts
are not available please could you SHOW ME the
Template letter that was sent to the Women were born
from date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 that informed
them of the Changes to SPA from the 2011 Pension Act.
As the original personal copies of Letters that the DWP
had sent to inform People of the changes to Pension Acts
are not available please could YOU POINT OUT TO ME in
the Template letter that was sent to the Women were born
from date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 that informed
them of the Changes to the 2011 Pension Act which had a
direct 1 year increase to their SPA date WHICH PART OF
THAT LETTER gave details or mentioned the 1995
Pension Act that added 5 years to the Women’s Pension
retirement date which is a total of 6 years added to SPA
from both the 1995 and the 2011 Pension Act.
What notice did the DWP gave in written direct
communication to Women were born from date of birth 6
Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 of the 1995 Pension Act that their
SPA was to increase by 5 years.
The Department wrote to all those directly affected to
inform them of the changes, using the address recorded by
HMRC at the time, It is abundantly clear that Women born
from date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 who were
affected by the 1995 Pension Act
My simple request is SHOW ME the letter or template
letter that the DWP had written to inform Women born from
date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to 5 Apr 1960 who were affected
by the 1995 Pension Act that directly informed them of the
1995 Pension Act.
The DWP had said we sent letters to the men and women
affected by these changes, the DWP had also said we did
not want to advise women of their individual State Pension
age under previous legislation until we knew whether they
were affected by this subsequent review, We sent letters to
the men and women affected by these changes, the DWP
had clearly made a statement that they had said they had
sent letters to women affected by these changes I would
like to see such letters that included both 1995 and the
2011 Pension.
The DWP had said “We did not want to advise women of
their individual State Pension age under previous
legislation until “, I would like to see what the DWP advise
the women who were born from date of birth 6 Apr 1953 to
5 Apr 1960 of their individual State Pension age under
previous legislation, what direct response did the DWP
undertake after holding back the letters prior to the
changes to the 2011 Pension Act, with regards to inform of
the previous legislation in which the DWP did they supply
any information with regards to the 1995 Pension Act when
they wrote to the Women on the 2011 Pension Act what
details did they send?
FOI 2018/10157
In this report the DWP had said Women born on or after 6
April 1955 will be eligible to receive their State Pension at
age 65, and that it is important that women are aware of
the changes so that they can plan accordingly, please
could you send me the copy of any direct communication
especially by letter that the DWP had sent to Women who
were born after 6 April 1955 that directly advised them of
the 1995 Pension Act that increased the age for retirement
by the 5 years from the 1995 Pension Act as the legislation
(the Pensions Act 1995) provides for SPAs to be equalised
at 65 from 6 April 2020, I am interested in how you told
Women born on or after 6 April 1955 of the SPA increasing
by 5 years.
In this report the DWP had said that it is important that
women are aware of the changes so that they can plan
accordingly, how did the DWP make aware Women who
were born after 6 April 1955 on the affect of the 1995
Pension Act change which increase the SPA by 5 years
the DWP had said that it was important so please give me
the fact on what was done, in other words how did you
make direct contact with them.
In this report the DWP had said Naturally, the increase in
women’s SPA will impact on women’s financial
circumstances in retirement and it is important that women
are aware of the changes so that they can plan
accordingly, please could you supply what actions did the
DWP undertake to make aware Women who were born
after 6 April 1955 on the effect of the 1995 Pension Act
change which increase the SPA by 5 years in order that
the Women affected that they can plan accordingly.
In this report the DWP had said To give women, employers
and companies running pension schemes time to prepare
for this major change, the increase will be phased in over a
ten-year period from 2010 to 2020, how did the DWP
inform employers and companies running pension
schemes time to prepare for this major change, what
action did the DWP perform in order that they can plan
accordingly.
FOI 2018/10158
Why did the DWP stop giving the 15 years notice to
Women that was affected by the Pensions Act 1995 in
June 2010 two months early than the recorded 15 year
notice as set out above?
Why were not all Women who were affected by changes,
in the equalisation of women’s State Pension age not given
the 15 years notice as the DWP had described in the
above document.
What Documentation/letter did the DWP send to a Women
who was born in 1956 that was clearly affected by the
equalisation of women’s State Pension age, and why was
they not given 15 years notice?
FOI 2018/10172
In the above Briefing Paper Number CBP-7405, 16
November 2018 House of Commons Library the DWP had
said This involved mailing more than 5 million letters with
an accompanying leaflet to those affected, between
January 2012 and November 2013.
Please could you send me the copy of this leaflet because
the DWP had said In a FOI FOI2018/01058 Date: 21
August 2018 none was sent?
