CPC (Worcester) Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2024] UKFTT 133 (GRC)
Sure Services Group Limited v The Pensions Regulator
20 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 134 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company didn't file paperwork on time, got fined £400. They tried to appeal saying they didn't get the notice and their accountant was sick. The judge said they should have better systems in place to receive important mail and it's the company's responsibility to meet deadlines, regardless of staff illness, so the fine stood.
Key Facts
- •Sure Services Group Limited (Appellant) failed to comply with a compliance notice from The Pensions Regulator (Respondent) to file a declaration of compliance by the deadline.
- •A compliance notice was issued on February 24, 2023, and a fixed penalty notice of £400 was issued on April 25, 2023, for non-compliance.
- •The Appellant claimed non-receipt of the compliance notice and illness of their accountant as reasons for non-compliance.
- •The Appellant's declaration of compliance was finally submitted on June 28, 2023.
- •The Appellant's registered office was under construction since March 2023.
Legal Principles
Employers have a duty to comply with automatic enrolment requirements under the Pensions Act 2008.
Pensions Act 2008
The Pensions Regulator can issue compliance notices and fixed penalty notices for non-compliance.
Pensions Act 2008, sections 35, 40; Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010
Service of notices is presumed to be received if sent to the proper address (registered or principal office for companies).
Pensions Act 2004, section 303(2)(c), 303(6)(a); Pensions Act 2008, section 144A; Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, Regulation 15(4)
A reasonable excuse for non-compliance can be considered when determining the appropriateness of a fixed penalty.
Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC)
The Tribunal must determine the appropriate action, even if the Regulator's original decision was within a reasonable range.
In the Matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC)
A mere assertion of non-receipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service.
London Borough of Southwark v (1) Runa Akhter & (2) Stel LLC [2017] UKUT 0150
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the compliance notice was properly served, the Appellant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, and issuing the fixed penalty notice was the appropriate action.