i-Creation 2020 Ltd v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 370 (GRC)
Quelink Limited v The Pensions Regulator
3 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 267 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company was fined £400 for missing a deadline to tell the Pensions Regulator about their pension scheme. They said they had trouble contacting the Regulator and weren't sure if they needed to do it, but the judge said that wasn't a good enough reason and the company had to pay the fine.
Key Facts
- •Quelink Limited (Appellant) appealed a £400 fixed penalty notice from The Pensions Regulator (Respondent) for failing to comply with a compliance notice regarding a re-declaration of compliance under the Pensions Act 2008.
- •The original compliance deadline was March 6, 2023, later extended to May 16, 2023.
- •The compliance notice was sent to the Appellant's registered office address.
- •The Appellant submitted the re-declaration on June 2, 2023, after the penalty notice was issued.
- •The Appellant claimed they were unsure if re-enrolment was needed due to a lack of employees wanting pension scheme participation, citing difficulties contacting the Regulator and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Legal Principles
The Pensions Act 2008 imposes requirements on employers for automatic enrolment in pension schemes. The Regulator can issue compliance notices and fixed penalty notices for non-compliance.
Pensions Act 2008, Sections 35, 40
A compliance notice is deemed served if sent to the registered or principal office of a company.
Pensions Act 2004, section 303(6)(a); Pensions Act 2008, section 144A; Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, Regulation 15(4)
The Tribunal can determine the appropriate action by the Regulator, considering evidence and whether a ‘reasonable excuse’ exists for non-compliance.
Pensions Act 2004, section 103(3); In the Matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC); Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC)
Late compliance is not a reasonable excuse for failing to meet automatic enrolment obligations.
Case Precedent (Implicit)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Regulator's actions were appropriate. The Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, and late compliance does not excuse the initial failure to meet the deadline. The compliance notice was properly served.