In the Briefing Paper Number CBP-7405, 16 November
2018 House of Commons Library where was this said and
who supplied the information and who said it that a leaflet
was sent to Women (born 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1960) to
inform them of the change to their State Pension age,
between January 2012 and November 2013.
FOI 2018/11226
Guy Opperman the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions had said that between
06/04/53 – 05/12/53 mailing date Jan 2012 number of
Letters Sent was 275,000 but the Foi number VTR 3902
DATE: 5 October 2015 said it was a quaintly of 207000 a
difference of 68,000 of people. Why is this difference who
is telling the Truth the DWP or the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
Guy Opperman the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions had said that between
06/12/53 – 05/02/54 mailing date Feb 2012 number of
Letters Sent was 646000 but the Foi number VTR 3902
DATE: 5 October 2015 said it was a quaintly of 485000 a
difference of 161,000 of people. Why is this difference who
is telling the Truth the DWP or the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
Guy Opperman the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions had said that between
06/10/54 – 05/04/55 mailing date Feb 2012 number of
Letters Sent was 375000 but the Foi number VTR 3902
DATE: 5 October 2015 said it was a quaintly of 376000 a
difference of 1,000 of people. Why is this difference who is
telling the Truth the DWP or the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
Guy Opperman the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions had said that between
06/04/55 – 05/04/60 mailing date Oct 2012 to Nov 2013
number of Letters Sent was 4475000 but the Foi number
VTR 3902 DATE: 5 October 2015 said it was a quaintly of
4600000 a difference of 125000 of people. Why is this
difference who is telling the Truth the DWP or the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions?
Guy Opperman the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions had said in Westminster Hall
at 1:30 pm on 22nd November 2018. A further 5 million
letters were sent later to those affected by the 2011 Act
changes between January 2012 and November 2013. He
gave a different total to Department for Work and Pensions
written question – answered on 20th November 2018,
which cam to the toatl of 5771000 why did the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions gave to different totals to letters he said the DWP
had sent out between January 2012 and November 2013 ?
Why is this difference who is telling the Truth the DWP or
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions?
To those affected by the 2011 Act changes between
January 2012 and November 2013 the DWP had said they
had sent out letters to men and women to inform them of
the 2011 Pension Act, why is there a differeence of 289304
people on the below DWP Foi requests. The total of people
according to the DWP Foi VTR 3902 adds up to 5481700.
The total of people according to the DWP FoI 3344 adds
up to 5771004
The DWP had replied to two FOI one in 2015 and in 2017
in relation to the 2011 Pension Act, does this mean that the
DWP had not sent out letters informing of the 2011
Pension Act to 289304 people bearing in mind the
numbers w ere supplied by the DWP.
Freedom of Information Request Ref: VTR 3902 Date: 5
October 2015 and the FoI 3344 DATE: 1 September 2017
Where did the DWP obtain the information on the numbers
of the Letters that were sent out to people on the 2011
Pension Act on the above Freedom of Information
Requests as they have different totals? Which is correct
and which has misled?
FOI2018/11478
Mr Duncan Smith had said There is a slight problem with
that element of the coalition agreement. It was done in that
way at the time, and that is fair enough, but we have since
looked at it carefully and taken legal advice. What Legal
advice did Mr Duncan Smith obtain that changed the policy
as set out in the above, please forward me a copy of that
legal advice. The Secretary of State’s provisions clearly
breach the coalition agreement, so what has changed?
Mr Duncan Smith said: With respect, I have just said that there
are certain elements that would not be legal. That is all that I am
saying.
What was the certain elements that would not be legal, that
Mr Duncan had said in the above please send me the
details.
Mr Duncan Smith said:I do not publish legal advice, but if the hon.
Lady reads the coalition agreement, she will see the reasons. I
ask her to study it carefully.
Did Mr Duncan Smith make this Legal advice available to
MP before the debates on the Pensions Bill was it
available to the public could you give me the details to
which this legal advice was published.
Mr Duncan Smith had said , it is seven years away for women. There is
some warning.
What is the notice period in what he had said There is some
warnings, what are the warnings that Mr Ducan Smith had
remarked upon?
FOI 2018/12314
What letters were sent to inform Women who date of birth was
from the 6 Apr 1955 to 5 Apr 1960 on the changes of the 1995
Pension Act which indisputable had an effect upon them?
What direct communication during the above Delay Period of 1
Year and 7 Months (from March 2011 and up to Oct 2012) did
the DWP undertake to inform Women who birth was from the 6
Apr 1955 to 5 Apr 1960 of any Pension changes to their State
Pension Age.
