Haslington Building and Roofing Ltd v The Pensions Regulator

Background

1. The Appellant is Haslington Building and Roofing Ltd., and the Respondent is The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

2. The appeal relates to Employer duties under the Pensions Act 2008 which require re-enrolment and re-declaration every 3 years.

3. The Appellant’s second re-declaration deadline was 21 March 2025.

4. A Compliance Notice (CN) was issued on 16 April 2025; and an extended deadline to 27 May 2025.

5. A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was Issued 11 June 2025 for non-compliance; penalty £400.

6. A Re-declaration was submitted late (my emphasis) on 16 June 2025 and a review requested and rejected (26 June 2025).

7. The Appeal was lodged 14 July 2025.

8. The Employer duties under the Pensions Act 2008 require re-enrolment and re-declaration every 3 years and a prima facie a breach has occurred. Submissions:

2. Appellant’s case: a. Claims CN and reminders were not received; only FPN was received. b. Argues notices were not sent by registered post; TPR cannot prove receipt. c. Immediate compliance after FPN shows no intent to ignore duties.

3. Respondent’s case: a. Notices sent to registered office (confirmed via Companies House). b. Statutory presumptions deem notices served when properly addressed and posted. c. Mere denial of receipt insufficient to rebut presumption. d. Late compliance does not excuse breach; penalty is fixed and proportionate. e. The Respondent used ordinary mail sent by post to issue statutory notices to employers subject to the Pensions Act 2008 Employer Duties which provided as follows; (i)Issuing Notices via post provides TPR with a presumption of service under s.303 Pensions Act 2004 (PA04) when read in conjunction with the Interpretation Act 1978 ( s.7 ) and Regulation 15(4) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010. Where TPR complies with s.303 PA04 and Regulation 15(4), the burden to rebut the presumption that a Notice was sent and/or received then rests with the employer. (ii)Section 304 PA04 provides for documents, which extends to Notices, to be issued electronically if the recipient has “indicated” a “willingness” to receive them in this manner. TPR has historically not issued Notices electronically as it has considered the safest interpretation of s.304 is that “ willingness ” requires consent from the recipient to minimise issues of valid service arising. (iii) The Respondent is and has not been made specifically aware of the Appellant ever showing any willingness to receive statutory notices by email at any time prior to their application to the First-Tier Tribunal. (iv) With respect to the statutory notices, the Respondent relies on section 303(6) (a) of the Pensions Act 2004 which provides that, for the purposes of s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of documents by post), the proper address for a notice issued to a body corporate is their registered or principal office. Therefore, a notice issued to a limited company at their registered or principal office address is properly served ( Section 303(2) (c) of the Pensions Act 2004). In addition, Regulation 15(4) of the Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 provides a further presumption that a notice (subject to review) is received by the person to whom it was addressed. Taken together, there is a strong statutory presumption that documents sent to an employer’s registered office address are properly served and received. Pensions Act 2004 , s.303(6)(a): Presumption of service.

4. a) s.11: Duty to provide prescribed information (Declaration/Re-declaration of Compliance). b) s.35: Power to issue Compliance Notice. c) s.40: Fixed Penalty Notice (£400). d) s.41: Escalating Penalty Notice (daily rate £50–£10,000). e) s.43: Review process. f) s.44: Right of appeal to Tribunal. Analysis

5. Employers’ Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010: a) Reg.15(4): Presumptions that notices posted on date shown, issued when posted, and received by addressee.

6. Pensions Act 2004 s.303(6) (a) and Interpretation Act 1978 s.7 : b) Proper address = registered office. c) Service by post deemed effective if properly addressed, prepaid, and posted, unless contrary proved.

7. Case Law: d) London Borough of Southwark v Akhter [2017] UKUT : Bare denial insufficient to rebut presumption. e) Keith’s Rubbish Clearance Ltd v TPR (2020) : Regulator entitled to rely on statutory presumptions. f) J.M Kamau Ltd v TPR [2025] : Tribunal accepted TPR’s process evidence; presumption stands unless strong contrary proof. g) Philip Freeman Mobile Welders Ltd v TPR [2022] UKUT : Presumption rebuttable; requires evidence beyond assertion.

8. Issues: a) Was the Compliance Notice properly served under statutory presumptions? b) Does mere assertion of non-receipt rebut the presumption of service? c) Does late compliance or lack of intent constitute a reasonable excuse to cancel the penalty?

9. Finding: The Appeal should be dismissed. Reasons Proper Service Presumed: a) CN and FPN were addressed to the Appellant’s registered office. b) Under s.303 PA04 and Reg.15(4) of 2010 Regulations, notices are presumed posted and received. c) Interpretation Act s.7 reinforces this presumption unless contrary is proved. Rebuttal Insufficient: d) Appellant provided only a bare assertion of non-receipt. e) No documentary evidence (e.g., Royal Mail complaints, mis delivery logs) was produced. f) Case law ( Akhter , Kamau , Keith’s Rubbish Clearance ) confirms that mere denial does not rebut presumption. Late Compliance Irrelevant: g) Statutory duty to re-declare by deadline is strict. h) Late compliance and lack of intent do not amount to a reasonable excuse in law ( Skewer House Taunton Ltd ; Gianni’s Glasgow Ltd ). Penalty Proportionate: i) £400 fixed penalty prescribed by law; Tribunal has no discretion to alter amount. j) Enforcement consistent with TPR’s published policy. Conclusion:

10. The Tribunal dismiss the appeal. The Compliance Notice and Fixed Penalty Notice were properly served under statutory presumptions, and the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut those presumptions. Brian Kennedy KC. 28 November 2025.