IJ Plant Co Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 935 (GRC)
Peter Devereux (t/a Deveroast) v The Pensions Regulator
30 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 882 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A business owner got fined for not setting up a workplace pension on time. They said they never got the warning letter, but the government said they sent it, and the business owner didn't prove otherwise. The judge agreed with the government, so the business owner has to pay the fine.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (peter devereux t/a deveroast) received a fixed penalty notice (£400) for non-compliance with a compliance notice related to automatic enrolment pension scheme regulations.
- •Appellant claimed non-receipt of the compliance notice due to a shared business address with many other businesses.
- •Respondent (The Pensions Regulator) relied on statutory presumptions of service under section 303(6)(a) of the Pensions Act 2004 and Regulation 15(4) of the Employers Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010.
- •Appellant argued the Respondent should use recorded delivery or email for notices.
- •Appellant subsequently complied after receiving the fixed penalty notice.
Legal Principles
Statutory presumptions of service apply when notices are sent to the last known address.
Section 303(6)(a) of the Pensions Act 2004 and Regulation 15(4) of the Employers Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010
A bare assertion of non-receipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service.
Southwark LBC v Akhtar 2017 UTKUT 150 (LC) and Keith’s Rubbish Clearance Limited v The Pensions Regulator (PEN/2020/0203)
Service by post is sufficient unless the contrary is proven; the onus is on the recipient to prove non-receipt.
Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v The Pensions Regulator: [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC)
The regulator is not obliged to use recorded delivery or email for service of notices unless expressly agreed by the recipient.
Section 304 of the Pensions Act 2004
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; fixed penalty payable.
Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of service. The claim of non-receipt was deemed a bare assertion, and the Respondent's method of service complied with legislation.
Similar Cases
AC Precision Engineering Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 63 (GRC)
Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 91 (GRC)
Bunting and Green Building Contractors Ltd v The Pensions Regulator
[2023] UKFTT 734 (GRC)
CPC (Worcester) Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 133 (GRC)