On the DWP website it state:
Pensions Bill 2011 received Royal Assent on 3 November 2011 and
became law under the Pensions Act 2011
The DWP had said for individuals with a date of birth 6 Apr 1955 to 5
Apr 1960 letters were issued between Oct 2012 and Nov 2013 to Men
and Women who are affected by the 2011 Pension Act, this is showed
in the table shown in FOI response 3166 of 2017.
The Pensions Bill 2011 received Royal Assent on 3 November 2011,
and the DWP said it sent letters, The DWP had said for individuals with
a date of birth 6 Apr 1955 to 5 Apr 1960 letters were issued between
Oct 2012 and Nov 2013 with regards to the 2011 Pension Act.
Why was their a delay of 11 Months from the The Pensions Bill
2011 received that received the Royal Assent on 3 November
2011, to when the DWP had said they had started
communicating to Women between birth 6 Apr 1955 to 5 Apr
1960.
What Direct Communication did the DWP undertake during the
delay of the 11 Months from Royal Assent 3 November 2011 to
Oct 2012 to inform Women between births 6 Apr 1955 to 5 Apr
1960?
In the DWP document called Pension and later life: communication
tracking research Date March 2011 Research report 5 December 2011
On Page 6 under 1.1 Communication strategy.
The DWP had said the role of communications in contributing towards
these aims is to:
Meet “duty of care” requirements to inform individuals about State
Pension reform and other changes which materially affect them;
Please could you send me the documentation that the DWP has
on record on the DWP duty of care” requirements to inform
individuals about State Pension reform and other changes which
materially affect them; Please could you confirm when this duty
of care” requirements to inform individuals about State Pension
reform and other changes which materially affect them; came
into effect and where it is written into the DWP procedures and
who in the DWP has to follow this requirement.
State Retirement Pensions: Females:Written question – 190376
Answered on: 20 November 2018
Mr Guy Opperman Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for
Work and Pensions) in a written answer to Parliament published 20
November 2018 the minister for Pensions said there were more than
600 mentions of state pension age equalisation in the national
broadsheet and tabloid press between 1993 and 2006.
Please could you send me the evidence of the 600 mentions of
state pension age equalisation in the national broadsheet and
tabloid press between 1993 and 2006, that Mr Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and
Pensions) must have seen or viewed in order to make such an
unequivocally statement.
Please send me audited conformation that Mr Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and
Pensions) must had seen or indeed have this confirmed by a
Government Department that 600 mentions of state pension
age equalisation in the national broadsheet and tabloid press
between 1993 and 2006 existed?
Please supply me a copy of that Mr Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and
Pensions) briefing paper in which he answered these questions.
Mr Guy Opperman Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for
Work and Pensions) was asked a question called State Retirement
Pensions: Females: Written question – 190377 he said:
The volumes recorded in the second table have been rounded to the
nearest 1000 and include mailings undertaken as part of a
communications research project, and those sent to men who were also
affected by the 2011 Act.
It is not possible to provide the volumes sent to women only in relation
to the 2011 Act, as we do not hold the information split by gender.
It had listed date of birth 06/04/55 – 05/04/60 mailing date Oct 2012 –
Nov 2013 the total of Number of letters sent out was 4,475,000 This is a
stark difference to a freedom of Information Request Ref: VTR 3902
Date: 5 October 2015 where the Customer’s date of birth 06/04/55 –
05/04/60 had the quaintly as 5668000.
Why is such a difference of 1193000 people who was reported
in 2015 against what Mr Guy Opperman Parliamentary Under-
Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions) had reported to
Parliament?
Does this mean that an under reporting has occurred by the
DWP, when supplying this information to parliament, you would
think that in 2015 the DWP would have a more updated
recorded due to being only under two years when this supposed
mailing was performed, please supply me the documentation
from 2015 and of 2018 in which the DWP had obtained this
information.
Have the DWP undertook a full investigation on this reported
vast difference to official DWP reporting if so please forward me
the conclusion of such investigation, can the DWP give me the
correct information to which is the correct volume of letters that
were sent to people from date of birth 06/04/55 – 05/04/60
mailing date Oct 2012 – Nov 2013.
From the Department for Work and Pensions Communication Capability
Review Date: February 2013 Item2.8 the DWP had said:
Since March 2010, DWP has reduced it communications staff
headcount by 46%, and consolidated the Department's communications
expertise within a smaller, more efficient Directorate.
