Key Facts
- •EL Recruitment Ltd (Appellant) appealed a £400 fixed penalty notice for failing to submit a Re-declaration of Compliance (Re-DOC) by the January 2024 deadline.
- •The Appellant claimed non-receipt of reminder letters due to a change of address and reliance on a factoring company for initial enrolment.
- •The Respondent (The Pensions Regulator) argued that the notices were properly served at the registered office address and that the Appellant's reasons did not constitute a reasonable excuse.
- •The Appellant submitted the Re-DOC in April 2024, after the penalty notice was issued.
Legal Principles
Presumption of service of notices sent to a company's registered office address.
Sections 144A of the Pension Act 2008, section 303(6)(a) of the Pensions Act 2004, section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, and Regulation 15(4) of the Employers Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010.
Ultimate responsibility for compliance with pension auto-enrolment duties rests with the employer, even if a third party is engaged.
Case law (cited but not explicitly named in the provided text)
Mere assertion of non-receipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service; proof is required.
London Borough of Southwark v (1) Runa Akhtar v (2) Stel LLC 2017 UKUT 150
Lack of understanding of duties, reliance on others, or pressure of work are not reasonable excuses for non-compliance.
Pensions Regulator's Guidance (website)
Late compliance does not excuse a failure to meet statutory deadlines for Re-DOC submission.
Case law (implied throughout the decision)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; fixed penalty notice upheld.
The Appellant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The notices were properly served, and the Appellant's explanations for non-receipt did not meet the threshold for a reasonable excuse under the relevant legislation and case law.