Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 579 (GRC)
Case Reference: PEN/2024/0398
First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
Pensions Regulation
Heard by: Judge in Chambers on the papers
Decision given on: 29th May 2025
Before
HHJ DAVID DIXON
Between
VANTAGE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LTD
Appellant
and
THE PENSIONS REGULATOR
Respondent
Decision: The reference is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Regulator. The Penalty Notice is confirmed, without any further directions.
REASONS
1. By this reference Vantage Industrial Equipment Limited ("the Employer"), challenges a fixed penalty notice ("FPN") issued by the Regulator on 24th October 2024.
2. 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 29th August 2024. The Compliance Notice was issued under s. 37 and 38 of the Pensions Act 2008. It directed the Employer comply by 9th October 2024.
3. The Employer referred the matter to the Tribunal on 28th November 2024.
4. The parties and the Tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended. The Tribunal considered all the evidence and submissions made by both parties.
The Appeal
5. 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.
6. The Employer's Notice of Appeal indicates that the company changed their book-keeping service between April and June and there were issues with NEST over the delegated representative. During this period compliance was missed. The Appellant indicates they are a small family company, where all pension payments have been made and compliance met as soon as the issues were known about. It argues for a small company the £400 fine is unfair.
7. The Regulator's Response indicates that the Appellant failed to pay contributions as required. The Regulator points out that it is an employer's obligation to be aware of its obligations, and whilst the Respondent assists by sending reminders etc, it is not their responsibility to ensure the rules are complied with. The Regulator avers in the circumstances the FPN was properly issued.
8. The Regulator indicates a Review was completed on 9th November 2024 as a result of the Appellant's request. Having considered the circumstances advanced the FPN was confirmed.
9. The Tribunal considered a bundle of 86 pages.
Submissions
10. The Appellant seeks to rescind the fine.
11. The Regulator responds that there is no excuse for non-compliance, let alone a reasonable one. It is the Employer's responsibility to meet the legal requirements, and here the Appellant has not provided evidence to reverse the imposition of the Notices.
Conclusion
12. I find that the Appellant has failed to provide any proper basis for not complying with the CN. The responsibility for compliance rests with the employer and whenever those obligations are delegated to others it remains the responsibility of the company to ensure the others instructed are doing what they should. Here unfortunately that did not happen, albeit the Tribunal accepts it was by omission rather than intent.
13. The Appellant did not comply when required, the FPN that followed was perfectly proper and I can see no basis for finding to the contrary. The appeal against the penalty itself is without merit.
14. Parliament has set the level of the penalty at a fixed sum of £400 to bring home the consequences of failure to comply. I have no discretion to vary that sum. It does not matter under the statutory scheme whether it is an intentional breach or one in error. I have however considered whether the imposition of the penalty would be unfair in the scheme of this breach. It seems to me that the breach was avoidable, and as such the imposition of a penalty was appropriate. I do not believe it disproportionate to apply the penalty here, and therefore find that there is nothing in the points advanced.
15. In all the circumstances I am driven to the view the appeal has no merit and I remit the matter to the Regulator, upholding the Fixed Penalty Notice.
16. No further directions are required
Signed: HHJ David Dixon DATE: 27th May 2025