Case Law Analysis: Importance of Compliance with Pension Regulations Highlighted in AC Precision Engineering Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 63 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of AC Precision Engineering Limited v The Pensions Regulator ([2024] UKFTT 63 (GRC)), the tribunal examined the statutory obligations of employers under the Pensions Act 2008 in relation to automatic enrolment and compliance notices, and the associated enforcement powers of The Pensions Regulator. The case highlights the significance of adhering to statutory notices and the consequences of non-compliance. This analysis aims to dissect the decision, framing the key legal principles and implications for similar proceedings.

Key Facts

AC Precision Engineering Ltd (“the Employer”) contested a Fixed Penalty Notice levied by The Pensions Regulator for failing to comply with a Notice of Compliance within the stipulated time. The Employer argued it had not received any correspondence, except for the Fixed Penalty Notice itself. The Employer admitted to and rectified non-compliance only after receiving the penalty notice. The case was determined solely on the evidence and submissions presented in writing, as both parties agreed to paper determination as per rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

The tribunal’s decision centered on interpreting the requirements and the presumption of service under the Pensions Act 2008 and the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. The key judicial principles applied include:

  1. Presumption of Service: Legal provisions dictate that documents sent to an employer’s registered office are presumed to be served. The Employer’s claim that the post was unreliable constituted a bare assertion, insufficient to rebut this presumption.

  2. Employer Obligations: Employers are legally bound to comply with the Notice of Compliance in relation to the automatic enrolment of jobholders into pension schemes, with definitive timescales for enrollment and re-enrollment.

  3. Enforcement Powers: The Pensions Regulator is authorized to issue Notices of Compliance and Fixed Penalty Notices to ensure employers meet their obligations. Non-compliance invites penalties.

  4. Tribunal Jurisdiction: Following an ignored or contested compliance notice and subsequent penalty notice, an employer can refer the matter to the Tribunal only after a review has been sought from the Regulator, ensuring that internal remedial channels have been exhausted.

  5. Reasonable Excuse and Evidence: An assertion of non-receipt of correspondence must be supported by substantive evidence. In the absence of proof, such as documented local postal issues, the employer’s claim holds no weight.

  6. Case Law Referencing: Mention of Upper Tribunal case law established that mere assertion is not enough to counter statutory presumptions, requiring employers to present compelling evidence to substantiate claims of non-receipt of statutory notices.

Outcomes

The Tribunal, led by Judge Alison McKenna, dismissed the reference, confirming the Fixed Penalty Notice and upheld the Regulator’s decision to impose such a penalty following the Employer’s lack of compliance. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse for non-compliance as the Employer failed to provide any evidence supporting its claim of non-receipt. Consequently, the action by the Regulator was deemed appropriate.

Conclusion

The decision in AC Precision Engineering Limited v The Pensions Regulator reaffirms the principle that employers need to strictly adhere to the statutory obligations for employee pension enrollment. It emphasizes the presumption of the service of the statutory notices and the necessity for employers to provide tangible evidence when claiming non-receipt. Legal professionals should note the centrality of documentary evidence and timely compliance with the Pensions Act 2008 to avoid enforcement action and penalties. The case underscores the robust enforcement framework that supports the UK’s pension regulations and the readiness of the tribunal to uphold such measures in the absence of substantiated refute from an employer.