Tribunal Upholds Validity of Penalty in Coverdale Barclay Ltd v The Pensions Regulator Case

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 1061 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Coverdale Barclay Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2023] UKFTT 1061 (GRC), the First-tier Tribunal’s General Regulatory Chamber was tasked with determining the appropriateness of a fixed penalty notice (FPN) issued by The Pensions Regulator under the Pensions Act 2008. This analysis aims to dissect the key topics of the case law and elucidate the legal principles applied by the Tribunal.

Key Facts

The case revolves around a penalty levied against Coverdale Barclay Ltd (the “Appellant”), which failed to comply with a compliance notice (CN) directing the Appellant to file a redeclaration of compliance for pension regulation purposes. An FPN followed due to non-compliance with the CN, which mandated a fine of £400. The Appellant challenged this FPN on the basis that they never received the CN and acted in compliance upon becoming aware of the requirement.

The Tribunal employed several legal principles in determining the outcome of the case:

  1. Presumption of Service: Reliance was placed on the presumptions of service, indicating that if correspondence is adequately addressed and dispatched, it is presumed to have been received by the addressee in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. This is supported by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and affirmed by Regulation 15 of the Employers Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/5).

  2. Employer Responsibility: The legal requirement for the employer to file a redeclaration of compliance underscored the responsibility resting squarely on the employer’s shoulders to ensure all appropriate actions and filings are completed in accordance with the regulations.

  3. Burden of Proof: The Regulator’s burden was to establish that the CN was issued to the registered address of the Appellant. Consequently, it became the Appellant’s burden to provide robust evidence that the CN was not received, which they failed to do convincingly.

  4. Proper Basis for Non-Compliance: The Tribunal considered whether the Appellant had a proper basis for failing to comply with the CN. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation or evidence to counter the Regulator’s claim of proper issuance and presumption of service, the Tribunal found no merit in the Appellant’s arguments.

Outcomes

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and submissions by both parties, concluded that the FPN was properly imposed and upheld its validity. The decision remarked that the appeal against the FPN was without merit and dismissed it, confirming the penalty and returning the matter to the Regulator without further directions.

Conclusion

In Coverdale Barclay Ltd v The Pensions Regulator, the Tribunal reiterated the obligation of employers to ensure regulatory compliance, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding the presumption of service and the duties of an employer under pension regulations. Despite the Appellant’s arguments, the absence of evidence to disprove the presumptions underpinning service of the CN rendered the appeal baseless. This case serves as a cautionary tale for employers, highlighting the necessity of maintaining and checking registered company addresses, and the importance of timely action upon receipt of compliance-related notices.