Having read the whole report, it’s very detailed and contains important findings of maladministration and recommendations.

The DWP does not come out of it especially well. Template responses to #WaspiWomen complaints and not using feedback to improve its communications.

The DWP may well think the report goes too far. WASPI may think it does not go far enough.

There are matters that both Department for Work and Pensions & #WaspiWomen will likely take issue with.

Department for Work and Pensions What happens now?

Department for Work and Pensions must respond to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report.

Parliament must consider it.

PACAC Committee and Work & Pensions Committee should undertake follow-up scrutiny

Litigation against DWP seems inevitable.

channel4.com/news/will-gove…

Former Conservative Cabinet Minister David Gauke argues against compensating #WaspiWomen

conservativehome.com/2024/03/25/dav…

On the costs of financial remedies, the PHSO noted that compensating all women affected would be around £3.5bn-£10.5bn.

In 2000, PHSO found maladministration in the communication of SERPS inheritance rules. The govt came up with a redress package costing £12bn over 50 years.

In the SERPS episode, the then Department for Social Security simply 'forgot' about its own legislation that halved SERPS entitlement for widow(er)s.

Poor communication of important changes is a long-running theme with Department for Work and Pensions

Department for Work and Pensions Oral statement by DWP Secretary of State, with promise of a further update.

But nothing of substance in this oral statement.

The emphasis that the courts have said no unlawfulness here suggests that govt will likely resist the findings of maladministration.

A sense of typical ritualistic performance in the Commons & hand-wringing.

(Will any MP read the full report?)

Repetition of the court's view that there was 'adequate and reasonable notification' by the DWP. This was rejected by PHSO in its 2021 stage 1 report.

This quote is likely to figure prominently and be repeated by DWP ad nauseum.

Robert Thomas That’s different from this statement from the Pensions Minister’s of the day. The court did as it was told clearly. Their defence was # backto60 out of time. Even though the Gov QC was given more time & still could not come up with a viable defence. The case was never heard.