campaigners are unless it reconsiders its refusal to compensate millions of women affected by changes to the age.

A recent watchdog report recommended compensation for women born in the 1950s, whose age was raised to align with men.

However, Prime Minister Sir has said the Government cannot afford the £10.5 billion cost of the package.

The Women Against Inequality (WASPI) campaign has issued a "letter before action" to the Department for Work and Pensions (), threatening High Court proceedings if the issue is not addressed.

So what do you think? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comments section. Can't see the poll below?

Angela Madden, the group's chairwoman, accused the of "gaslighting" the women affected and vowed not to let the matter go unchallenged.

The campaigners argue that the Government's justification for rejecting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) report, which suggested women should be compensated up to £2,950 each, is "legally wrong".

Ms Madden said: "The Government has accepted that 1950s-born women are victims of maladministration, but it now says none of us suffered any injustice. We believe this is not only an outrage but legally wrong."

She added: "We have been successful before, and we are confident we will be again. But what would be better for everyone is if the Secretary of State now saw sense and came to the table to sort out a compensation package.

"The alternative is continued defence of the indefensible, but this time in front of a judge."

A Government spokesperson said: "We accept the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration and have apologised for there being a 28-month delay in writing to 1950s-born women.

"However, evidence showed only one in four people remember reading and receiving letters that they weren't expecting and that by 2006 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was changing.

"Earlier letters wouldn't have affected this. For these and other reasons, the Government cannot justify paying for a £10.5billion compensation scheme at the expense of the taxpayer."