London City Housing Limited v The Pensions Regulator
[2023] UKFTT 262 (GRC)
Sweet Time (3) Limited v The Pensions Regulator
30 January 2023
[2023] UKFTT 86 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company didn't pay its pension contributions on time and didn't send proof when asked. They got a £400 fine. They tried to get it cancelled, saying they didn't get the notice and were struggling financially due to the pandemic. The judge said they should have sent the proof, and that the fine should stay because paying pensions on time is important.
Key Facts
- •Sweet Time (3) Ltd (Appellant) appealed a £400 fixed penalty notice from The Pensions Regulator (Respondent) for non-compliance with an unpaid contributions notice (UCN).
- •The UCN, sent June 6, 2022, required the Appellant to calculate unpaid contributions, pay them to the pension provider, and provide evidence of compliance by July 18, 2022.
- •The Appellant claimed non-receipt of the UCN and made payments on June 9, 2022, but failed to provide proof of compliance by the deadline.
- •The Appellant cited financial hardship due to Covid-19 lockdowns as a reasonable excuse.
Legal Principles
Employers must comply with automatic enrolment requirements under the Pensions Act 2008.
Pensions Act 2008
The Pensions Regulator can issue UCNs for unpaid contributions and fixed penalty notices for non-compliance.
Pensions Act 2008
Notices are presumed to be received if sent to the proper address (registered or principal office for companies).
Pensions Act 2004, section 303; Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010, Regulation 15(4)
Appeals against fixed penalty notices can be made to the Tribunal, considering reasonable excuse for non-compliance.
Pensions Act 2008, section 44; Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC)
The Tribunal's decision is independent and can differ from the Regulator's, even if the original decision was reasonable.
In the Matter of the Bonas Group Pension Scheme [2011] UKUT B 33 (TCC)
A simple assertion of non-receipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of service.
London Borough of Southwark v Akhter 2017 UKUT 150
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the UCN was properly served, the Appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance by the deadline, and did not provide a sufficient reasonable excuse for non-compliance.