Pavillion - MPL Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

The Appellant is a small company with a single director which runs a business at the Stormont Estate in Belfast. By this reference (or appeal) it challenges a Fixed Penalty Notice (‘FPN’) issued on 17 September 2025 by the Pensions Regulator (‘TPR’), requiring it to pay a penalty of £400 for failing to comply with a Compliance Notice (‘CN’) by the (extended) deadline of 2 September 2025.

The matter came before me for determination on the papers, both parties having stated that they were content for no hearing to be held. I was satisfied that it was just and in keeping with the overriding objective to adopt that procedure.

I was provided with a bundle of some 196 pages.

Strictly speaking, Northern Ireland legislation is applicable in this case, but it is indistinguishable from what follows, and it is convenient to set out the provisions applicable in Great Britain.

The Pensions Act 2008 (‘the Act’) imposes a number of requirements on employers in relation to the automatic enrolment (‘AE’) of certain ‘job holders’ in occupational or workplace personal pension schemes. These include delivering written notification of how the AE duties have been met, known as a ‘declaration of compliance’. TPR has statutory responsibility for securing compliance with AE requirements. If it is of the opinion that a declaration of compliance has not been delivered by the due date, it may issue a CN pursuant to section 35 of the Act

By s40 of the Act, TPR may issue a FPN in the sum of £400

TPR may review a FPN or EPN on the application of the person affected (s43(1)(a)). The effect is to suspend the relevant Notice pending the outcome of the review (s43(4)). The possible outcomes are confirmation, variation and revocation of the Notice; in the event of revocation, TPR may substitute a different Notice (s 43(6)).

By s44 of the Act, provision is made for references to the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) or (in circumstances which do not apply here) Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) in (so far as material) the following terms:

In dealing with a reference the powers of the FTT are very wide. The Pensions Act 2004, s103 includes:

The material facts are not in dispute. Besides those given in para 1 above, they can be summarised shortly as follows (I borrow largely from TPR’s ‘Response’ document).

The original deadline for delivery by the Appellant of the declaration of compliance was 27 June 2025.

TPR issued a letter in April 2025, correctly addressed to the Appellant’s Director’s home address (the address given by the Director to TPR for correspondence relating to AE matters), drawing attention to the deadline.

By a further correctly-addressed letter

Having heard nothing from the Appellant, TPR issued a further reminder letter on or about 8 July 2025, again referring to the deadline and, on this occasion, extending it by 14 days, to 22 July 2025.

On 22 July 2025 TPR issued the CN already mentioned, allowing the Appellant further time to deliver the (by now well overdue) declaration of compliance, expiring on 2 September 2025.

In the absence of any response from the Appellant, TPR on 7 October 2025, issued the FPN under challenge.

Very soon after issue of the FPN, the Appellant complied with the duty to provide a declaration of compliance and sought a review of the FPN.

On 7 October 2025, TPR completed a review of the FPN and upheld it.

The notice of appeal dated 29 October 2025 raises six grounds as follows:

As can be seen, the appeal raises no challenge to the validity of the grounds on which TPR took enforcement action. It is concerned only with matters of mitigation.

I start by reminding myself of the terms of the applicable legislation (summarised above) and in particular (a) the salutary purposes which the AE regime is designed to achieve, including ensuring that qualifying workers have the chance through occupational pensions to enjoy dignity and comfort in retirement; (b) the need for the mandatory requirements of the scheme to be backed up by an effective and robust enforcement mechanism; and (c) the need for other employers to understand that those requirements will be enforced. In my view, the correct approach, as suggested by the Strathmore Medical Practice case (already cited), is to look to the Appellant to show a good reason why TPR should not have followed its usual practice of meeting a breach of a CN with an FPN.

Having considered the matter with care, I am satisfied that the Appellant has failed to make out a reasonable excuse for its non-compliance. The legislation places the burden firmly upon the employer to comply. TPR is not under any legal duty to provide advice and reminders to employers at all. But in this case I am satisfied in any event that the documents demonstrate repeated efforts by TPR to encourage the Appellant to comply. I find that the communications which I have listed above, were duly issued by TPR on the dates they bore. Nor am I persuaded by the simple assertion on behalf of the Appellant, not supported by evidence, that none was received. As TPR points out, in reliance on JM Kamau Ltd v TPR [2025] UKFTT 00425 (FTT), a decision of the Chamber President, taken with the documentary evidence in the bundle, the Tribunal is entitled to find that the relevant communications were duly issued on the dates they bear. And the statutory presumptions of delivery establish receipt, absent sufficient evidence to rebut them. In these circumstances, the first, second and third grounds of appeal fail.

I accept that, as the Appellant states in its fourth ground of appeal, the breach of the obligation to provide the declaration of compliance was remedied swiftly. I agree that it is entitled to some small credit for that. But it does not amount to significant mitigation to warrant interference with the FPN.

The same reasoning applies to the fifth ground of appeal.

As to the sixth ground of appeal, I accept that the Appellant, as a small enterprise, may well find the imposition of the FPN burdensome, but the level of penalties is set by Parliament and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to apply reductions to take account of means. Where appropriate, arrangements can be made to make payments by instalments.

For the reasons stated, I am clear that the Appellant has not demonstrated a good excuse for its failure to meet the requirements of the CN and accordingly I dismiss the reference and remit the matter to the Regulator. No further direction is required.