Tribunal dismisses appeal over escalating penalty notice

28 Mar 2025Court Report

Tribunal upheld the Pensions Regulator's decision to impose an escalating penalty on Pattinson Builders Ltd

Background

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently delivered its decision in the case of Pattinson Builders Ltd versus The Pensions Regulator, concerning an escalating penalty notice issued under the Pensions Act 2008. The case was heard via the Cloud Video Platform on 25 March 2025, with the decision handed down on 27 March 2025 by Judge Sophie Buckley.

The Dispute

Pattinson Builders Ltd, the appellant, challenged an escalating penalty notice issued by the Pensions Regulator on 26 April 2024. This notice, under section 41 of the Pensions Act 2008, required the company to comply with a compliance notice by 23 May 2024, failing which a daily penalty of £500 would accrue from 24 May 2024. The company argued that it had not received timely notifications due to issues with its accountants forwarding the correspondence.

Legal Framework

The Pensions Act 2008 mandates employers to automatically enrol eligible jobholders into pension schemes and to submit declarations of compliance. Failure to comply can result in the issuance of compliance notices, fixed penalty notices, and escalating penalty notices by the Pensions Regulator. The Tribunal's role is to review these decisions and determine the appropriate course of action based on the evidence presented.

Evidence and Submissions

The Tribunal reviewed a bundle of documents, including submissions from Mr. Pattinson, representing the appellant, and Ms. Fadero, representing the respondent. Mr. Pattinson contended that his accountants failed to forward the notices, resulting in delayed compliance. He stated that once aware, the company acted promptly to rectify the oversight.

Tribunal's Findings

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the appellant regarding the receipt and handling of notices. Despite the appellant's claims, the Tribunal concluded that the notices were properly served to the registered office address, which was the appellant's accountants.

Conclusion

Judge Buckley determined that the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the compliance notice. The Tribunal upheld the escalating penalty notice, emphasising the importance of employers maintaining effective systems for managing correspondence and compliance obligations.

Implications

This decision underscores the stringent requirements placed on employers under the Pensions Act 2008 and the limited scope for leniency in cases of non-compliance. Employers must ensure robust systems are in place to manage their statutory obligations effectively.