A group of women will appear at the High Court today (5 June) for a judicial review on how the government raised the state pension age for women.
The women, born in the 1950s, claim the raised age is unfair because they were not given enough notice to make adjustments to cope with the extra years without a pension.
Under the 1995 Pensions Act, the government decided that the pension ages of both men and women would be equalised at 65 by 2020, and the age has been rising at an accelerated rate since 2010.
The state pension age will also increase from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028.
Campaign group Backto60, which is bringing the judicial review, wants the government to repay pensions to people born in the 1950s, who would now be coming up to state pension age but in many cases will have to wait, or be unable to retire.
One of the campaigners, Yvonne Robinson, said the changes meant she had lost out on £45,000 and that she will have to continue working four days a week, six years longer than she had planned.
The women argue that they were not given enough time to plan for the delay until they can claim the state pension of up to £168 per week.
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said that the increases had been clearly communicated.
They said: “The government decided more than 20 years ago that it was going to make the state pension age the same for men and women as a long-overdue move towards gender equality, and this has been clearly communicated.”
The government has claimed in the past that repaying these pensions would cost more than £70bn.
The campaigners argue that the motivation for the review is not about equality, but that the lack of notice left many women at a disadvantage.
A spokesperson for another campaign group, Women against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), said “we do not accept the unfair way the changes to our state pension age were implemented with inadequate or no notice”.