Key Facts
- •Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Limited (appellant) failed to comply with auto-enrollment pension scheme regulations.
- •The Pensions Regulator (respondent) issued a compliance notice and penalty notices.
- •Appellant claimed non-receipt of notices, leading to significant penalties.
- •The case went to the Upper Tribunal, which remitted it back to the First-tier Tribunal.
- •The Tribunal considered whether the notices were received, focusing on the reliability of the respondent's posting system and the appellant's evidence of non-receipt.
- •The appellant presented evidence of unreliable local postal service and difficulties with email delivery.
Legal Principles
Deemed service by post: Proper addressing, pre-paying, and posting creates a presumption of service, rebuttable by proof to the contrary.
Section 7, Interpretation Act 1978
Rebutting the presumption of service requires proof of non-service, not merely a denial.
London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) and Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2022] UKUT 62 (AAC)
Time limits for requesting review of penalty notices under section 43 of the Pensions Act 2008 and regulation 15 of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010.
Pensions Act 2008, s.43; Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, reg. 15
Outcomes
The notices were remitted to the Regulator with a direction that they be set aside.
The Tribunal found the respondent's posting system reliable but accepted the appellant's evidence that the notices were not delivered due to unreliable postal service and issues with email delivery.