A COALITION representing women born in the 1950s has warned ministers it may launch a judicial review over what it claims is an unlawful and discriminatory approach to engagement on state pension age redress.

In “without prejudice save as to costs” pre-action correspondence sent to Pat McFadden MP and pensions minister Torsten Bell MP, organisers Jackie Gilderdale and Kay Clarke argue the Government has engaged exclusively with a single incorporated organisation while excluding other “materially affected and representative groups”, founders and legal advocates.

They say that limiting talks in this way is procedurally unfair, irrational and discriminatory, and that it breaches equality duties and public law principles of fairness and inclusivity. The campaigners also cite human rights obligations and international conventions relating to discrimination and access to effective remedies.

The group is demanding confirmation within 14 days that the Government will cease exclusive engagement with any single entity, open structured talks with all representative groups, disclose the criteria used to determine engagement to date, and agree to formal mediation under recent reforms to civil procedure and alternative dispute resolution.

The correspondence comes amid renewed political pressure over women’s state pension age changes and whether those affected should receive compensation for failures in how changes were communicated.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman previously investigated complaints about the communication of changes to women’s state pension age. In a recent Commons exchange, Torsten Bell emphasised that the Ombudsman’s investigation focused on communication rather than the policy decisions themselves.

In November 2025, the Government said it would reconsider the earlier decision not to pay compensation following the Ombudsman’s findings. Campaigners say the way ministers now choose to consult and engage will be central to whether any resolution is seen as fair and credible.

The new letter also includes earlier correspondence asking for clarification about repeated references to “new evidence” in relation to the state pension age issue, and raises questions about Department for Work and Pensions expenditure connected to external engagement work. The writers say that if answers are not provided they may pursue Freedom of Information requests and seek further scrutiny through audit and parliamentary channels.

The campaigners also argue that any solution must be inclusive, claiming it is wrong for ministers to treat one organisation as the sole route for engagement when other groups say they hold significant evidence and represent materially affected women across the UK and in Wales.

The Department for Work and Pensions and the MPs named in the correspondence have been asked to comment.