With a 46% reduced headcount to the DWP communication staff
since March 2010 what effect had in in communication to
Women with regards to the 1995 and the 2011 Pension act, did
the DWP complete a review on what effect it had on the DWP
communications.
With a 46% reduced headcount to the DWP communications
staff since March 2010 did the DWP out sorce the sending out
the Letters to the Women that were effected by the 1995 and the
2011 Pension act, or did the DWP themselves carried out this
task, what The previous leader held the post of Director General
of Marketing, Communication and Customer strategy.
When she left in January 2011 an interim was put in place until the
current Director joined in November 2011.
Who was the interim who was put in place until the current
Director joined in November 2011.
DWP Response
Under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public authorities are not
obliged to comply with requests which are vexatious.
A request may be treated as vexatious for a number of reasons, for example if compliance
would create a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction, if a request is
designed to cause disruption or annoyance, if a request can otherwise fairly be
characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable, or if the request does not have any
serious purpose or value.
By way of clarification it is the request which is treated as vexatious not the person making
the request. An individual can make mutiple requests and each will be considered on its
own merits.
Whether a request is vexatious is assessed with reference to all the circumstances of an
individual case. In this case, the Department is treating the following requests as vexatious:
FOI 2018/02420
FOI 2018/04464
FOI 2018/04488
FOI 2018/04727
FOI 2018/04876
FOI 2018/06401
FOI 2018/07320
FOI 2018/07295
FOI 2018/09010
FOI 2018/09022
FOI 2018/09014
FOI 2018/09018
FOI 2018/10157
FOI 2018/10158
FOI 2018/10172
FOI 2018/11226
FOI 2018/11478
FOI 2018/12314
Whilst we accept that the requests relate to some issues in which the general public has a
legitimate interest, the Government’s position in relation to changes to state pension age
has already been the subject of considerable public and Parliamentary scrutiny.
For example, Parliament has published several comprehensive briefing papers and select
committee Inquiry reports and there has been an independent inquiry into the subject, many
parliamentary debates to which government Minister have responded, ministerial
statements as well as responses to written and oral parliamentary questions, all of which
are available in the public domain. We have included some helpful links here to relevant
documents:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/899.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06546/SN06546.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/611460/independent-review-of-the-state-pension-age-smoothing-the-transition.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7405/CBP-7405.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06546/SN06546.pdf https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-08/debates/5DB1E4AA-31EF-443C-9557-
E5ED4968B8DC/StatePensionAge https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-11-29/debates/721D593D-7E54-4E69-
ADCB-CBCA73618FCD/StatePensionAgeWomen http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02234/SN02234.pdf https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-30/debates/6D16B51A-12D7-4614-89AA-
6A016F71600A/StatePensionAgeWomen https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/89902.htm https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-11-15/debates/DFB796DF-B853-47C8-
AFEE-BA4EDC037EF7/StatePensionAgeWomen https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-
07/debates/16010722000001/StatePensionAge(Women) https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-12-
02/debates/15120250000001/StatePensionAgeEqualisation https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-02-
01/debates/16020126000001/TransitionalStatePensionArrangementsForWomen This represents only a sample of the virtually unprecedented level of public scrutiny to
which the Government’s policies on state pension age has already been exposed. The
Department has received 44 FOI requests from you on the subject since January 2018. The
list of FOIs we have responded to since January 2018 is included in Document A. In
Document B is the full version of each FOI we are detailing in this letter.
DWP accepts that meeting our commitment to transparency and openness involves
absorbing a certain level of disruption and an administrative burden. However, the number
and frequency of your requests, as well as the “scattergun” nature of them, the lack of
clarity in terms of what recorded information they are trying to obtain, the fact that they often
overlap - requesting information already in the public domain as well as information we
have already provided, and also that each response only seems to result in further
requests, suggests to the Department that there is no clear objective to them.
Subsequently, regardless of intention, it is undoubtedly the case that each of the requests
causes a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption to departmental officials who
are responsible for responding to them, placing an unreasonable burden on the Department
for no obvious purpose.
For the reasons summarised above, the Department has decided that Section 14(1) of the
FOIA applies on this occasion to the requests listed above. Accordingly we will not be
complying with your requests.
It may be of assistance to you to consider the Information Commissioner’s comprehensive
guidance on section 14(1) of FOIA, which can be found here
: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number
above.
Yours sincerely,
DWP Freedom of Information Requests
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act
If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx or by writing to DWP, Central FoI Team,
Caxton House, Tothill Street, SW1H 9NA. Any review request should be submitted within
two months of the date of this letter.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the
Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot
make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us or telephone 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745