Grimsby Bowling and Westend Club v The Pensions Regulator

This appeal concerns a Fixed Penalty Notice (“FPN”) issued on 28 September 2022 and an Escalating Penalty Notice (“EPN”) issued on 28 October 2022 by The Pensions Regulator. The Respondent applies for strike‑out under rule 8(2)(a), submitting that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the statutory pre‑conditions for an appeal under sections 43 and 44 of the Pensions Act 2008 (“PA 2008”) have not been satisfied. The Respondent’s submissions are set out in its strike‑out application dated 12 January 2026.

The factual chronology is not materially disputed. The Respondent issued an Unpaid Contributions Notice (“UCN”) on 2 August 2022, directing the Appellant to calculate and pay outstanding contributions and provide evidence of compliance. When no response was received, the Respondent issued an FPN on 28 September 2022, followed by an EPN on 28 October 2022. Both notices made clear that an application for review must be made within 28 days. The Respondent issued reminders in October, November and December 2022, and again in January 2023. No review request was made by the Appellant.

The Appellant did not contact the Respondent until a telephone call on 18 February 2025, over two years after the notices were issued, during which it requested copies of correspondence and sought a review. The Respondent refused, explaining that it had no power to conduct a review because the request was made well outside the statutory time limits. This was confirmed in writing. A Notice of Appeal was subsequently submitted to the Tribunal on 19 December 2025.

The Appellant’s case, as set out in its GRC5 application dated 17 February 2026, is that none of the notices or reminders were received because they were sent to the address of a former treasurer at North Thoresby. It contends that because the letters were not received, it was unable to request a review in time and invites the Tribunal to allow, what it describes as, a “late appeal.”

The Respondent argues that the notices were sent to the correct address, being the last address notified by the Appellant in its redeclaration of compliance dated 11 March 2022, namely Westbrook Farm, Station Road, North Thoresby. It relies on the statutory presumptions of service under section 303(6)(b) of the Pensions Act 2004, section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, and regulation 15(4) of the Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. The Respondent cites Tribunal and Upper Tribunal authority confirming the strength of these presumptions and the high evidential threshold required to rebut them.

Section 43(1) of the Pensions Act 2008 provides:

Section 44(2) of the Pensions Act 2008 states:

These are strict jurisdictional gateways.

Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First‑tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 states:

The Respondent relies upon the following case law:

The Tribunal accepts that the Respondent did not conduct a review under s43. The issue is therefore whether the Appellant made a valid application for review within the meaning of section 43(1)(a) and reg.15(1).

The evidence shows that the Appellant did not seek a review until February 2025, long after both the 28‑day window and the 18‑month period for an own‑initiative review had expired. On any view, no valid application was made under section 43(1)(a), and no review was possible under section 43(1)(b).

The Appellant’s argument that it did not receive the notices does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Respondent has shown that the notices were sent to the address most recently provided by the Appellant in its redeclaration of compliance. The statutory presumptions of service apply, and, as the authorities above demonstrate, a bare assertion of non‑receipt cannot rebut them. The decisions in Akhter, Keith’s Rubbish Clearance, and Kamau confirm that internal organisational failures or changes in personnel do not constitute evidence capable of displacing the presumptions. The Appellant has provided no evidence that the notices were not properly addressed, pre‑paid, and posted, nor any evidence of systemic failure in the postal service itself.

Even if the Tribunal were to accept, contrary to the evidence, that the notices were not received, this would not create jurisdiction. Section 44(2) provides an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which an appeal may be brought. The Tribunal cannot expand those jurisdictional gateways for reasons of fairness, inadvertence, or administrative delay.

The Tribunal therefore concludes that neither limb of s44(2) is met. No review was completed, and no valid application for review was made within the statutory period. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and must strike out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a).

For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal concludes that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The statutory pre‑conditions for bringing an appeal under section 44 of the Pensions Act 2008 have not been met. The appeal is therefore struck out in its entirety pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First‑tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.