Adil’s Real Estate Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

By this reference Adil’s Real Estate Ltd (“the Employer”), challenges a fixed penalty notice of £400 (”FPN”) issued by the Regulator on 25^th September 2025.

The FPN was issued under s. 40 of the Pensions Act 2008. It required the Employer to pay a penalty of £400 for failing to comply with the requirements of a compliance notice (CN) issued on 31^st July 2025. The Compliance Notice was issued under s. 35 of the Pensions Act 2008. It directed the Employer file a redeclaration of compliance.

The Employer referred the matter to the Tribunal on 27^th December 2025.

Under s. 44 of the 2008 Act, a person who has been issued with a FPN may make a reference to the Tribunal provided an application for review has first been made to the Regulator. The role of the Tribunal is to make its own decision on the appropriate action for the Regulator to take, taking into account the evidence before it. The Tribunal may confirm, vary or revoke a FPN and when it reaches a decision must remit the matter to the Regulator with such directions (if any) required to give effect to its decision.

The Employer’s Notice of Appeal dated 27^th December 2025 seeks to argue that due to genuine logistical issues post was mislaid or lost as a result of a business address move. They assert that there was no intentional non-compliance here. Further, the Employer asserts that a penalty of this level will have a disproportionate burden upon them, they being a small company.

The Appellant seeks the FPN’s removal.

The Regulator’s Response indicates that a Review took place on 14^th October 2025 and a decision was made to maintain the FPN, but to extend the date of compliance of the FPN to 10^th November 2025.

The Regulator sets out the background details to the issue of the CN, in essence that a declaration of compliance was not filed. When the CN was not met the FPN followed. As at the date of the Response compliance had still not been completed.

The case was listed for a paper hearing.

All parties agreed to a paper determination, and having considered the bundle in full the Tribunal agreed that a fair and proper decision could be reached without oral evidence. As a result, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules, the case was considered on the documentary materials provided.

The Tribunal considered a bundle of 125 pages.

The Tribunal looked at and considered the papers and evidence before it with care.

Here there is no suggestion that the FPN was not sent, as a Review was sought in relation to it. The issue seems to be that the CN was not received, or was mislaid or lost in the business move. No details of any other correspondence going missing is provided. No evidence of any postal issues or similar are given. There is therefore nothing more than a basic denial of “receipt.” A mere assertion is not enough to rebut the usual presumptions that apply.

In accordance with s7 Interpretation Act 1978 presumptions, by sending letters to the Companies Registered address the Regulator had met its obligations and more. The further presumptions within the Employers Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/5), particularly Regulation 15, further support the Regulator’s position that the CN was received.

I am driven to the conclusion that the Notice was properly sent and delivered, and therefore that due service was met. The failure of the Appellant to act upon the CN meant that the Regulator was entirely correct to serve the FPN and no criticisms of their actions can be levied. The only basis put forward for not dealing with the CN is in effect that the Appellant had a lot on as a result of a move. It was its responsibility during such a business activity to ensure that all business demands were dealt with properly. A failure to do so is not a basis to escape liability.

The Appellant argues that for a situation where it is “accepted” that non-compliance is not deliberate and where the company concerned is small and growing that the FPN is disproportionate and unfair. The Tribunal bears in mind firstly that FPN’s only follow from proved non-compliance. Parliament in setting the fixed penalty sum did not deem it necessary to differentiate between deliberate actions and omissions in terms of the sum to pay. It provided that non-compliance simpliciter rendered a company liable for the fixed sum.

Similarly Parliament did not feel it necessary to ask the Regulator nor the Tribunal to determine the size of the company in determining the level of penalty to be imposed. As a result the fixed sum is the amount that always follows.

The Tribunal bears in mind the suggestions made that the FPN is disproportionate but comes to the clear view firstly that there was a clear breach here and as a result a penalty falls due. Secondly, that there is no discretion over the amount and therefore the set sum follows. Finally, that whilst in some cases it may be possible to say it would be grossly unfair to level a penalty, this is not one of those cases. Here the responsibility for non-compliance falls on the employer for not ensuring it had a proper and safe system in place to deal with correspondence. Accordingly it is its fault that compliance was not made.

In all the circumstances the Tribunal is driven to the view the appeal must be dismissed and it is remitted to the Regulator, upholding the Fixed Penalty Notice.

No further directions are required.